Jump to content
NANANANA

2009 Bob Bilyeu Winter Classic

Recommended Posts

+1 internets to you, sir.

 

don't stop there, comb the thread and give great justice to all spelling/grammar mistakes. the english language implores you.

 

QFA

Edited by Magic School Bus
Because I can
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, I never said "I'm so glad Chris told us not to run womyn because we would have lost", I told Emily WHY we didn't run womyn. You didn't hear the entire conversation because you ran out of the room to talk to someone and then came back in, so you don't know the context of everything that was said. I'll fill you in:

Before third round, Chris was talking strat with me and Emily was busy so she didn't have a chance to hear our conversation. Chris told me that the round was not the right round to run womyn because the judge was lay and not a part of the community. It wasn't a winning/losing thing, it was a "we know that this team is not sexist and they already know about our aff. Since the judge is not a part of the community, running the aff doesn't get the movement anywhere" thing. Anyway, we should be allowed to run straight up policy if we want to once in a while, because we love debate and we love straight up policy. And, the round that we ran womyn was in front of a flow judge who told us when she gave us her paradigm that she wasn't a fan of kritical arguements. We chose to run the aff anyway even though we knew there was a high risk of losing because the judge was a member of the community who was in a position to gain from the aff and further the movement. We don't run the aff because it is "stratigic" we run the aff in rounds where either the judge or the other team is in a position to gain from hearing it and/or help further the movement, regardless of whether the judge likes kritical affs or not.

 

 

 

 

Lets do the line by line

1. I heard alll of it. I was out of the room for like 2.5 secs and that was after you made that comment.

2.If it was about change you would run it no matter what. That makes more of an impact with lay judges because you merely debate over women Where as you dont have to get into the framework argument.

3. Umm your version of straight up policy is sucky and abusive.

4.You lost to our novice team on it.

5. You run it to screw rounds up

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fool.

 

NOOOOOOOOOOO. I tried so hard. I just couldn't quite live up to the position. Well, I might as well quit now.

 

Rofl lolz, Marshfield's aff is abut womyn.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comma is indicative of a pause, so should Brad have written that like he was saying it, and he said it without a pause, then there shouldn't be an issue.

Edited by My Pet Monster
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The comma is indicative of a pause, so should Brad have written that like he was saying it, and he said it without a pause, then there shouldn't be an issue.

 

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp

 

Rule #4. He was addressing the English language directly. However, I don't claim to be a grammar expert. So, I could be wrong.

 

Anyway, what's with spelling "woman" as "womyn"? Even if you're trying to take the "man" out of "woman" you're just adding a "Y". That's our chromosome, give it back.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp

 

Rule #4. He was addressing the English language directly. However, I don't claim to be a grammar expert. So, I could be wrong.

 

Anyway, what's with spelling "woman" as "womyn"? Even if you're trying to take the "man" out of "woman" you're just adding a "Y". That's our chromosome, give it back.

the reason for spelling womyn with a Y is so the word no longer means out of man. Since "wo" means out of

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets do the line by line

1. I heard alll of it. I was out of the room for like 2.5 secs and that was after you made that comment.

2.If it was about change you would run it no matter what. That makes more of an impact with lay judges because you merely debate over women Where as you dont have to get into the framework argument.

3. Umm your version of straight up policy is sucky and abusive.

4.You lost to our novice team on it.

5. You run it to screw rounds up

2. We get aff choice

3. How exactly our version of stright up sucky and abusive???

4.thats cool

5. I love that you think that even though it is totally and completly not the truth. If we wanted to mess up rounds we would show up 45 mins late. Then proceed to speak loudly as you were speaking. And steal all of your evidence. So really we don;t run our womyn aff to mess up rounds. Scenarios like that would mess up rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The comma is indicative of a pause, so should Brad have written that like he was saying it, and he said it without a pause, then there shouldn't be an issue.

 

Seriously?

Although this conversation is better than womyn in debate, I want you to ask Kerpen if we can change the title "Missouri" thread to the "Grammar" thread.

K thanks bye.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the reason for spelling womyn with a Y is so the word no longer means out of man. Since "wo" means out of

 

Chasity, in my research, I have found nothing indicating that "Woman" means "Out of man", looking into old English origins of the word, and even further back, all it indicates is female, not 'out of'. The best of it suggests that "Wifmann" eventually developed into Woman, but Wif goes back into old germanic languages and that's a whole other discussion.

 

Seriously?

