Re: The Farce that rolled

[Sean Upton <Sean.Upton@m.cc.utah.edu>]

On Tue, 20 May 1997 joeb@media-net.net wrote:

> There's only one reason I'd want a CR topic, so I could use every
> argument about how debating CR will 'empower' the debaters and impact
> the 'real world' to give me better links to Normativity.  

Prof. Schalg's arguments are horseshit in light of things like UDL and 
the Daniel Webster Project where there is not the deadly action 
postponement that schlag describes.  The benefits are tangeable in these 
cases: it's not all talk and no doing.  Additionally, it seems that such 
a move constitutes more than just normative babbling, it constitutes 
praxis.  Don't have such a rigid, stereotypical view of what consititutes 
theory and what practice!  Theory bleeds into practice...

Sean 
Utah Debate

---

References:

• Re: The Farce that rolled
• From: joeb@media-net.net (Boyle, Joseph)

---

• Prev by Date: Re: The Farce that rolled
• Next by Date: RE: The Farce that rolled
• Prev by thread: Re: The Farce that rolled
• Next by thread: Re: The Farce that rolled
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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