Jump to content
NANANANA

2009 Bob Bilyeu Winter Classic

Recommended Posts

And the color of your skin has NOTHING to do with it. You can be a white woman, you can be a black woman, hell, you can be a pink woman with purple polka-dots. In SWMO, there is still sexism committed against you.

 

NOT that there isn't racism, but we never even TALK about racism. Our argument, once again, is sexism.

Edited by Whiny Senior
mistake

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...

 

This is the same argument by saying running the project will stop racism.It will always occur. And it happens in more than SWMO. Only in a perfect society would this ever happen. IE this world doesn't and wont ever happen. this case with the national service program was some what legit. but now it isnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point. But our argument is that before we can discuss alternative energy, there has to be a level playing field.

 

And just because you can't change something completely doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Besides, we read a card in the aff by Griffin and Raider that says that breaking down sexism in the debate community is the first step towards breaking down sexism in the world.

 

If you feel like racism is a problem in the debate community, by all means, write and run a project aff discussing that. More power to you. But ours STILL has nothing to do with the color of your skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the love of God, can everyone please read Katie's post before this argument continues?

 

I'm gonna seem like the most hypocritical person in the world having run Zizek and WGLF-stuff this year, but there are incredibly important policymaking aspects to debate that are accessed through the discussion of political proposals. I would have NO IDEA what the Tarp II bill was if it wasn't for debate and I definitely would never have researched brownfields, our new aff, why hegemony is bad, what a constitutional convention is, etc., etc. This is not an attempt to discourage discussions of sexism, because what we discuss in that area and in similar areas is, perhaps, equally important, but I feel like both sides are completely discounting each other's position without giving that much thought to their validity. In our round, never did we say that these issues couldn't be discussed in debate, merely that we viewed better avenues for their discussion that we thought would ensure a fair debate based on our own standards. There's no need to bring each other down just because we don't completely agree. Nobody's gonna convince Marshfield to stop running this case on CX.com, and nobody's gonna be convinced by the posts in this thread that we've made real strides against sexism in debate through the few rounds this case has appeared in. The success and, dare I say, validity, of this case will be decided through its success on the circuit. That said, congrats to everyone, just like me, ya'll betta start cuttin' some evidence on gender.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the same argument by saying running the project will stop racism.It will always occur. And it happens in more than SWMO. Only in a perfect society would this ever happen. IE this world doesn't and wont ever happen. this case with the national service program was some what legit. but now it isnt.

 

things will always occur yes but you stand up for what you believe in no matter what(if you dont agree with that thats fine). our arg is swmo thats where we are we're not just going to let people make sexist comments or thigns like that without our voices being heard. and it has nothing to do with being related to the topic at all that doesnt matter sexism occurs in swmo debate (which is what we deal with what specifically) and we're not just going to let that happen without our voices being heard. and since sexism does happen everywhere i urge you to stand against as im sure you stand against racism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair point. But our argument is that before we can discuss alternative energy, there has to be a level playing field.

 

And just because you can't change something completely doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Besides, we read a card in the aff by Griffin and Raider that says that breaking down sexism in the debate community is the first step towards breaking down sexism in the world.

 

If you feel like racism is a problem in the debate community, by all means, write and run a project aff discussing that. More power to you. But ours STILL has nothing to do with the color of your skin.

 

 

Your missing the point im making about the race thing.

Theres lit. out there that talks about saying just women is bad because the color women are still left out in this argument. And yes if you disagree with something change it. I got into trouble this year doing just that. But i learned there is a time and place to do it. That like a football team taking a knee to advocate that winning doesnt matter. The point is the other team come there to debate, not listen to some bogus argument wasting their time on a friday or saturday.And affs like this one or the project are a waste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...we're just discussing our case. Sorry?

 

I mean, isn't discussing our case better than calling each other 'bitch' and 'jackass' simply because we disagree? I thought so... guess I was wrong...

 

I understand your argument about how debate isn't the best venue... just as I think you understand mine about how it is.

 

I read Katie's post. She made some valid points.

 

...but I'm just defending my case and the movement.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been kinda neutral on this issue until now and just feel like I kinda have to step in.

 

First,

 

you don't necessarily destroy what debate was founded on but you do severely cripple it's ability to educate in the way it was intended to do. The reason we're given a resolution each is year is to create a core topic of discussion. Now granted, there are always critical arguments that will be centered around the res. but at the time in which you say that you should be allowed to ditch the resolution entirely and all of the core concepts tied to it then you are honestly destroying the education underlying the activity.

