Jump to content
NANANANA

2009 Bob Bilyeu Winter Classic

Recommended Posts

Umm I hope you guys know that by you running this it just magnifies the fact thatyou're bad at debate and you have to run stupid arguments

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4. To the Carthage girls, I really hope that this does not sound as if I'm bashing your personal experience, but honestly if you have been around SWMO debate you know Preston. I don't want to bring out extremely sensitive things on a forum for all to see but there are a lot of variables that go left out. I think you girls know what they are.

5. If I were a lay judge entering the debate community for the first time and had to sit through a round where this was the 1AC, you can bet that I would never return. Which is an argument that Pembroke made, you're basically collapsing debate itself. Sexism may be a big issue to you girls and hey maybe we should take a deeper look into it but I just feel that if this project continues there's not going to be much respect you gain.

6. If the girls run this at districts I'll take my hat off to them. That to me would be a real place where a "f*** it" or cheep win attitude would not be the case.

 

In response to number 4 - Blake, I messaged you on Facebook yesterday. I believe this part of the conversation is touchy, as you said, and shouldn't be discussed on Cross-X. I will be more than happy to discuss the details with you on Facebook. If you honestly felt this was an issue that needs to be discussed I'm confident that you'd find the motivation to reply.

 

In response to number 5 - "Sexism may be a big issue to you girls." I think that quote speaks volumes. Furthermore, you were in the round, you heard me say that we know we'll probably lose respect in the debate community. This isn't about gaining respect or gaining ballots.

 

In response to number 6 - First, we have nothing to prove to you. Second, expect us to break a new aff at Joplin.

 

Have a spectacular day, Blake.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to number 4 - Blake, I messaged you on Facebook yesterday. I believe this part of the conversation is touchy, as you said, and shouldn't be discussed on Cross-X. I will be more than happy to discuss the details with you on Facebook. If you honestly felt this was an issue that needs to be discussed I'm confident that you'd find the motivation to reply.

 

In response to number 5 - "Sexism may be a big issue to you girls." I think that quote speaks volumes. Furthermore, you were in the round, you heard me say that we know we'll probably lose respect in the debate community. This isn't about gaining respect or gaining ballots.

 

In response to number 6 - First, we have nothing to prove to you. Second, expect us to break a new aff at Joplin.

 

Have a spectacular day, Blake.

Thank you for not calling me a "jackass" :)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blake, the story that I shared in my post is about more than being viewed as "lesser." I isolated specific examples of how sexism in academia and in debate has shaped my life and forced me to make choices that I would not have otherwise made. I would also remind you that the real stories of how womyn are mistreated in debate are ones that cannot be shared publicly for fear of how others will respond.

 

Furthermore, I think that it is unreasonable for you to believe that sexism exists only when womyn are shackled and beaten into submission. Language is a significant representation of attitude- if an African-American were referred to as a n***** I am confident that you would consider it to be offensive. Why can womyn not be held to the same standard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blake, the story that I shared in my post is about more than being viewed as "lesser." I isolated specific examples of how sexism in academia and in debate has shaped my life and forced me to make choices that I would not have otherwise made. I would also remind you that the real stories of how womyn are mistreated in debate are ones that cannot be shared publicly for fear of how others will respond.

 

Furthermore, I think that it is unreasonable for you to believe that sexism exists only when womyn are shackled and beaten into submission. Language is a significant representation of attitude- if an African-American were referred to as a n***** I am confident that you would consider it to be offensive. Why can womyn not be held to the same standard?

 

I contended that your story was one helluva post. I think that had the stories of the teams running the project been of this level, there would have been a much much larger respect for them. Again not to belittle their experience but theirs are not on the same level.

 

Despite all the credible evidence out there that the language K teams read, I think that woman are not held to the same standard because of the degradation of just that. In our society words have lost their impact to many, take gay or retarded for example: both are used too loosely in current discourse, just as rape, hun, or deepthroat have been used against said teams. Again I don't want to get into the more personal issues of the teams stories for the community to read, but there are varible that go unsaid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry blake but you are being a jackass and i stand by that response i made you were during the round when you laughed and you are now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry blake but you are being a jackass and i stand by that response i made you were during the round when you laughed and you are now

 

That's fine call me what you want, I'm currently talking with both Carthage girls about the round. Just calm down, I don't think the discourse you're using really fits under your project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one quick question: It seems to me the amount of success that the project is having is measured based on community discussion which is, in turn, measured by the amount of people bickering about it on CX. If this is true, why does the in-round aspect remain important? If this isn't true, how do we measure the success?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's fine call me what you want, I'm currently talking with both Carthage girls about the round. Just calm down, I don't think the discourse you're using really fits under your project.