Although this conversation is better than womyn in debate, I want you to ask Kerpen if we can change the title "Missouri" thread to the "Grammar" thread.

K thanks bye.

 

I don't think he'd be hip, plus, it's kind of a, um, stupid topic.

Edited by My Pet Monster
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. We get aff choice

3. How exactly our version of stright up sucky and abusive???

4.thats cool

5. I love that you think that even though it is totally and completly not the truth. If we wanted to mess up rounds we would show up 45 mins late. Then proceed to speak loudly as you were speaking. And steal all of your evidence. So really we don;t run our womyn aff to mess up rounds. Scenarios like that would mess up rounds.

 

 

Yea you do get aff choice.

You run aspec? really. cx checks abuse. duhh

Umm and you screw round by running WOMEN!

ANd i dont speak loud. I speak so that way people can hear me.

Dont get it twisted.

 

 

 

And o you lost to someone who was debating by themselves.

Devastating

Edited by miss_jazzy09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
okay my partner and I have a winning record.... nope your right we suck(really?? no)

 

See here is my problem with you guys running the project in its pure form (to be totally about the movement and not about winning). You guys are running this argument, wether you know it or not, to win rounds. Granted the Carthage team conceded in the 2AR during the parkview tournament but the problem is that other teams that lose while running this argument still after the round say to other people "That judge was dumb," or "They didnt listen to what we said or anything". Obviously that shows that you are in it to win. Plus the only way to really get your project out is for the community to see and hear it right? Well then that definitely shows you are wanting to win rounds off of it and get to out rounds. I mean honestly how many people other than a judge, time keeper, and the other team are in the room during prelims vs. how many watch out rounds? There is a big difference in those numbers even in Missouri. So your ideal situation is to make it to out rounds to run this argument.

 

Now I think that it is wrong the way women are treated in debate and Ithink there is a certain hierarchy in debate where a lot of people feel women are towards the bottom (especially in policy debate). However I dont feel that running an argument about it is going to change much. The way I think you do it is call attention to the problems with the higher organizations like MSHSAA and/or NFL, notify different schools administrations whos teams perpetrate in acts of sexism. The reason I think this is because when you try to run a sexism argument as a grass roots movement then it is voluntary to everyone whether to join or not. And most times people who are sexist and dont mean it wont change and other people might join out of shame. The point is when something like this is not mandated with consequences you have the pitfall of choice by individuals. I understand that under command people will be sexist as well but look at another issue we have had racism. It was a problem for a long time but it wasnt until we made mandates that addressed racism that we began to break it down. Thats my rant and I am not going to post any more here about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea you do get aff choice.

You run aspec? really. cx checks abuse. duhh

Umm and you screw round by running WOMEN!

ANd i dont speak loud. I speak so that way people can hear me.

Dont get it twisted.

 

 

 

And o you lost to someone who was debating by themselves.

Devastating

I never said that you speak loud??? and I never debated you so no I haven't lost to some one going maverick

We can run whatever args. we want

Running womyn isnt "screwing around" its fixing problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See here is my problem with you guys running the project in its pure form (to be totally about the movement and not about winning). You guys are running this argument, wether you know it or not, to win rounds. Granted the Carthage team conceded in the 2AR during the parkview tournament but the problem is that other teams that lose while running this argument still after the round say to other people "That judge was dumb," or "They didnt listen to what we said or anything". Obviously that shows that you are in it to win. Plus the only way to really get your project out is for the community to see and hear it right? Well then that definitely shows you are wanting to win rounds off of it and get to out rounds. I mean honestly how many people other than a judge, time keeper, and the other team are in the room during prelims vs. how many watch out rounds? There is a big difference in those numbers even in Missouri. So your ideal situation is to make it to out rounds to run this argument.

 

Now I think that it is wrong the way women are treated in debate and Ithink there is a certain hierarchy in debate where a lot of people feel women are towards the bottom (especially in policy debate). However I dont feel that running an argument about it is going to change much. The way I think you do it is call attention to the problems with the higher organizations like MSHSAA and/or NFL, notify different schools administrations whos teams perpetrate in acts of sexism. The reason I think this is because when you try to run a sexism argument as a grass roots movement then it is voluntary to everyone whether to join or not. And most times people who are sexist and dont mean it wont change and other people might join out of shame. The point is when something like this is not mandated with consequences you have the pitfall of choice by individuals. I understand that under command people will be sexist as well but look at another issue we have had racism. It was a problem for a long time but it wasnt until we made mandates that addressed racism that we began to break it down. Thats my rant and I am not going to post any more here about it.

