Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

70 Excellent

About C-Money

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 02/22/1976

Profile Information

  • Name
    Craig Hennigan
  • School
    W. Blomfield + Wayne State
  • Biography
    Asst. Coach
  • Location
    Madison Heights, MI
  • Occupation
  1. I'd be happy to bash PF. But it's just too easy. The problem I have with it is that it is flat out a different form of debate that doesn't focus on argumentative theory, procedurals, critical scholarship, and a lot of the things that make debate a capital "C" Communication activity. I won't ever apologize for asking more of students academically. PF luckily isn't in our state (as far as I know), something that I view as even less educational exists called Legislative. As administrators find that these events cost less money and teachers find they need to do less work to keep a program running, these will inevitably become more popular. But is it as academically rigorous? I say no. Go ahead and pick the response apart. I have no interest in fighting about this, really. I know one thing for sure, we show "Resolved" to a group of students when we have too many kids who want to do policy and we want to scare some into legislative. We'd never show it as a recruiting tool! lol!
  2. We are attempting to form a policy debate division at the Mackinac tournament. If we can rustle up 10-12 teams we will make it happen, but I need a response from schools/coaches. The Mackinac tournament is special in regard to it being the first tournament on the new topic and that senior debaters who are leaving the activity are now allowed to judge varsity. Additionally, it is unique in that it is before all the summer camps where many teams base files come from, so original research (or more likely an original use of backfiles) will be what you have to draw from for the tournament. It was always a rather fun event so if you're interested in bringing policy debate back as an option at Mackinac please email me at craighennigan@gmail.com
  3. Private troops = police presence, not military. They aren't used in offensives against the enemy as much as they are in keeping areas under control and delivering supplies. That's less to do with warfare and more to do with protection.
  4. Real insightful thread here.
  5. I stand corrected, it happened 8 days after. Either way, you've gone way off the topic. You wanted to know how the debate argument operates, it was answered. You rhetorically stuck your fingers in your ears refusing to listen. . So long as your white and ignore every other oral tradition. So long as you continue to speak in patriarchal forms that exclude marginalized groups. And you never even think to understand why other than 'because they'reworse than us When did we start talking about this?? Now you want to rail against the media? Hang out with Palin, kid. The justice system commits the crime of omission of race. Read "Alchemy of Race and Rights" You fit your own definition of racism. You claim that one race is superior to another because it is less violent. I will no longer entertain your little game. If you don't want to be racist, stop saying racist things. Your personal experience of getting shot does not allow you to paint a broad brush generalizing an entire community.
  6. All cultures that are rooted in heirarchy are going to encourage violence. If it's the gun crime of the hip hop culture, or the need for increased hegemony in US trade policy (not sure what to name that culture) to Hep going to pick someone out of a lineup so that they can do the maximum sentence which is a part of our legal culture. So why is one worse than the other? To Hep, it's because one has a lot of black people in it. It's probably not intentional. And I don't think you intended to out yourself as a racist, Hep. But you started this thread to allegedly understand the debate argument. Your ulterior motive seemed to be to go on a rant against the person that shot you and claim that all members of that race are more violent as a result of your incidence. That's not just racist, it's a dick move and shouldn't be on this thread.
  7. No, knucklehead. Because of crime. Not 'black crime'. There is no such thing as 'black crime.' Obviously because some white folks turn a blind eye to the race problems in debate as well as the country <cough> Hep <cough> Outing yourself as a racist doesn't offend me, it just shows your ignorance. Nope, you left the closet in 2008 from what it sounds like. So you feel for the kid who got called a racist, but you have no emotions to the millions of african americans that are put into a system in this country set up to make them fail? You don't feel anything for the people who commit crimes not because they 'are violent' but because they are trying to survive in a system that constantly lets them down? Even Kid Rock on Dateline the other night said he understands the crime in Detroit, because there is absolutely no hope in the system for the folks that live there. Your priorities are significantly out of whack. Let's give a hug to the curly haired private school debater and tell him it's ok to say blacks are violent and kick all the african american kids to the curb. Gee, you didn't want your racist rhetoric to make them uncomfortable, because they were the 'good ones' that were making money for the white system? I'm sure I'd have felt uncomfortable if my job mandated me to be an Uncle Tom. I didn't even know it was still going until today and I caught up. Social science has nothing to do with what was initially brought up, which was what was the standing of the rhetorical arguments of debate being racist. You took the opportunity to expose your racist views of african americans in general, while trying to adhere to no meta-theoretical foundation and calling it 'pragmatic.' You called my meta-theoretical foundation 'liberal' exposing that you don't really care to understand where this stuff actually comes from, rather you like to put labels on what you don't get. Well here's a label for ya, 'racist.' Perhaps you personally aren't racist, or at least not intentionally, but your views and your thoughts tell a far different story.
  8. It only happens if there's interest.. I'd like to be useful judging that weekend rather than just playing chaperone.
  9. Is there interest to have policy again at Mackinac? I've been told that if there are teams willing to do policy they will run it. So if some would like an option other than LD or Forensics at Mackinac, please contact me, or state your interest in the thread.
  10. Heh, I used to run an Iatrogenesis d/a back in the early 90's. Never mind that iatrogenic disease is so far less prevalent today, additionally, people who come in and get exposed for an iatrogenic infection would likely be in far worse shape had they not come into a hospital at all.
  11. Well I'm still learning myself. Burke was very influential from what I gather tho, as was Bitzer.
  12. It is fair of you to challenge that theory. Look up Kenneth Burke and guilt-redemption cycle. He's like 'da man' of modern rhetoric. If you want to challenge that theory, it's good to know lots about it.
  13. It was a joke, dont get all yer panties in a bunch over it..
  14. I'm talking rhetorical paradigm, not political. Because in debate you score points by saying things, you don't score points in basketball by doing that. Apparantly you win MVP's that way though. Jimmy Rollins made a decent case for MVP, and you can hardly claim race in a sport like baseball. Now if it were hockey.. And by saying that the argument is simply "I should win because there aren't enough black people in debate" is GROSSLY simplifying and misinterpreting how it functions. Again, this is way off the subject of racism in debate. Like it's not even close to what we are discussing. But it is 100% the guilt redemption cycle. Arguments like this reduce the guilt we in society feel for the economic and social disparities that we cause and transfer it onto a victim, in this case, the african american committing a crime, and we blame them for what is essentially everyone's fault. Either way, this has nothing to do with the debate argument, and I won't be baited into this.
  15. What we have here, hephaestus, is a debate between differing paradigms. You are of the post-positivist ilk, and I'm representing the interpretive and critical side. Bam, that's a damning concession there buddy. The ACT strives to achieve objectivity, and constantly fails. It shows your universal reason is unattainable no matter how many times the test is formulated. Oh, and Chess is racist as well as classist(Which color goes first?) And so is basketball (Steve Nash MVP shoulda never happened over Shaq.) Did you honestly just post a buncha stuff about black crime rates as somehow supporting 'reason is universal?' What is your malfunction there? Crime rates are a direct result of the threat construction and economic disadvantage. Look to a white trailer park and you see the same type of crime rates. I have no idea what you're trying to prove, but if it's that the legal justice system somehow isn't racist, look at death penalty rates. Blacks are 4x more likely than whites to get the death penalty in federal court, 10x more likely if the victim was white. But this is totally off the subject. Funny, you're making an emotional appeal with your story at the end that you would say is not part of the language of 'universal reason.'
  • Create New...