Jump to content
NANANANA

2009 Bob Bilyeu Winter Classic

Recommended Posts

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?

It just proved to everyone that we aren't doing our project for an easy win or cheap win

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my God, I wanted to stay out of this.

 

But I feel it necessary to draw attention to Keegan's post, which brings up a necessary point, yet goes largely ignored. Arguing about whether or not there is sexism in debate will get you no further than a "yes there is" "no there isn't" discussion. It is not surprising to me that the "yes there is" comes from people who understand and relate to the issue well and the "no there isn't" comes from a staunch group of people who feel like these types of arguments ruin policy debate. Yes, there are exceptions, and please notice I did not draw a woman/man line, don't accuse me of doing so.

 

My name has been thrown around all too often in these discussions. Yes, Carrick, Sarah, Spencer, Jon and I wrote this aff 2 years ago on the national service topic. Our observations were framed around the metaphor of women in combat for women in debate. Women are not permitted to fight in military combat zones. Women are often excluded from the war-type style of debate. Unfortunately, I did not go to nationals that year in Policy, but instead in Oratory, where I used a similar idea, comparing women in political discussions to women in debate and speech activities.

 

To be fair, my observations on what the aff burden is in a debate and my stances on performative affs has changed quite a bit in the last year and a half. No one should be offended or taken aback by Pembroke's strategy in quarterfinals. Framework and some type of alternative/counterplan to solve the aff is a tremendous strategy, and not one I could say I wouldn't use. Which brings me to the next point in the conversation.

 

The way to react to this is not to make the readers of this argument feel isolated and wrong. It is not to question whether or not they have encountered sexism in debate. You will at the very least go nowhere, at the very most you will be taken down by an entire community who will one day learn to separate their debate lives from their personal lives. If you think this argument doesn't belong in debate, cut better framework arguments. If you think the issue is societal rather than debate-related, read Cap or a similar K that has an alt that solves the aff.

 

The point of the aff is to, yes, increase inclusion and participation and retainment (I think that is correct) of women in the policy debate community. It is to realize that when you are in situations on your team, in a debate, or outside of a debate, that attitudes about a woman's "role", their successes in the debate community, and the language you use all have a bigger effect than you might think. Just as men do not "belong" in policy debate or extemp, women do not "belong" in PuF or LD or HI and should be able to be as assertive as they wish in a debate. Recruiting is good. Discussion is good. But please, open your minds. No one reacts to a new Wind aff as "ZOMG that's totally not true" if they don't like it. They cut cards about it. Do your thing, and debate it. Questioning the verity of statements will get you nowhere.

 

I might have more to say later, my thoughts are jumbled. But I will leave you with this.

 

I have never seen more un-readable posts than those in this thread. EDIT and SPELLCHECK (now someone will come find 18 grammatical errors in my post and I will cry)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that is why they conceded QUARTERS ROUND AT PARKVIEW IN CCX. Thanks

Telling me to think things through; how come you cant spell half you words right? You keep on bringing up this point, and you defend it so much, it seems like they didnt do it for the right reasons. If they wanted to continue the movement they should say, vote aff, so that we can reach out to a bigger range of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

they care about the movement they made this evident when they conceded the round in the 2AR to prove it wasn't just for a win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way to react to this is not to make the readers of this argument feel isolated and wrong. It is not to question whether or not they have encountered sexism in debate. You will at the very least go nowhere, at the very most you will be taken down by an entire community who will one day learn to separate their debate lives from their personal lives. If you think this argument doesn't belong in debate, cut better framework arguments. If you think the issue is societal rather than debate-related, read Cap or a similar K that has an alt that solves the aff.

 

Question... Isn't having sexism "committed" (for want of a better word) against you a personal issue? This aff differs from others in that it IS personal--I mean, it's not like alternative energy is a 'personal' issue, but isn't sexism? Just an innocent question and not an insult, I'm just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
question: what would you womyn do if you hit a team that read this aff against you?

 

we would agree with there movement and debate them about it make a better argument like we said any team should do. argue against the ways another team is doing it but still agree and continue the movement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
question: what would you womyn do if you hit a team that read this aff against you?

