College Policy Debate Forums
November 23, 2017, 09:01:41 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
  Print  
Author Topic: Federal Definitions Topic Paper  (Read 24196 times)
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #60 on: May 04, 2013, 11:43:16 PM »


...it is a little frustrating to see the same assertion about our paper made over and over and over again like it's a certainty with no regard for our arguments in response.

The debate about these things grew stale days ago. An assertion was made that XO Cps would kill our paper. Several of us said "no" and explained why and provided evidence. People followed up by asserting that we were wrong. We said "no." Repeat. Then repeat again. I'm really unclear why another round of posts repeating these exact same claims will add any further knowledge to someone still looking to make a decision.

Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
RW Evans
Newbie
*
Posts: 27


« Reply #61 on: May 13, 2013, 05:47:05 AM »

What was unclear to me is (1) why you are so sensitive about this paper and (2) why you thought it was appropriate to defend or plead your case here, on this thread, and not on the one dedicated to your topic paper.  In addition, I am surprised that your rants resulted in an apology when this paper/topic clearly overlooks the concerns and interests that many have expressed regarding topics that certain debaters cannot relate to. This topic paper didn't do much to reach out to those individuals, so they have valid complaints.  Even if you think that you had the best intentions, the paper itself isn't doesn't do much to account for diversity.  It's merely an interesting debate topic (for some).  You refused to even address my concern about your desire to place President Obama as the object of your resolution and its racist implications.  That you thought the solution to the XO problem was just to make the Black president the object of the resolution reveals your lack of sensitivity or awareness about what's going on in debate.  Your idea of a diverse topic was to highlight that a K or two could be run on this topic.  That's not the point.  But, more importantly, Mr. Young the point of this thread was not the presidential war powers paper. 
Logged
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 13, 2013, 05:49:01 AM »

What was unclear to me is (1) why you are so sensitive about this paper and (2) why you thought it was appropriate to defend or plead your case here, on this thread, and not on the one dedicated to your topic paper.  In addition, I am surprised that your rants resulted in an apology when this paper/topic clearly overlooks the concerns and interests that many have expressed regarding topics that certain debaters cannot relate to. This topic paper didn't do much to reach out to those individuals, so they have valid complaints.  Even if you think that you had the best intentions, the paper itself isn't doesn't do much to account for diversity.  It's merely an interesting debate topic (for some).  You refused to even address my concern about your desire to place President Obama as the object of your resolution and its racist implications.  That you thought the solution to the XO problem was just to make the Black president the object of the resolution reveals your lack of sensitivity or awareness about what's going on in debate.  Your idea of a diverse topic was to highlight that a K or two could be run on this topic.  That's not the point.  But, more importantly, Mr. Young the point of this thread was not the presidential war powers paper.  

Obviously. With responses to our paper like this, who would possibly get sensitive?
Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
RW Evans
Newbie
*
Posts: 27


« Reply #63 on: May 13, 2013, 06:16:42 AM »

Sensitive to the criticism and not the concern.  That is the problem.
Logged
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 13, 2013, 06:23:36 AM »

Sensitive to the criticism and not the concern.  That is the problem.

and don't forget my inability to properly post in the correct threads. Also a problem.
Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!