[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: your mail
> I'm glad I offended some people. First thing, Debbie I've seen you argue
some pretty funky stuff just to pick up a ballot.
Shh.. no one's supposed to know about that round I stripped in... =)
Seriously speaking, what "funky stuff" have I done to pick up a ballot?
I've never reduced a real problem (that I have been subject to) to a
matter of debate jargon. That's the problem I have with your advocacy of
debate purely as a game.
> How do you sleep at night
>knowing youwon a round on a Clinton Disad.
Easy. Take Sominex.
I don't know what you mean by the above comment. What kind of Clinton
impact have I run this year that warrants this argument?
Whatever the impact may be, the argument I make is not made soley on
rhetorical power, which is waht your argument is made from. If you argue
racism, then it's because your believe it's a horrible problem and it's
an issue that damn well deserves our attention. Why? Because it's
REAL. Because people in the debate community are VICTIMS of it (not
necessarily because of participating in debate) and it makes me sick to
my stomach that some team uses a tag line to describe incidents that have
happened to real people.
Second, bad arguments often win
rounds. I can just see a judge explaining to Cal Fullerton "Yeah, you win
the nuke war impact on the bottom but you are dropping the d-rules on the
bottom saying I should never vote for an immoral policy regardless of the
outcome. Racism is immoral therefore you lose. It may be stupid but my teams
win with it all the time.
Well, then I would suggest Cal Fulterton to have made the argument
that nuclear war would be an immoral policy, and make sure there's no other
tie breakers in the round, and do one of two things; 1) cry presumption
in the 2nr or 2) give the story as to why the nuclear war on the disad is
a more immoral policy than racism.
You can always beat a bad argument. You've jsut got to beat it with a
good one, not another bad one.
> Third, How more real world can our argumentation be? Just pull up a
transcript on a Federal or State legislative debate on Affirmative Action
or Schools, or taxation (Hell, in Louisiana mandatory car insurance has
been branded as a form of racism). Believe me working on Collective guilt
works wonders in the real world. The majority of programs for set asides are
premised upon collective guilt.
So, just becaue COngress or the Senate does it, it's good? Ok, I guess I
can go rape some guy and dump his body wiht my renatl car in
Chapaquiddick (sp?). Hey Ted Kennedy did it (yeah yeah yeah, he got off
the charges, but he did it..).
ANd then, there's the ever popular, "Eat Shit! A million flies can't be
wrong!" bandwagon approach.
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy of argumentation, Scott.. you should
know better than that!
The whole idea of "my people were oppressed,
give me a buck" is a plea for help based upon guilt. So, it may be
stupid, but it is how the "real world" argues all of the time. So many
people want the civil rights topic becuase of its "real world" impacts, well
why not look to how the real advocates present their arguments.
Not a legitimate reason to become opportunistic. "My people were
oppressed, give me a ballot" is no less reprehensible. Whats more, just
because people in any level of government refer to it as such, does not
make it correct. I don't care if it's Billy himself. He'd still be an
ignorant fool in my book.
if you don't think the cards exist to support such a "stupid" position, I
suggest you look into your Eco-Racism backfiles and camp cases. They are
filled with such arguments like "all economic objections are smokescreens
for a racist policy," etc. etc.
I don't know what you mean. I really don't. Please 'splain for de Cuban =)
Queen of the Oppressed
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page