 

 

i honestly dont care what you think and i left my number for you so we can talk about this i would love to hear what you feel more than just replies on here. and what im doing is standing up for marshfield, carthage and everyone a part of this movement to you i think that fits under my project completely im standing up for what i believe in and what's real

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer your question, Brad, the in-round aspect remains important because we believe it's key to discussion outside of rounds. Like Judith said earlier, it's key because the ballot is on the line--showing that we are willing to stand up for what we believe is right and against what we believe is wrong and being willing to lose a round based on that is the entire idea.

 

Personally, I believe that the success is measured by how many people we effect. Obviousy getting people to discuss it on CX is a huge step--people are actually thinking about it, which is good. That's what we want. Once womyn are equally represented in debate, then will success become complete.

 

Does that answer your question(s)?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have one quick question: It seems to me the amount of success that the project is having is measured based on community discussion which is, in turn, measured by the amount of people bickering about it on CX. If this is true, why does the in-round aspect remain important? If this isn't true, how do we measure the success?

 

Excellent point; I don't know how other people are viewing the success of this, but from my perspective, yes, the amount of success is measured based on community discussion - as long as it's constructive. I don't think the bickering and name-calling falls into that category. The first step to fixing a problem is recognizing that there is, in fact, a problem.

 

I think Ben's analysis on discussion in-round was great, and would advise you to refer back to that.

"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.'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would it be appropriate for me to join the girls' volleyball team, interrupt every game to say that men are underrepresented in volleyball, and demand to win the game because of this?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just felt like this should be mentioned as well:

 

Third round at Parkview, Shawna and I chose to run the womyn aff and were told BY OUR JUDGE that we were not only an embarrassment to our team and coach, but also that we should be humiliated for 'destroying' Policy debate, among other things.

 

Personally, Shawna and I felt that our third round was the most constructive; thanks to Hayden and Elijah from Nixa, the debate happened. We were able to have a good discussion about the issues, and I completed the round feeling good about it, even if we lost. We did lose (obviously, I mean, we are, after all, destroying Policy debate and we CAN'T HAVE THAT) and, had it been for the correct reasons, Shawna and I would have been perfectly okay with it.

 

Unfortunately, Shawna and I lost because our aff "made the judge angry." Traditional Policy debater or not, AGREE or not, you don't vote because of that reason, plain and simple.

 

I said all this to say that obviously this movement is needed. If I get told that I, as a womyn in Policy debate, cannot voice my opinion and stand up against what I feel is wrong, things need to change. The change is the movement.

 

Thanks to Hayden and Elijah for a good debate, though! And thanks to the Carthage ladies because they are my heroes.

 

As a side note, I in NO WAY hold Parkview responsible for this judge's actions and I'd rather not anyone to think that I am. Thanks to Parkview for a good tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to Jeff: I see what you're saying, but it's completely different. If Policy debate were called MEN'S Policy debate, then of course it would be out of context for us to run this. As it is, Policy debate is a co-ed activity (whether equal representation happens or not), and so we believet hat womyn should get a voice, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
would it be appropriate for me to join the girls' volleyball team, interrupt every game to say that men are underrepresented in volleyball, and demand to win the game because of this?

by saying that you are using the notion the debate is the man's game. The reason for our project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND we don't "demand to win the game because of this." Remember the Quarters round at Parkview? If not, allow me to remind you:

 

...They conceded because the Movement is more important than winning a debate round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just felt like this should be mentioned as well:

 

Third round at Parkview, ....

 

As a side note, I in NO WAY hold Parkview responsible for this judge's actions and I'd rather not anyone to think that I am. Thanks to Parkview for a good tournament.

 

I asked this in-round, and I guess this'll be my last question. How does voting for the affirmative, even just running the affirmative, change anyone's mind. Yes, you all have created discussion of an issue that has gone ignored for at least the entire season, perhaps for a really long time by some, but how does your endorsement of the movement change the mind of these lay and traditional judges who aren't there to watch the round. One argument Carthage made was that they waited to run the project until outrounds to get a larger audience. But this larger audience was a mixture of three incredibly open-minded college judges, Marshfield girls, and a mixture of a few other random debaters. How did this round do anything to include more girls in the activity? How did the round change the mind of these overtly sexist judges who weren't even in attendance? Our squad is almost entirely guys, and we have made overt attempts to recruit girls onto the policy squad and we have, I think, 6 female novices. How is your advocacy more successful at actually INCREASING female participation in debate than institutional changes like this? Maybe that's not your goal, but if it isn't, what is the goal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, voting affirmative allows the team that runs it to advance, allowing more people to hear our voice.

