Jump to content
chiefs

Flamewars between Joe and others - concerning the legitimacy of killing all africans

How is this argument that we should nuke africa?  

98 members have voted

  1. 1. How is this argument that we should nuke africa?

    • legit- It's policy debate anything goes
      62
    • not- we should be helping and taking seriously
      11
    • racist- unfair to kill a whole continet of people
      25


Recommended Posts

I get what you're saying. And it does look I'm walking a fine line between reaction and censorship/exclusion. But the simple fact is that words have consequences sometimes. And if a team advocates killing an entire continent of people, you can be sure there will be consequences. More than likely, it would result in a loss. But there's nothing to stop me from letting the powers that be affiliated with the schools in question know about it. If it is in fact just a game, and it's really no harm no foul, then, as I said, my letters will get ignored. SO there's really nothing to worry about, is there?

 

Think of it like this: Every once in a while, some college kid somewhere makes the national news for doing something culturally insensitive, like dressing up in black face for a frat party. Well, it seems the national attention is the consequence. In my opinion, those college kids have every right to show up at a party in black face. But I don't think they have the right to be immune to other people speaking up about it -- indeed, appealing to a larger forum.

 

Why should debate be any differently?

 

Here's another example. There was recently a brush-up on the college scene in a Louisville round. One of Louisville's oponents called one of the louisville debaters the N-word or something similarly offensive. And then the Louisville kid either punched the one who said it, or threatened to do so. Well, some coach who saw the whole thing go down got all pissed off and said, "This is the problem with Louisville's arguments. They lead to violence, and they're destroying our game."

 

And there's some merit to that. I guess. But then I heard Ede Warner's response. He bristled at the idea of his debaters being blamed for the other kids saying something offensive. But, what struck me more clearly was he said, students who say offensive things to folks ought to be prepared for the reaction to those statements. Like, that kid would never go into a bar opn the east side of Kansas City and say those things and expect not to be punched, or at least threatened. Why should he expect the same thing in the debate community?

 

With regards to my writing the principal, etc. IO see it this way. I'm an assistant coach at an almost entirely black school. Our kids go to tournaments that are, in many ways, foreign environments. They're very much in the minority. And while debate and tournaments are fun, sometimes this can be a little intimidating. I know it feels that way, because that's kind of how I felt when I first visited central and I was one of the only whites.

 

So if I go with my students to a tournament in the burbs, and I and my students hear that some team is saying we should kill everyone in Africa, you can bet we're gonna be offended. And I believe that as an adult in that situation I have not only the right but the obligation to let the folks in charge at the schools these students represent know what's going on.

 

See, regardless of what you think of KCC's arguments, you should know that diversity and cultural sensitivity are big issues in the so-called real world, expecially in education circles. Folks don't take this stuff lightly. Which is why you see stories about college kids in black face making the national news.

 

As I said, I don't think it does anyone anywhere a service to create an environment where kids are free from the consequences of free speech.

 

With regards to T and judge bias, yeah, our kids have those judges all the time. They drop ballots to them, get a little irked, then pick it up for the next round. Obviously that's a "consequence" of their free speech. If what our kids are arguing truly is offensive, then I guess we can expect greater consequences than that. And, honestly, as coaches jane and I have had to work on that sort of thing here and there (and, honestly, the kids sometimes have to reel me in) because there's always the possibility of crossing a line n ow and then, and sometimes it happens. I don't expect us to be immune from the consequences. Why, then, should kids who call for Africans to be killed?

 

 

So your position is to get rid of anythign that can be offensive in a debate?

 

i'll just stick with malthus, that genocide or nuke war is good, and death is good, regardless of race.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That poll at the top of this thread is thoroughly disheartening. The only upside is that it makes incredible evidence for KCC and our case. Thank you, I guess, at least for that!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your evidence would be flawed, as both A and C can be (and are) true. However, A is the first option, and it says "It's policy debate - anything goes," so more people chose this option. This means a skewed % for C

 

I'll bet you that an upwards of 80% would have voted A and C, due to the wording, if it were multiple choice.

