Jump to content
Jimmy__the__Pro

Women In Combat

Recommended Posts

do the plan except on submarines basicallly. Let women in combat everywhere but submarines, usually with a spending NB

 

NO NO NO

it says do plan except exclude women on nuke submarines.

it isnt a spending NB, its a hege net benefit

there are cards saying women on nuke submarines kill hege

its so abusive, but a fun CP to run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(__) Turn—Women in combat risks cultural suicide—the result of the aff forces us to teach men to brutalize women.

 

Krikwood ’03. (“What King of Nation Sense Women Into Combat?”) April 11, 2003 R. Cort Kirkwood. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/893228/posts

Because turning a woman into the kind of person who views such gore without blinking an eye, or who participates in the wanton killing war requires, is a step down to pagan barbarism and cultural suicide. In some sense, given what we've seen in the Gulf, we've already taken that step. But the feminists won't quit until they get women into ground combat units. As recent events prove, no one seems to care what all this means not only culturally but also psychologically.

It will require training men and women toregard the brutalization of women, and a woman's brutalization of others, as normal and acceptable. To train the men properly, a woman commissioner observed, we must erase everything their mothers taught them about chivalry; i.e., that a real man protects a woman from harm. Instead, they must be trained to brain a woman with a pugil stick in training. This truth raises two paradoxes.

On one hand, to completely desensitize the men, such training would be required. But the feminists don't want that because women can't meet the same standards as men; they won't survive it. Yet how are these women to survive combat if they cannot survive real, not gender-normed, basic training? The men would have to protect them. Successfully integrating women in combat means this: A soldier must ignore the screams of a woman POW being tortured and raped.

this turn card isnt effective. It plays right into my second advantage, identity politics. Identity politics basically says that one person of a certain class cannot speak for another type of class. Example: Identity politics says that a rich white congressman cannot speak for the poor black voters in the ghetto of Chicago.

This card illustrates that point when the author speaks for women saying the hardships they will face and how they will be changed. The author is a male who has not been in combat, how can he speak for women who are in combat? He cant, when you accept his word as fact you go against the idea of indentity politics and further the discrimination of women.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
someone more competent than i tell me if this idea is alright.

 

1N: T - Persons

womyn aren't people

2A: *something about patriarchy*

2N: we overidentify and solve, &c.

That's an interesting idea. I think it would result in an interesting round. But don't take my opinion as truth. Try running it a few times and see how it works. This was actually an idea i was thinking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[/size][/font]

 

this turn card isnt effective. It plays right into my second advantage, identity politics. Identity politics basically says that one person of a certain class cannot speak for another type of class. Example: Identity politics says that a rich white congressman cannot speak for the poor black voters in the ghetto of Chicago.

 

This card illustrates that point when the author speaks for women saying the hardships they will face and how they will be changed. The author is a male who has not been in combat, how can he speak for women who are in combat? He cant, when you accept his word as fact you go against the idea of indentity politics and further the discrimination of women.

 

By this logic, no men can ever talk about the issues women face, no "whites" can ever talk about the issues experienced by "blacks", and no

one can ever talk about anything relating to someone who has a difference. Your "identity politix" advantage isn't really identity politics, its a speaking for others advantage. Besides, does your aff have any male authors talking about this issue? Under your logic wouldn't that automatically exclude their analysis? This "id politix"/speaking for others thing is a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i did debate for 3 years in high school and one in college. never once did i meet a judge who bought the whole "persyn vs. person" deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i did debate for 3 years in high school and one in college. never once did i meet a judge who bought the whole "persyn vs. person" deal.

 

Assuming judges are reasonable I wonder why...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...