Just because I said I have a winning record doesn't mean anything because I really do have a winning record. Also I have yet to run this aff because Peyton and myself decided to get to out rounds and we haven't since we wrote this aff(we haven't been running it all year). We will do what we can to fix this if you don't like that okay I dont care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. We get aff choice

3. How exactly our version of stright up sucky and abusive???

4.thats cool

5. I love that you think that even though it is totally and completly not the truth. If we wanted to mess up rounds we would show up 45 mins late. Then proceed to speak loudly as you were speaking. And steal all of your evidence. So really we don;t run our womyn aff to mess up rounds. Scenarios like that would mess up rounds.

 

Umm read your number 5.

You all look the same sorry,

but if you wanted a movement you would run the aff no matter what.

you dont.

Which would show why you didnt advance.

Go back to puff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm read your number 5.

You all look the same sorry,

but if you wanted a movement you would run the aff no matter what.

you dont.

Which would show why you didnt advance.

Go back to puff

Yeah my number 5 is a scenario on how we could mess up a round.

Or we could run OUR movement how WE want like my partner and myself choose to wait until out rounds.

We don't advance all the time because we don't win 100% of our rounds. SHOCKER!

Why would I go back to puff if Im good at policy????

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All,

I didn’t want to jump into everyone mix of fun, but it has come to my attention to shed some light on the current situation at hand. Should political movement function in debate? And if so how can there be equal reciprocity? I was very reluctant in writing this, but it has come to my attention that most of you all don’t understand the importance of social movement within debate. Most of us are bogged down by the negativity of “the project” and do not focus on the ethos. You ever wonder why every imx leads to nuclear war? Or even extinction? It’s because policy debate in a white male dominated game. This game was devolved in the 1960’s where the only threat to the white male was NECLEAR WAR! When debate started to become more diverse it simply overlooked diversity. We exist in a country where women didn’t get the right to vote until 1920’s. There movement has quite a lot of validity. Casey Arbenze wrote a study 1994 about the dominance and the hierarchy debate holds . These hierarchy are still enforced today and a lot of us are so brainwashed that we don’t notice them. I personally believe that we should attack there hierarchies instead of being complacent with them. Most people are like “Why do they have to win” or “ Why do they have to talk about race, or sexism.” Only by winning do people wake up! Only by winning can you confront and challenge the oppression. The equal reciprocity comes when people start looking down on diverse voice.

 

-Aaron

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello All,

I didn’t want to jump into everyone mix of fun, but it has come to my attention to shed some light on the current situation at hand. Should political movement function in debate? And if so how can there be equal reciprocity? I was very reluctant in writing this, but it has come to my attention that most of you all don’t understand the importance of social movement within debate. Most of us are bogged down by the negativity of “the project” and do not focus on the ethos. You ever wonder why every imx leads to nuclear war? Or even extinction? It’s because policy debate in a white male dominated game. This game was devolved in the 1960’s where the only threat to the white male was NECLEAR WAR! When debate started to become more diverse it simply overlooked diversity. We exist in a country where women didn’t get the right to vote until 1920’s. There movement has quite a lot of validity. Casey Arbenze wrote a study 1994 about the dominance and the hierarchy debate holds . These hierarchy are still enforced today and a lot of us are so brainwashed that we don’t notice them. I personally believe that we should attack there hierarchies instead of being complacent with them. Most people are like “Why do they have to win” or “ Why do they have to talk about race, or sexism.” Only by winning do people wake up! Only by winning can you confront and challenge the oppression. The equal reciprocity comes when people start looking down on diverse voice.

 

-Aaron

 

I'd really like to thank you for this post, one of our cards actually talks about how the arguements that are run are extremely masculine. Thanks.

 

This thread is really getting nowhere. Those of you who don't agree with the movement are obviously never going to agree with it, and all of the bickering is not doing much for real discussion of the movement. Because of this, I really think that it's becoming pointless to post on this thread. If I have anything to say to any of you, I will PM you, but I don't think there is any reason for this thread to continue, since nobody is changing their viewpoint and the same things just keep getting said over and over. Nobody is listening to anyone else. I'll still continue to run the aff in the hopes of presenting in to people who might acutally listen in a forum where there is a chance of a real discussion taking place, but I will not be posting on this thread any more. If you have anything to say to me about the aff, PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...