 

Virtually everyone believes that "it's unfair to kill a whole continent of people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is just plain racist to run this as a straight up aff. But, it is possible if you ran it as an ironic aff that insults the idiots who actually believe it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why people are talking about racism. It's not racist. Genocidal, sure...but not racist. Had the resolution been to increase public health aid to any other country or region, this case still would have come up. The case is not focusing on a specific race. Rather, it focuses on a specific region. The race of the peoples living there is irrelevant. If there's anyone who's racist here, it's Joe for somehow bringing up the issue of race.

 

Seriously, I am sick of hearing the race card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong Tommy. The generally accepted definition of genocide comes from the UN:

acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

 

(a) Killing members of the group;

 

(B) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

 

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

 

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

 

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

 

But that's not really that point. Everyone in pseudo-defense of the argument is saying that it would most likely be used performatively, i.e., irony. And if I am not mistaken, and I know I'm not, you ran a very similar argument against KCC at OU last year. What do you think Tommy, should we kick all of the blacks out of America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong Tommy. The generally accepted definition of genocide comes from the UN:

acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

 

(a) Killing members of the group;

 

(B) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

 

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

 

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

 

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

 

But that's not really that point. Everyone in pseudo-defense of the argument is saying that it would most likely be used performatively, i.e., irony. And if I am not mistaken, and I know I'm not, you ran a very similar argument against KCC at OU last year. What do you think Tommy, should we kick all of the blacks out of America?

 

 

My def. is inclusive of yours (i.e. in T terms, i am more limiting). Nonetheless, in your def. genocide is an act of racism.

 

 

And, the point is that it is still offensive to people. I did it cause i don't give a shit about peoples feelings....doesn't mean i don't have sympathy for Joes argument. I agree, what i did was racist, and i did that on purpose.

 

Moreover, i know exactly how blacks will take this argument....they'll be lucky if the white-pricks who run this don't get fucking hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My def. is inclusive of yours (i.e. in T terms, i am more limiting). Nonetheless, in your def. genocide is an act of racism.

 

Your argument is the logical equivalent of "Coffee is either good or bad, therefore coffee is bad."

 

As for the thread in general, I don't have much to add, but I'll state my opinion anyway. I think it's legitimate to run clearly immoral or even racist affs provided that it's something original and creative. For example, one of our teams hit a case that drafted the entire country into the Armed Forces so that they could "disarm" landmines by stepping on them.

 

On this topic, though, I've heard at least four or five people suggest some variety of "kill all Africans." It's not creative or interesting. It's not funny. It's not cool. It's just dumb. I could spend 40 seconds in the 1NC reading any relations disad, econ disad, or K, sit down, and never lose a round.

 

I don't think throwing the idea out there is necessarily racist, however. It's debate, and in debate we think of stupid ways to interpret the resolution. I have an entire Word file full of dumb ways to affirm this year's resolution.

 

But there is absolutely no reason to run this aff unless you are, in some sense, a racist. And if it were run against me, I would give half a 1NC and walk out of the room, because I am not wasting two hours of my life debating a team whose sense of humor clearly doesn't extend much beyond "heh, heh, we're killing black people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a black guy, well, I guess, and this is my response.

 

Just on Case terms alone, Spark Africa's pretty bullshit. Killing people reduces their health care to zero. While there's no room for improvement, there is the simple fact that the first action plan had was to end life, therefore rendering all case solvency null and void. QED. That needs to be any team's 1NC, and in my mind, enough to win the round for the neg.

 

As a member of my race, I'm going with my gut and calling this one racist. If I'm running into a team, black, white, asian, whatever, with said plan, it's going to be a field day. The plan looks at genocide with somewhat of a smirk, and that in itself is an attitude that needs to stop.

 

As a debate community member, I'm saying that discourse solves. The way that we can send a message that this won't be tolerated is to make it so that it's an unwinnable Aff. In high school, on the WMD topic, I ran spark under the tag line of "Dr. Strangelove", and it won more than it lost. That made me want to tweak it until it won everytime. There were some judges that worte on ballots, "You run spark = NEG ballot". The topic working was different; WMD's dealt with just that - WMD's only. This topic deals with people explicitly, with health care being named, and thus, I think Spark Africa's a bit over the line.