 

second, you all claim your goal is to create change, and that since everyone is talking about sexism on cross-x then you are obviously doing your job. However this is not true, Look to all of the prior posts on here that regard the movement and all it is is people (A. complaining about it B. An advocate of the movement telling the A people that they are ignorant and don't know what it's like to suffer from sexism) The problem is, since you are using debate as your forum to discuss this sexism, you are being completely counterproductive. I mean, I don't advocate sexism in debate, but neither do I advocate someone saying "Oh, well I think I have something more important to talk about than the resolution so I'll just talk about that". what if everyone did that? Would we ever have debate ever again? maybe in the rare chance that the two subjects related, but away from those rare situations debate would almost never occur again. This just generates distaste for your movement.

 

Third, How is sexism unique to the style of policy debate? Why can't it happen in PF? LD?

 

 

Basically, I don't like sexism, but I think using debate as the forum to discuss it is even worse.

 

No offense intended

 

plus, you're not topical

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your missing the point im making about the race thing.

Theres lit. out there that talks about saying just women is bad because the color women are still left out in this argument. And yes if you disagree with something change it. I got into trouble this year doing just that. But i learned there is a time and place to do it. That like a football team taking a knee to advocate that winning doesnt matter. The point is the other team come there to debate, not listen to some bogus argument wasting their time on a friday or saturday.And affs like this one or the project are a waste

 

i think you're missing the point of the sexism thing. and the other team can still debate, and umm im pretty sexism isnt bogus just like racism isn't bogus. it's not a waste by any means just like bus boycotts weren't a waste or any other thing that was a movement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think you're missing the point of the sexism thing. and the other team can still debate, and umm im pretty sexism isnt bogus just like racism isn't bogus. it's not a waste by any means just like bus boycotts weren't a waste or any other thing that was a movement

 

 

the other team can not debate. We cant uphold the resolution or what we are ment to do. This aff is a bogus argument. Not saying sexism or racism is a bogus argument. But there are places and times to make a difference. This isnt it. Join a club make a facebook group! but dont force another team into this nonsense. and comparing this aff to boycotts is kinda extra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the other team can not debate. We cant uphold the resolution or what we are ment to do. This aff is a bogus argument. Not saying sexism or racism is a bogus argument. But there are places and times to make a difference. This isnt it. Join a club make a facebook group! but dont force another team into this nonsense. and comparing this aff to boycotts is kinda extra

 

the other team can still debate as they did ex framework, better way for the movement to happen etc.

the aff is all about sexism so how is it bogus? also facebook doesnt deal with debate specifically our evidence says the best time and place is in the round

it's dealing with people that either are experiencing it or seeing it happen or being sexist themselves. for example if i wanted to change the nat football league i wouldn't go talk to the mlb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

The separation of debate lives from personal lives was not a comment on talking about personal issues in debate but rather an argument against debaters disrespecting each other outside of debate because of the types of arguments they read.

 

I'm not sure how to explain that better, but I understand how the context was confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the other team can still debate as they did ex framework, better way for the movement to happen etc.

the aff is all about sexism so how is it bogus? also facebook doesnt deal with debate specifically our evidence says the best time and place is in the round

it's dealing with people that either are experiencing it or seeing it happen or being sexist themselves. for example if i wanted to change the nat football league i wouldn't go talk to the mlb

 

1. your still forcing the other team into this argument. even with the framework they still have to talk about this.

2. Umm like every debater has a fb.

3. there is evidence that says the opp. or that you guys kill the topic or you increase sexism.

4. the round isnt the best time. If we hit you we will call you hun its nice

5. no you wouldnt go to the mlb. But you wouldnt screw up the game of football.

6. Did you ever think of the reverse sexism, where girls compare guys and place them on a ranking scale when we see cute boys

some idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is sweet, Im in favor of the project, My partner is a womyn, so i want all of those debaters i have beat to apologize via post saying that she is not my "puppet", because THAT is sexist. lolz

 

And if you dont apologize then im going to start running this project and having lauren giving all my speeches, because i am very effective at changing my debate community. Example, Sweater vests. Game Over, rofl lolz zomg N00bs

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for example if i wanted to change the nat football league i wouldn't go talk to the mlb

 

Wow, seriously, your case is saying that we should only stop debate sexism. But in the real world we should just let sexism go on. Therefore you are exluding others. Cp would be include a revolution against sexism in all parts but debate because its not real world. Easy to be permed though so wutevs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been kinda neutral on this issue until now and just feel like I kinda have to step in.

 

First,

 

you don't necessarily destroy what debate was founded on but you do severely cripple it's ability to educate in the way it was intended to do. The reason we're given a resolution each is year is to create a core topic of discussion. Now granted, there are always critical arguments that will be centered around the res. but at the time in which you say that you should be allowed to ditch the resolution entirely and all of the core concepts tied to it then you are honestly destroying the education underlying the activity.

