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

Re: The Farce that rolled

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

> A hearty 'what the fuck ever' to that characterization of the kritik. I
> hardly think development of the daniel webster project or teaching
> argument and debate skills to students from disadvantages high schools
> was the product of debating any particular resolution. Prof. Schlag's
> aren't 'horseshit' in light of two community out-reach projects nor
> would they be compelling answers to the kritik as applied to the claim
> 'Ooohhh let's debate CR so we can become 'empowered' and have an effect
> on the real world!' (which was MY only point). The tangible benefits of
> outreach programs exist independently from a CR topic, and I would argue
> that more of these programs can take place ABSENT a CR topic, the topic
> isn't necessary to mobilize action on the part of the debate community. 

Somehow I'm more than willing to trust Prof. Tucker on this one.  He (and 
Rob's being very sincere) believes that it is of utmost importance to 
have a resolution that shines light into the activism that he is doing.  
This combination of form and content just might address theory AND 
practice.  Last time I checked, Mr. Schlag was ranting about normative 
theory being "action postponement;" certainly this might be true, but not 
in the context of these programs where theory and practice bleed into 
eachother.  I'm also quite positive that Mr. Schlag would be happy to see 
a breakdown of the binary-isms of theory and practice as categories.  
Additionally, all the theories that inform Prof. Schlag's writings also 
inform schools of thought that do see the possibility of power in words, 
and their ability to be beneficial as well as harmful.  I believe that 
this is perhaps a primary purpose of deconstruction--as opposed to simple 
skepticism.  You cannot pretend that debate is a bubble.  You cannot 
pretend that there are hard-and-fast categories of "in-round normative 
advocacy" and "off-the-campus-activism" without pissing off Schlag's 
post-modern comrades.

> Additionally, _IF_ it's true that the particular resolutions mobilize
> outreach programs _THEN_ the presence ot the Daniel Webster Project,
> UDL, etc. in the status quo are arguments for REJECTING a CR topic and
> embracing another MILITARY or Foreign Policy topic (which was the type
> of resolution which presumably mobilized the outreach efforts in the
> first place).

Uh, no way, dude.  The Daniel Webster Project is brand-new.  Rob is
working hard to put this together.  To pretend that its more important to
teach high school kids the virtues of military and foreign policy topics
-- de-privileging their own expereinces is not only insenstitive, but
quite normative.  For high school kids to see experienced college debaters
debating about issues that affect them is a postive reality that doesn't
need to be chalked up to "normative" by ivory tower bullshit.  I'm quite
postive that the only thing that the people who are affected by this topic
really need is a copy of vol. 43 of the Stanford Law Review;  it's
probably in every grocery store in the country.  What are you doing about
the problem? 

Writing is activism.  Words have power.  Politics doesn't just exist in 
government buildings.  We often try to see action as physical doing so we 
can hide the ideological motives for doing such.  

No offense, Just a disagreement,

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