 

Someone's gonna run it. If the media gets involved, it'll be nuts. Can you imagine Jesse Jackson, or the NAACP getting involved?

 

The stand that Policy Debate chooses to take on this will be which ever way the ballots go for this case.

 

This entry was rambletastic, I know, but hopefully, it makes some sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, the point is that it is still offensive to people. I agree, what i did was racist, and i did that on purpose.

offensive + Africa =/= racism

Aff does not advocate discrimination by race. Rather, by whatever continent they happen to be on when plan is enacted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
offensive + Africa =/= racism

Aff does not advocate discrimination by race. Rather, by whatever continent they happen to be on when plan is enacted

That's great!

 

Now you don't get access to the zizek evidence.

 

 

you + zizek = racist dumbass hick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fergy, I don't get your logic seems outlandish to me, but here's the point I'm trying to make...

I don't think throwing the idea out there is necessarily racist, however. It's debate, and in debate we think of stupid ways to interpret the resolution. I have an entire Word file full of dumb ways to affirm this year's resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there such a lack of critical concern for what this says about the debate community? Why is it that there are only a few of us who recognize this as a significant marker of privilege and alienation, whose effects legitimize the brutal and systematic oppression and slaughter of millions if not billions of people. Why is there no interrogation into this? Why is it that people post, "Oh yes! It's clearly racist and genocidal and just awful... but..."? As though to say racism and genocidal thought are simply things that we can sweep aside in the debate community! As though there is no connection with the debate community being mostly privileged, white males who live in the 'first world' and this type of discourse! To even imagine that the very fact that we can debate the 'legitimacy' of this case without taking into account the subject positions of those who make the arguments is absurd. But it is worse than absurd. It masks and encourages the insidious power relations that exist on the interior of the debate community and also the relations that the debate community has with the rest of the world.

 

First, I'd venture to say that there has been significantly less of a backlash against this admittedly genocidal, racist, offensive "affirmative" than there was against, say, affirmatives like the Louisville project or even just reading poetry in the round. Why? Because those things represented a challenge to the established order of debate. They challenged (how successfully is another question, mind you) the dominant discursive formations and material configurations that underpin hierarchy and privilege. In this sense, parts of the debate community are profoundly conservative. I remember the days that anti-racist, anti-hierarchical performance pieces were just coming down to the high school level that people were up in arms about it. "Illegitimate!" they'd always cry.. probably because it upset their apple cart to have to deal with people, ideas and modes of expression that they'd always pushed aside because accepting them would mean questioning their own privilege and complicity in violence. I also remember a lot of white people saying that the Louisville project was racist because it pointed out that, hey, race might play a factor in exclusion in the debate community and that we might want to, I don't know, talk about it. A lot more people than are objecting to blowing up Africa. I think this shows that, in a significant way, there is a ridiculously violent conservative tendency in debate.

 

Second, can we say that there is a connection between this type of discourse and the overwhelmingly white, male, privileged participation in the activity? I don't have the statistical research to offer conclusive data on such a causal link, but I can say that it's likely that a bunch of rich white dudes talking about killing all of Africa, a continent that is overwhelming populated by people of color (except for a lot of former colonialists), might - just might - dissuade people from joining and participating in the activity. Oh, and did I mention how absolutely colonialist that is? Get this: privileged white people in the first world debating whether or not it is cool to talk about offing poor people of color in the third world. Yeah, that smacks of colonialism.

 

Third, people will likely claim that the position they are taking on the 'legitimacy' of this case is just neutral. After all, they are presented with an argument ("This case is legitimate") and they want to discern the validity, the veracity, the truth of that statement. Of course, we can return to any author who puts a modicum of thought into the matter to see that truth and discourse are related to power. My argument is that since the very possibility of the question exists, rather than debating whether or not it's topical (it's not), that we should seek to analyze and disrupt the power relations and discursive formations that make it such.

