[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Guilt and a W



> You can bet the farm that my debaters will use the term "racism" for all the
> rhetorical power they can milk from it. If we can undercut all opposition arguments before they are mentioned, of course we will use it. If we can milk the
> universal "guilt" of white people for a ballot, we will do it.
> Playing to win,
> Scott (Hard-Core Cynic) Elliot 

I am at a serious loss for words..

Comments like this really bother me.  Racism isn't a debate term like 
"Uniqueness" that doesn't mean jack in the "outside world".  It's 
(unfortunately) something that people are subject to. Something that a ton 
of people debate about, but aren't subject to.  

Arguing racism in the light that Scott proposes seriously downplay any 
instance of racism and it's implications.  I'm not aruing that it 
desenisitizes  debaters critics to it, but rather that racism becomes 
part of the debate game.  You start playing with incidients that really 
occur.

There's something that took me a while to learn:  ADVOCACY

To an extent, debate is a game, involving a winner and a loser... does 
this mean that each individual is not responsible for the positions that 
he or she chooses to advance? or the context in which the individual 
places the argument?  I doubt that exemption!

When teams reduce arguments like racism to "oH, it's bad to oppress 
minorities; if you ever did so and feel guilty about it, vote for us to 
ease your concious.." what does that do to the individual that the victim 
of racism?  Does it mean that he or she is valued more?  Seen as an 
equal?  Given the same opportunity as someone from the oppressors race?

HELL NO!

All it does is give the critic a way out of a guilty conscience.  

I ask you.. why is this ethical?  

It isn't.  The argument for "guilty impacts" that Scott proposes is NOT
for enlightening individuals of the debate community to change their 
mindsets or to re-evaluate a certain assumption that he or she may have 
made about another individual, or will make in the future.  All it is is 
a "W".  Whoopie Shit.  Can you sleep with yourself at night, knowing that 
you advised someone to tell the story in the 2ar or 2nr to be " You will do 
something about racism... your ballot will stop the oppression of 
minority communities around the country/world/insert topic here..", and 
once the round is over, know that minorities are still oppressed?  
Individuals are denied opportunities simply because of their race?  


It's repulsive to "guilt" someone into a ballot.  If that's the extreme 
that a team is willing to go to to win a ballot.. by all means take the W.
My conscience means more to me than someone's opinion of my "debate" skills.


Debbie Prieto
UMiami Debate
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page