 

Answer: Perm lulz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telling me to think things through; how come you cant spell half you words right? You keep on bringing up this point, and you defend it so much, it seems like they didnt do it for the right reasons. If they wanted to continue the movement they should say, vote aff, so that we can reach out to a bigger range of people.

first off who cares if I can't spell I never claimed I could I changed the post anywayz. They obvisouly did it for the right reasons you don't conced a round for the wrong reasons. Just because that 1 round was conceded doesn't mean the movement doesn't continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

question: The movement died, who is going to the funereal?

answer:Hilary Clinton and some biker chicks.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never seen more un-readable posts than those in this thread. EDIT and SPELLCHECK

 

quoted for ultimate truth.

 

i mean, jeez, i didn't even realize you weren't just misspelling "women" with a "y" until i looked it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry...................

If i ever hit this case i would run, ecomanism or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading everything. This arg. is just as lame as the project. If you want to change the debate com. then do o.o. But dont kill debate with arguments like this. Im a female and im black. so could i justify both this argument and the project?

Umm well yes but it would be a cheap way out of a real debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

We maintain that the best way to change the debate community is THROUGH debate. Just saying. If we wanted to change the OO community, we'd do OO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After reading everything. This arg. is just as lame as the project. If you want to change the debate com. then do o.o. But dont kill debate with arguments like this. Im a female and im black. so could i justify both this argument and the project?

Umm well yes but it would be a cheap way out of a real debate.

 

actually no its not at all, thats pretty offending actually none of this is lame

and we arent killing debate by any means plus why would we do an oo on it when we want to speak out to the debate community and the people coaches and judges in it. and remember if it was for a cheap win then people for this movement wouldnt concede rounds and also continue running it when they lost on it. everyone who ran this lost on it obviously its not just a cheap win or anything like that and also its not a way out its a movement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...And the color of your skin has nothing to do with it. We're arguing sexism, not racism.

 

 

and i love you ali g!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually no its not at all, thats pretty offending actually none of this is lame

and we arent killing debate by any means plus why would we do an oo on it when we want to speak out to the debate community and the people coaches and judges in it. and remember if it was for a cheap win then people for this movement wouldnt concede rounds and also continue running it when they lost on it. everyone who ran this lost on it obviously its not just a cheap win or anything like that and also its not a way out its a movement

 

Even if they concede, they kill what debate was founded on. Not gonna lie, im not excited to hit this case this weekend. But at the same time i want to just to show how pointless it is. No where are you changing the mindset. If anything, people on the outside world of debate are pushed away because of args. like this one.

 

 

 

 

*edit*

And the color argument comes in, to the fact that you argument about women and sexism in debate, but with that justification what about the black women in debate, do we not get double the sexism and racism?

Edited by miss_jazzy09
adding
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I'm sorry, but have you read the ENTIRE thread? Because unless I'm very much mistaken, we got some people thinking and that was our goal.

 

And out of curiosity, how are we killing what debate was founded on?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if they concede, they kill what debate was founded on. Not gonna lie, im not excited to hit this case this weekend. But at the same time i want to just to show how pointless it is. No where are you changing the mindset. If anything, people on the outside world of debate are pushed away because of args. like this one.

 

 

im pretty sure debate wasnt founded as lets make the swmo debate community be sexist. we started the discussion to change the mindset to bring everything to the table. also im pretty sure whatever aff or plan you represent wont really get passed or anything like that. this real not just some theoritical plan that some theoritical govt will pass

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im pretty sure debate wasnt founded as lets make the swmo debate community be sexist. we started the discussion to change the mindset to bring everything to the table. also im pretty sure whatever aff or plan you represent wont really get passed or anything like that. this real not just some theoritical plan that some theoritical govt will pass

 

Yes ive read the entire thread, people talk about o wow thats cool, but is any changed made. Are they never going to say "Hun" again. Umm no. And when it come to our plan will never be passed, yea your right. But sexism will always occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THAT'S why we're running the movement. By saying "But sexim will always occur" you only proove our point.

 

We got people thinking. When people start thinking, mindsets change.

 

And, sorry, but I still don't understand how we're 'destroying what debate was founded on.' Like Sammy J said, SWMO debate wasn't founded on sexism...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes ive read the entire thread, people talk about o wow thats cool, but is any changed made. Are they never going to say "Hun" again. Umm no. And when it come to our plan will never be passed, yea your right. But sexism will always occur.

 

remember its not the "hun" thing its the context of it and everything else that happened at that tournament. and so just because something will always occur you shouldn't stand up against it? no. and the whole point of running the arg was to get people talking and get the word out which is obviously what is happening

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...