 

Now, I'm not advocating censorship here, whatever that might mean. I have a lot of problems with the way the debate community is structured and how things are conducted (I'm not involved in it much anymore except judging at the DC UDL on occasion). Instead, I think that we should seek to at least be self-critical in ways that disrupt terrifying formations of power. Also, on this topic, I say stop whining if Joe votes you done or writes a letter to your principal because you decided to advocate the slaughter of an entire continent of people. Big fucking deal. At least you have enough to eat and enough leisure time to engage in an activity that most of the world can't: debate. That's a far cry from having to deal with famine, disease, oppressive factory conditions, child labor, wars, sexual exploitation, etc. You don't have it so bad, so get a grip on reality you privileged little rugrats.

 

Edit: Also, Joe, thanks for being a voice of sanity in this thread and, more largely, working to change things for the better in the debate community and people's lives. I, among others, appreciate it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll just break it down line-by-line...

As though to say racism and genocidal thought are simply things that we can sweep aside in the debate community!
It's debate. It's not real life.
As though there is no connection with the debate community being mostly privileged, white males who live in the 'first world' and this type of discourse!
So? What's your pint?
To even imagine that the very fact that we can debate the 'legitimacy' of this case without taking into account the subject positions of those who make the arguments is absurd.
Because we're debating definitions, not the meaning of life. Jesus, man. You are so critical.
(text unrelated)
A lot more people than are objecting to blowing up Africa. I think this shows that, in a significant way, there is a ridiculously violent conservative tendency in debate.
>.< plan=/=blow up africa omg
more unrelated...
Oh, and did I mention how absolutely colonialist that is? Get this: privileged white people in the first world debating whether or not it is cool to talk about offing poor people of color in the third world. Yeah, that smacks of colonialism.
Colonialism? We're talking about killing 'em all and then killing anyone else who tries to go to Africa. Then there will be no health problems. Er...damn that means I divided by zero.
rather than debating whether or not it's topical (it's not)
Oh, do tell! You kill everyone in Africa. It will be ALOT more public health aid (killing an entire continent takes alot of money). It solves for public health 100% because it divides by zero (my new stance) and ends the world. No human being will ever have health issues again. Ever.

 

Seriously, though, little no thought was put into the case when I thought of it. And don't go off on some Freudian Slip bullshit on me. It's unrelated. I was not thinking about Africans. I was thinking about the terms "substantially increasing public health aid". Through this logic, the case would have spawned off of any resolution containing that phrase, regardless of where the aid is going to.

More weird stuff that I don't understand the link for...

And, by the way, I will not apologize. You guys are overreacting. Kritiks have made you paranoid.

 

Upon further review of your post, I have a feeling Maslow's hierarchy of needs will be used alot, somehow...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this plan is destined to fail. And if it doesn't that says more about our society than about debate society, specifically, I think

 

the debate community isn't all that great at criticizing itself (general rule, there are clear exceptions) or at convincing others of their opinions (i.e. that the discourse of nuking africa is bad). Such, in my opinion, can be voiced, but nothing comes of it until it's brought into a debate round; writing on here will probably not convince teams either to or not to run the argument, whereas losing on it consistently will. Discourse is checked by experience and society, not by specific "censorship" (pardon my french)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellfish View Post

I guess I'll just break it down line-by-line...

--

And you will do so on such an unsuccessful level that it will continue to boggle minds. You'd think after our last encounter where your attempt at argument was ground into a powder so fine that it could be snorted as cocaine that you might have learned a thing or two, but apparently that's not the case and we're at it again.

 

Quote:

It's debate. It's not real life.

--

No, it's real life. My entire post is about how it affects real people in real ways. Your post has no warrants and is based on privilege. You only think it's a game because you're allowed to participate in it. That's like the rich white folk on the country club golf course telling black people that they shouldn't be concerned about rules that bar their entrance because, "Hey man, it's only a game."

 

Quote:

So? What's your pint?

