Skip to content
September 30, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

Arguing against performative, non-traditional, and project teams like the Louisville project

Why is ideological affirmative action a good idea? Ideas like phrenology or Nazism are clearly bad.

Moreover, the ends and means of the argument should be considered. The means they use is coercive in nature versus the consent and democracy of the ballot. Because the argument that debate is a power cabal is just silly–given debate coaches could otherwise be in government or lawyers. And its certainly not some conspiracy to keep minorities down.

And analytically over-generalizations are bad–because they result in racism & stereotypes. Hyperbolic assertions about the “system” without much grounding–is weak sauce and does the opposite of helping the project or the movement.

Using “votes” is a severely blunt object. Its the inverse of nationalists who wrap themselves in the flag–debaters who wrap themselves in helping the community out by prescribing whole sale reforms to the whole system.
1) You are 100% free to create your own system.
2) You in your behavior can model what it would be like to be kind to minorities.
3) You can pursue reform outside the system.
4) You can make your race arguments in the context of the real debate arguments. You can run Barndt without performance.
5) You can make your performance arguments in theatre & IE events & and the local hipster coffee shop
6) You can publish in an idealistic blog or magazine
7) Have one on one conversations with all of the topic committee & write topic papers like you want.

All of which would be non-coercive–instead of stealing the stage and upending.

If everything is racist….why not abolish everything. That seems like a fantastic solution.

When debate becomes just dueling personal stories…….we become victims, with less personal responsibility. We become what we intended to fight against.

Apparently, some folks seem too attached to their sacred cows of debate assumptions & PC & who is popular on the circuit. Thats the opposite of the idealism you proport to support.

Performance teams shouldn’t just get to decide to be aff or negative round. That kills the point of assining sides–and makes outround flips almost entirely pointless. That clearly kills fairness.
BTW, if you think what I’m saying isn’t relevant to these teams and shouldn’t be consider….it goes both ways.

Apparently, some people prefer the comfort of passive aggression to actual free speech.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: