Jump to content
NANANANA

2009 Bob Bilyeu Winter Classic

Recommended Posts

A few exceptions? There are many, many excellent female debaters. Enough that there isn't an exception, in an equal showing of both genders. As I said, Wedge won state when she was in High School, long enough ago to be relevant. Even aside from that many issues still remain, in your advocates.

 

Your first evidential author has one article that I have found actually relevant to debate, and that is a groundless complaint about the alleged exclusion of the 'non-men' in debate. What I read is her criticism of how she's not seen as one of the team. Really? When I attended SDI in Michigan this summer, there was actually a glaring lack of males. In any of the three levels of labs, there were far more girls than guys. Half of the top ten speakers were girls, with the top speaker being one. What I see is her saying they don't think about her as one of them, what I actually read is that she hasn't made an effort to be accepted among them. The second author link was 404'd.

 

I find the third evidence humorous, and not for some of the mistakes like the criticism for CEDA and the NDT because CEDA has more women debaters. (It will have more debaters, CEDA is open, the NDT is based on bids.) It goes deeper than that, working off of the idea from the first article of sexism in debate, the assertions on standards in SWMO, and the third article of possible reasons why this sexism exists. This is where my serious doubts begin, and why were this true, I would be significantly skeptical that we would witness any of the following. Parkview as a squad is sixth in the nation for our success at nationals. Our head coach? Nancy Wedgeworth, who is fantastic at that. In addition, we mainly qualified females at NFLs, from a squad that is comprised no less than half by women.

 

The Neosho squad, on the other hand, is second in the nation. So while Mr. Watkins is, of course, male, they are on the same lines of Parkview. They have many girls girls, and many of them are in policy. Mary Kellogg was on the team that won state last year, remember? How could this be at all possible if sexism was this ubiquitous force in southwest Missouri?

 

It makes a problem of girls not being in policy. So? So what if they do LD or Public Forum? If you criticize these debates then are you not criticizing those debaters as well? And then how do you avoid that you are thus actively engaging in exclusion by making them seem less talented and intelligent than Policy debaters?

 

So I ask again, what the hell is the problem?

 

While we realize that there are many good female debaters in southwest Missouri, the problem is that those female debaters are treated as less than men by male debaters, coaches, and judges within our community. I encourage you to talk to any team that has run this case about their story. We have all experienced sexism in some way in this community.

 

Our first advocate talks not only about her own experience of not being accepted as one of the team, but also about the language used and how it is exclusionary towards womyn. As Sarah has already mentioned, our author talks about the use of the phrase "we raped them" to describe a victory in a debate round as one of her examples.

 

I appologize for the error in the second link, there was a typo, and it has now been fixed.

 

We are not criticizing LD or Puff in any way. What we are saying is that womyn in policy debate specifically are valued less than men. We are not saying that every person in the community is sexist, nor are we saying that womyn never experience success and fairness. We are saying that womyn are treated as if policy is too good for them. Womyn choose to leave policy for other debate forms because they feel that in policy debate their oppinions are valued less than those of men.

 

In short, the problem is that male policy debaters, coaches, and judges in southwest missouri have acted in ways that are not appropriate, and this problem must be addressed now.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what happened in finals?

 

Greenwood was Aff, ran Traverse the Fantasy by banning fossil fuels, leads to catastrophe, that's good.

 

1NC:

Ban Imports of Fossil Fuels CP (Competes based on Totalitarianism NB)

T - Increase

Good DA

Case

 

2NR:

T

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question that I've been pondering since Hailey started the 1AC claims of an uneven debate playing field is, how so? The personal stories are out of round instances. The coach calling Marshfield girls "hun", I spoke with him about that, the back story behind this proves no real sexist thoughts. The claims of Prestons and or my treatment of Sarah and Hailey however terrible they may be, are taken out of context. In no way do I support Prestons actions but in all fairness Hailey led him on. Mr. Pet Monster I agree with you compleatly, the debate playing field is even. They may say that exceptions mean nothing, but when you weigh personal stories vs. the exceptions, the exceptions outwiegh any cited instance of sexism in SWMO debate.

 

My ideas may seem incorrect to many but if you could answer the question maybe I could see your project as a more viable way to stop "sexism" in SWMO debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greenwood was Aff, ran Traverse the Fantasy by banning fossil fuels, leads to catastrophe, that's good.

 

1NC:

Ban Imports of Fossil Fuels CP (Competes based on Totalitarianism NB)

T - Increase

Good DA

Case

 

2NR:

T

 

The 1NC also included McWhorter K and the Embrace Consumption CP

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little late in the thread but none the less, Congrats to Pembroke and Greenwood on an excellent showing in finals-the round was very enjoyable. I hope that the tournament was overall a positive experience and great thanks to Waldo, Bcam, Matt, and the wonderful Mrs.Wedgeworth for helping it to be successful.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Competitors and Judges:

 

Thank you for your compliments of our judging pool, but let us not forget the college kids who took the time out of their amazingly busy schedules to come sit in the back of the rooms.

 

As tournament co-chair and someone semi-biased towards getting the best judges possible, having someone like Judith Rowland around to talk to the Missouri State squad was extremely helpful.

 

Thanks also goes out to Katie Frederick and Jace who I also know were very influential in getting people there. If I didn't get the opportunity to sincerely thank you for the time you ever so meaningfully invested, then I will do so now.

 

Thank you from the bottom of my heart, and please with sugar gumdrops and sprinkles on top will you come and judge again next year. If possible of course, but as said above, I understand your busy schedules.

 

Extra thanks goes out to the competitors that came from outside the areas, like Pembroke and Ladue. Without good competition, judges would leave and people would just be bored.

 

Best thoughts,

 

Ben Campbell

 

With the warm and fuzzies out of the way, I'll get down to this weekends events, specifically the Women in Debate stuff. After talking to Chris, I've realized the inequality far stretches just beyond the competitors, but down to the coaches and judges. The single round I've thought the most about in the history of my career was round 4 of MSHSAA my sophomore year when I hit Logan and Sam. They ran a pupetting version. I do truely believe there is a remaining bias in debate and after seeing the way some have talked this weekend, its more predominant than I've ever noticed.

 

That being said, I was proud to host arguments like these at my tournament. Something truely must be done to ensure not only the sustainability of the event but the interconnected ability for people to enjoy it. Those may say, this is the wrong forum, to that I say, bull-fucking-shit.

 

The only way we can adequately ensure the negative trend ceases to exist is through making people question the way they think before, during, and after a round. All this can be done through hitting an argument such as that which was run by Carthage and Marshfield. After all, most students tell their coaches and collegues about rounds. Most coaches talk to other coaches in tab, sharing what happens in their student's rounds. And with coaches often regulating the behaviour of their students, its ridiculous to assume these arguments are "inferrior" or "ineffective".

 

That being said -

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They may say that exceptions mean nothing, but when you weigh personal stories vs. the exceptions, the exceptions outwiegh any cited instance of sexism in SWMO debate.

 

My ideas may seem incorrect to many but if you could answer the question maybe I could see your project as a more viable way to stop "sexism" in SWMO debate.

I think the argument isn't that there are always explicit acts of sexism that occur in Sw. Mo (i.e. you don't understand your arguments because you're a woman, or I downed you because you're a woman), but rather that there are implicit reactions to women's participation in debate which are sexist. Hence the Warner 01 card in the 1AC:

The Solution to sexism within the debate community will never be realized until we draw attention to it. Our discourse, actions, re-actions, selection of arguements, and choice of careers influence what the future looks like regarding female participation in this great activity.

Also, they talk about how there are subconscious reactions to women's participation in debate as well. So...even if there are exceptions, which really isn't the point of the affirmative I think, and even if there aren't documented cases of sexism in your mind (I think Carthage and Marshfield would disagree) that doesn't mean that there isn't sexism. As for a solution to the problem, I think it's first to listen to their argument fully. Bolman's right that debate probably isn't the best forum for this argument to be decided, but you're talking about it now at least. You guys don't like it when cross-x threads digress into massive fights, so maybe this affords you guys an opportunity to have progressive discourse about the state of your circuit.

Mr. Pet Monster I agree with you compleatly, the debate playing field is even

On a much different note... At any level college, national circuit, or missouri, debate will never be completely fair. People will always get rep. ballots, some teams will always have more money, but that doesn't mean that debate shouldn't attempt to be as fair as possible

Edited by dcollierd
clarification
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neg rep: Problems women face? Think about that for a moment. The second place team was two girls. The tournament head was Nancy Wedgeworth, a highschool CX STATE champ. Women have no problems, that aff was a buy-in to get a cheap win.

 

to clarify for anon, i wasn't so much saying women are severely disadvantaged in the debate community, but rather saying that the 2ar took some (excuse my gender violence) balls. that pretty much turns back any claims that it was for a cheap win, and i doubt anyone thought pembroke was going to be left speechless or otherwise incapacitated by that aff.

 

anyway, while "women have no problems" is a total stretch, i'm also not about to start reading that aff with chey. my point was and is that they at least deserve some props for doing the unpopular thing for their beliefs, whether you think it was legit, illegit, stupid, wrong, right, tearjerking, whatever.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48% of pulic transit riders are women, but in the debate community, there all equals.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand how any of you can say that here isnt sexism in debate when there are real stories by multiple people. You can say that there isnt any sexism when you become female and start debating on higher levels. Don't say there isn't any because then you just look like an idiot. Once you become female debate a couple tournaments and don't experiance any sexism then you can talk: until then simply shush. Thank you have a great day.

 

 

OO and to address the coach calling our debaters hun. You were not there so you would not know.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so all of this talk about the womyn aff, first proves we are a movement second off asking what the hell is the problem is completely ignorant of what is happening at tournaments around here just because womyn are exceeding in debate does not mean that there isnt sexism in debate. and as far as preston and blake are concerned just because you talked to the coach doesnt mean anything it goes a lot deeper than him calling me hun, it's the tone and the context of it, the things sarah and haley said are not taking out of context in anyway (from there story) and the whole "sarah led him on" is whatever it doesnt matter theres no reason for what happened in the first place also blake when they're telling the story in round you probably shouldnt laugh at it

 

simply put we are a movement and until certain coaches and debaters of our debate community give womyn a level playing field in debate the movement will continue. remember it started with katie and kerrick then sam and logan and it's not stopping now

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont understand how any of you can say that here isnt sexism in debate when there are real stories by multiple people. You can say that there isnt any sexism when you become female and start debating on higher levels. Don't say there isn't any because then you just look like an idiot. Once you become female debate a couple tournaments and don't experiance any sexism then you can talk: until then simply shush. Thank you have a great day.

 

 

OO and to address the coach calling our debaters hun. You were not there so you would not know.

Okay for starters, the whole "hun" thing, was no spurred from a sexist thought, SUBconciously. He was not blantly, ur and idiot, u have a vagina. Ur right blake, thats not how it went down. But that same coach, had a round where his A team hit Ali and I. One of the opposing debaters decided to say that we dont understand our OWN bubble argument. I WROTE a version of that argument for our team. We understand pretty well. Our judge that round was the only flow @ the tourney and we ended up picking up the one and two speaks. They dropped arguments and THEY didnt understand bubble as the flow showed. Later @ the tourney we had the worst round of Sems ever. We crushed on the flow, the opposing team and I both got short w/ one another, and reasons for loss were "Shawna lost her cool.... sorry shawna. and Nether sides gave much alternitive energy, other then wend." That is exactly what it looked like.

 

And all this success ur talking about links directly into the fab world of FLOW judges. Which if u look to our case it states, "nobody comes to parkview to throw away rounds. U bring good arguments and run them well, when u lose on the flow, you know its a legit loss." This however is not the case of most of the debate community of LAY judges in swmo.

 

Ali and I also ran this on the AFF against Hayden and Elijah (obviously not sexist) in our third round this weekend. They debated it well. It all came down to framework. They listened we listened, if we would had lost on the flow it would have been understandable, either way. But the judge spoke after the round and said a whole strew of inappropiate comments that were upsetting and belittling, and concluded with "there will always be discrimination, and U can't stop it."

 

So yes, there is. U dont have to like, accept, agree, or support it, we don't care, but that does not mean that it doesnt exsist. Even if u think it is stupid and meaningless, again we dont care, we support it, and What carthage did was amazing. and Apparently it has all worked. Because what we wanted to happen has happened. Every1 heard it, our point was made. But the movement will continue, you are all talking about it, but sum still don't get it. It is out there, it is real, and we want change. Again, we don't care what u think, as long as u don't like it because of WHO we are, and not what body parts we have. If u dont believe it, it doesnt mean it doesnt exsist, and that they playing field is equal, it's not always and there needs change.

 

Oh, and thankx Ben. = )

Edited by R-tothe-shawna
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all of you who say that debate rounds are not the right place and that running our case in debate rounds doesn't get the movement started, just look at what it has started here. If someone just posted the case on a thread here without actually running it in a round, it wouldn't draw nearly the attention that it drew when Haley and Sarah ran it in quarters. That proves that debate rounds are EXACTLY the right forum for this movement.

 

For all of you who say that Haley and Sarah ran the case for a cheap win, shut the hell up. You show just how ignorant you are when you try to pretend that they didn't truly believe that this problem needed to be adressed.

 

For all of you who say there is no sexism in our community, stop living under rocks. The fact that debaters, coaches, and judges can be blatantly sexist toward womyn in our community and then you deny that fact just enhances the problem. If you really believe that just because some womyn are successful means there are no acts of sexism commited, then you need a serious reality check. The actions and language displayed in the community are unacceptable.

 

The only thing worse than those of you who deny that the sexism exists at all is the people who admit that it is here and accept or participate in it. The community needs a change, and we are trying to create that change. If you don't want to support that change, that's fine, but you must realize that this movement WILL continue. Until the playing field is level, we will continue to draw attention to the problem in whatever way we find appropriate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make me roflcopter, you said "hun" was sexist haha. Thank you. I hear old gramas call guys "hun." I hear women call women hun. Please stop thats not sexist. Grow up, stop thinking your valued less than other people. At the end of the day the better debater wins.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You make me roflcopter, you said "hun" was sexist haha. Thank you. I hear old gramas call guys "hun." I hear women call women hun. Please stop thats not sexist. Grow up, stop thinking your valued less than other people. At the end of the day the better debater wins.

Different context we were not just saying the word hun=sexism. The contextt hen explaining OUR argument to us was sexist. You were not there so shut up, you have no idea what the context was. Also the better debater does not win when there is not a level playing field. Maybe you should grow up and realize there are real issues in our community

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is sexism against guys too, so you can stop being arrogant.

Okayif there is sexism against guys fix it we never said there wasn't we simply said there is not a level playing filed in debate toward womyn. So we are not being arrogant either, we are trying to fix a problem opposed to what you are doing:just stating a problem. Try to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, ur right waldo, there is sexism against guys too. Look @ Oprah. We never said it wasen't out there. But, it's not the majority in debate. The better debater does win, with a flow. And sumtimes with a lay. Last year when me and taylor lost two times in a row against Joel and Brenden \, its because they CRUSHED us, they WERE the better debaters, the pembroke teams that beat us, were the better debaters. But the team that dropped the Impact-less birds d/a, all case, and a T and Just said two of our authors weren't creditable. Them being sum1 with a PHd from M.I.T and sum1 else who got their info from a UN meeting, and then win in quaters, no I'm sorry, they are not the better debaters when the reaons for a loss were that i used sarcasm. And the word "hun" isnt sexist, hun. It's the context. READ. Open ur eyes, and don't tell us to grow up. We are. Y else would we be doing this. Sum1 immature, doesn't follow sumthing that they believe in to the point, where they make the movement explode a cross-x thread. Carthage did what they thought was right and matters. And we need to grow up? No

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to sound like a jackass, but how can you be sure that the guy calling you "hun" or whatever "sexist" lay judges weren't just responding to what they considered to be a better argument? i mean... couldn't some of this be fixed by better lay judge adaptation?

 

not to speak for chey, but she's a girl that i see debate a lot, and i know with some judges she tends to be more sweet acting, some more bitchy/assertive, etc. same with me. same with everyone. is this us responding to latent sexism that judges have towards us? or is this just debating for the judge's ballot? what's the difference?

 

is there no way you could have picked up that ballot whilst being a girl? if so, maybe the best way to overcome that judge's biases is to pwn a bad guy/guy team on the flow and in their minds, instead of saying "there's sexism in debate".

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not to sound like a jackass, but how can you be sure that the guy calling you "hun" or whatever "sexist" lay judges weren't just responding to what they considered to be a better argument? i mean... couldn't some of this be fixed by better lay judge adaptation?

 

not to speak for chey, but she's a girl that i see debate a lot, and i know with some judges she tends to be more sweet acting, some more bitchy/assertive, etc. same with me. same with everyone. is this us responding to latent sexism that judges have towards us? or is this just debating for the judge's ballot? what's the difference?

 

is there no way you could have picked up that ballot whilst being a girl? if so, maybe the best way to overcome that judge's biases is to pwn a bad guy/guy team on the flow and in their minds, instead of saying "there's sexism in debate".

we can legitly say there is sexism in debate BECAUSE WE HAVE EXPERIANCED IT. We can be sure of the coach calling our debater hun as sexist BECAUSE THE CONTEXT. No the word hun is not sexist the context of when and how he said it makes it sexist. Once again if you werent there you wouldnt know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a question for all: If the sexism in Debate wasn't "real" why would have we wrote the project, then when Haley and Sarah ran it WHY WOULD THEY HAVE THROWN HE ROUND???? Its not like we are making some stupid argument like sexism leads to global nuclear war. We are talking facts.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff- oh i understand what ur saying. Thats how Ali and I do it too. At Hillcrest we were far from the nicest people on the planet. At West Plains, we were the "sweet kids". There is a definite difference from adaptation and sexism. I hope thats not what ppl are thinking this is a response to, because it's not. My main problem with adaptation is slowing down and I am by far not a feminist. U can ask peyton and Chasity. All i like, all i want is fairness and equality. At places like Hillcrest, kickapoo, parkview, etc. you see it. But at the tourney I am directly speaking of, when sumone yells at me 4 2 minutes of the cross-x, and his whole last speech is spent yelling. Then I chose, literally, about 4 sentences of sarcasm, and exact reasons for loss were what i stated above. I find that upsurd. I had shown emotion, I had lost. I get that sexism is not the reality of everything. But also there is still a problem and thats what this specific project is spurred from, THAT tourney. It's not the only place tho, It happens, but its not only that. And honestly Jeff, the guy I debated w/ at Nixa when we hit u two, after the round asked me if Chey was ur tool. Obviously shes not, u two both debate well, but he saw it as u being the dominant one of the partnership. U two are very equal in ur skills. Even if its not upfront, it is present. It still effects debate. And that is what this weekend was working for. And chas is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a question for all: If the sexism in Debate wasn't "real" why would have we wrote the project, then when Haley and Sarah ran it WHY WOULD THEY HAVE THROWN HE ROUND???? Its not like we are making some stupid argument like sexism leads to global nuclear war. We are talking facts.

 

Wake up, nuke wars are real arguments. Making an aff because one guy called you hun isnt something to make a case about. Thats like a guy telling me if i work at Mc ds than im a loser, so then i make a case about it. Its not a real argument. You give the aff no ground, and then we get to watch 8 minutes of framework/theory in the 1nc. BTW if they really believed in that then they would have ran it the whole tourney.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we can legitly say there is sexism in debate BECAUSE WE HAVE EXPERIANCED IT. We can be sure of the coach calling our debater hun as sexist BECAUSE THE CONTEXT. No the word hun is not sexist the context of when and how he said it makes it sexist. Once again if you werent there you wouldnt know

 

okay, but that's not really responsive to what i'm saying. sure, that one manpig was surely sexist, i buy that, i believe you. but the argument seems to center more on the subconscious biases of these judges. not every judge calls you "hun", i'm sure more judges are sexist than outwardly express it.

 

but, imagine that i'm a sexist judge, a la the "hun" guy, evaluating two rounds:

 

Round 1: Marshfield reads womyn in debate aff, win framework, against a male/male team that seems to find this a laughable concept.

 

Maybe I vote neg because i'm thinking "those sweethearts are too whiney, they really don't belong here, i guess, since they are talking about sexism instead of the resolution at hand. they don't deserve to win."

 

^ in that situation you're doing nothing but more deeply entrenching the judge's already negative predisposition towards female debaters, probably making them more consciously decide that girls should be down the hall in HI.

 

Round 2: Marshfield reads wind PTC, utterly schools male/male team, makes them look like fools, makes them look stupid, clearly wins.

 

As a sexist judge, it's hard to believe i'd be like "those girls are screwing over my fellow man! vote neg!" what seems more plausible is that i'd be like "wow, that took me by surprise. i thought they'd get 'raped', but turns out they're really good. maybe other girl debaters are good, too."

Edited by jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the word "hun" isnt sexist, hun. It's the context. READ. Open ur eyes, and don't tell us to grow up. We are. Y else would we be doing this.

 

How is this not sexism? Implying that somehow you have a monopoly on knowledge of what sexism is because you're a girl?

 

Also, men can be raped too... I don't see the point.

  • Upvote 2

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...