--

I'd prefer an ale.

 

Quote:

Because we're debating definitions, not the meaning of life.

--

You don't get to define the grounds of our debate. Stop being so authoritarian. And we are debating how those definitions and the very debate on those definitions affect people. We are talking about what it means to be able to debate these definitions. Read the post again. And slowly this time.

 

Quote:

Jesus, man. You are so critical.

--

No shit, that's the point. You are about as critical as a piece of lint and your lack of intelligent and extended thought on just about anything continually amazes me. Being critical is acceptable and, in fact, obligatory because it works to disrupt power systems that -- as I mentioned -- keep billions of people violently and brutally oppressed. Your lack of critical thought demonstrates complicity with systems and configurations that contribute to your rich, white, male, first-world privilege.

 

Quote:

>.< plan=/=blow up africa omg

--

How would you kill them all? With rainbows and smiles? You are advocating the slaughter of an entire continent of people.

 

Quote:

Colonialism? We're talking about killing 'em all and then killing anyone else who tries to go to Africa.

--

That's fucked up. Sorry, this just proves my point that you're a violent douche. And I'm not going to even bother touching on the question of whether or not it's topical because that legitimizes this debate. People should be so horrified by the fact that this is being discussed that they can't even enter into thought about definitions.

 

Oh, and get this. Let's say the year is.. 1935. And the resolution is -- Resolved: That the National Socialist Party of Germany should substantially increase its public health assistance to Jews. The motherfucking Holocaust is topical according to you. "Lol, kill all jews." Now I know why Adorno said that writing poetry after the holocaust is impossible. My point is that we shouldn't do anything but condemn the discussion of another Holocaust. The point is that the debate community probably wouldn't be very conducive to the participation of Jews if the top thread on the topic were, "Hey! Kill 'em all!"

 

Quote:

Kritiks have made you paranoid.

--

Privilege has made you blind.

 

Quote:

Upon further review of your post, I have a feeling Maslow's hierarchy of needs will be used alot, somehow...

--

What are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keep this strictly on the legitamacy of killinf africans and refrain from flaiming, please. I do not want to have to dclose this thread because i think there is a lot of good content going on in here, but keep it civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your lack of intelligent and extended thought on just about anything continually amazes me.
Gee, uh, maybe that's because it's not a serious case. Jeez, why does no one understand this. It's not a difficult concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously, though, little no thought was put into the case when I thought of it. And don't go off on some Freudian Slip bullshit on me. It's unrelated. I was not thinking about Africans. I was thinking about the terms "substantially increasing public health aid". The case would have spawned off of any resolution containing that phrase, regardless of where the aid is supposed to be going to.

I see that you dropped this. So, if you have nothing to say on this, then please stop posting in this thread, because by refusing to refute this, your arguments have have absolutely no ground.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

No, it's real life. My entire post is about how it affects real people in real ways. Your post has no warrants and is based on privilege. You only think it's a game because you're allowed to participate in it. That's like the rich white folk on the country club golf course telling black people that they shouldn't be concerned about rules that bar their entrance because, "Hey man, it's only a game."

I agree with you everywhere but here.

 

This argument doesn't do shit to exclude black people from joining debate. When we read our death squads in the middle east aff are we necessarily excluding people from that region? Hell no, in fact we've debated people from that region (and a couple of them thought it was pretty sweet).

 

In addition, to the extent that you're trying to win that discourse in these rounds is what does the shit you claim then once again you have to win the argument that alot of the discursive implications that affs like this claim aren't legit.

 

Obviously there are answers to Zizek out there. But just saying your discourse is violent or excludes people is not going to be enough to beat any of their arguments.

 

Then of course they could be just not using Zizek, in which case, by all means kick the shit out of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see that you dropped this. So, if you have nothing to say on this, then please stop posting in this thread, because by refusing to refute this, your arguments have have absolutely no ground.

So let me get this straight: I lose an argument because you decided not to think your original position all the way through before posting it? Of course!

 

And hm... I see that you dropped my entire post... again.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...