 

Of course, the ballot isn't really important to us. We want the judge to vote affirmative so that more people can hear our voice, but it's not about the ballot, not really. We argue that there are bigger problems than alternative energy and before we confront and overcome those bigger problems, we cannot discuss alternative energy.

 

Shawna and I chose to run it in Prelims because we knew there was no way for us to break by that point and we wanted to have our voices heard. The decision to run it in an outround by Carthage was made before they knew who their panel was--and, yes, they were open-minded, but I guess you could call it luck of the draw.

 

Carthage--and correct me if I'm wrong, Sarah--but Carthage also chose to run it because none of the Marshfield girls were able to break to outrounds, because we were all running the aff (and I don't blame ALL of it on the aff or sexism--debating well DOES play a part).

 

The round took the first step. Like the Griffin and Raider card talks about, breaking down sexism in the debate community is the first step towards breaking down sexism in the world. It begins the process, basically. It gets people talking, which is a short-term goal of the aff.

 

The long-term goal, of course, IS to increase womyn in the activity. Right now, according to Griffin and Raider, Warner, and Zolt-Gilburne, womyn are excluded for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that several arguments are made that don't neccisarily 'interest' them (that's Griffin and Raider). Of course, this sounds petty and vain, but basically our interpretation of that is that until the debate commumnity chooses to change and actually listen to other arguments, then womyn will never be fully included.

 

I applaud your efforts at trying to integrate womyn into your squad. Remember that we never actually call our opponents sexist; rather, we call the debate community sexist. Basically our argument is that once we break down the mindset of sexism and exclusion in the debate community, womyn will join up and stay in the activity because they feel like they belong.

 

As to the question of how we reach the overtly sexist judges not AT the tournament, the answer is that we continue running the affirmative. We have to take the first step.

 

The round got people talking. That's the key. Talking breaks down the mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To answer your question, Brad, the in-round aspect remains important because we believe it's key to discussion outside of rounds. Like Judith said earlier, it's key because the ballot is on the line

First question: If the ballot is "on the line" why concede a round to "further" the cause? Would that not be counter-productive? I know for a fact that the project that Louisville runs is an argument that many aspects of policy debate are exclusionary and that they ask the judge to cast their ballot to sign onto their project to increase diversity in debate. Why would conceding the round be a "brave" (as Judith put it) or effective movement to help the cause?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter where this coach used to work or still works that is completely irrelevent. Even if he is now saying that he didn't mean it degradingly the context of when he said it, it was.

 

6.I'm pretty sure that conceding a round at PARKVIEW in quarters of CCX should already solve the "cheap win" attitude.

 

Yes it does matter where he works, if he works with women he is not going to be sexist. Not accepting the conceding argument, i would have gavve the other team the win just on the, " they didnt run it all tourney so they dont really care" argument. If you ever watched the movie "Resolved" you would know that if you cared about it that much then you would run it every single round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point. Like Judith says, it forces the other team to think about it. Sure, we could all sit around and have coffee and talk about womyn in debate, but it doesn't begin breaking down the mindset the way a debate round does.

 

The conceding of the round was to prove a point, I believe. Again, Sarah and Haley, correct me if I'm wrong, but by conceding the round, they were able to proove (at least to a few) that the Movement is more important.

 

It's all based on individual rounds, I believe. For example, I (or rather, Shawana, as she's the 2A) could have conceded our third round when we ran it, but it wouldn't have prooved anything. Conceding a quarters round simply made a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you're not experiencing it therefore you dont know

 

LOL, this quote tells the judge that you think all wrong is done to you and that noone else is expierencing it and your telling the judge to vote on something that is just an opinion. That quote loses the round for you. Maybe you should make a case not pertaining to your self so you dont sound selfish and conceited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to number 6 - First, we have nothing to prove to you. Second, expect us to break a new aff at Joplin.

 

Wow, you people are so bad, you obviously dont believe in the movement if your writing a new case. Wow, you guys are terrible, you say we believe in this movement so much and it should happen, but we are going to read a new case because we believe in the movement so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it does matter where he works, if he works with women he is not going to be sexist. Not accepting the conceding argument, i would have gavve the other team the win just on the, " they didnt run it all tourney so they dont really care" argument. If you ever watched the movie "Resolved" you would know that if you cared about it that much then you would run it every single round.

 

just because you work with womyn doesnt make it to where you dont say sexist things and also when asked about some of his debaters making sexist comments and such he said yea they probably get some of that from me

 

also with sarah and haley not running it the whole tournament they didnt have it until quarters matty and i ran both aff rounds and shawna and ali ran it all day. obviously we care and so do sarah and haley or they wouldnt of conceded there quarters round to prove it was a movement

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...