 

second, you all claim your goal is to create change, and that since everyone is talking about sexism on cross-x then you are obviously doing your job. However this is not true, Look to all of the prior posts on here that regard the movement and all it is is people (A. complaining about it B. An advocate of the movement telling the A people that they are ignorant and don't know what it's like to suffer from sexism) The problem is, since you are using debate as your forum to discuss this sexism, you are being completely counterproductive. I mean, I don't advocate sexism in debate, but neither do I advocate someone saying "Oh, well I think I have something more important to talk about than the resolution so I'll just talk about that". what if everyone did that? Would we ever have debate ever again? maybe in the rare chance that the two subjects related, but away from those rare situations debate would almost never occur again. This just generates distaste for your movement.

 

Third, How is sexism unique to the style of policy debate? Why can't it happen in PF? LD?

 

 

Basically, I don't like sexism, but I think using debate as the forum to discuss it is even worse.

 

No offense intended

 

plus, you're not topical

 

Well said, I vote for DPlott.

I love you kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is sweet, Im in favor of the project, My partner is a womyn, so i want all of those debaters i have beat to apologize via post saying that she is not my "puppet", because THAT is sexist. lolz

 

And if you dont apologize then im going to start running this project and having lauren giving all my speeches, because i am very effective at changing my debate community. Example, Sweater vests. Game Over, rofl lolz zomg N00bs

 

 

Well tech you didnt get the sweater vest movement going.It took WOMEN to do that. And well you are a trend setter. Its because your soo cute.

O look that was sexist

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.. So your argument is that im sexY.. not sexIST. lolz

 

Why cant you respect their args?

 

Not the sexiest lol

 

 

I would treat the project the same way.

Matt and i talked about it today.

Its like him running something because he is Jewish.

they are args that are best left for starbucks or oratories

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.

 

I may be able to shed light on this situation. This is founded in the same issue that is my largest distaste for the advocacy, which is in its comprehensive insult to successful female debaters. It dares to imply that the only way that they could have succeeded was by conforming to male standards, that alone proves it is wrong. The second, though, is its total lack of respect for other forms of debate, and the debaters within those forms. I extrapolate upon the comments I have heard elsewhere on the judge in question, and your position on the reason for female success or, if otherwise, their subsequent failure, is what is responsible for their irritation. As they said, "This is Nancy Wedgeworth's Parkview" and that they came from a world in which excellent female debaters like Danielle Imhoff were "Idolized."

 

This is a link to a master list of Parkview debate achievements. Search the page for the term "Danielle Imhoff" and there is where you may see her achievements. You assert that her success was contingent on her ability to conform to male standards. Is this respectful to her, at all? What would she say, I wonder? The judge abhorred your arguments so much that they left. What does that mean? Your quest for equality has actually hurt people.

 

Judith-The events in your life are indeed sad. Yes, it conveys, and well, I might add, the often astonishingly poor treatment of women in academia and socially. Nevertheless, I make no correlation, as I perceive none, between the deconstruction of the means by which we interpret human aspects, those gender- or race-based inequalities in debate, and the attempt to solve for them, with solving the imbalances inherent in society. I see no debaters working to be policymakers or world changers. Our best and brightest, Nick, for example, is working on philosophy and economics, from what last I heard. Major posters on this site-Ian (Fox Sans Socks/Just socks) is becoming a lawyer, as is Ryan (Coolmew/King of all Cosmos). Michael Miller (topspeaker70) and Robert Bird (birdwing7/Foghorn Leghorn) are both lawyers. The only debater I know interested in policy in Forrest, and from what I have gathered in our discussions, he is looking into Foreign Policy.

 

Let us suppose, however, that we so-called 'enlightened' debaters decided upon a path which would make us involved in some manner or form with this lawmaking. I then ask, how does our manipulation of the law effect the notions of the populous? Do you think an individual like George Wallace had any genuine concern for the law? Absolutely not.

 

MSU, like any other school, I imagine, has policies which prohibit relationships between teachers and students. Your professor, being an employee of the university, no doubt knows these, yet he openly showed them disregard. Furthermore, the great world changers like Martin Luther King still struggled against those with minds already filled with racism. My freshman English teacher iterated just that when he regaled to us a story of his grandparents, and on one occasion was asked by them if there were any coloreds at his school. This would have been the eighties, decades after the most successful effort in social equality in recent times.

 

Why, you may ask, did I provide that anecdote? As a demonstration, a dark proof, perhaps. That Racism and Sexism and the many other -isms are beliefs immune to the bounds of law, and most definitely to the acts of those that wish to change the world. So excellently summarizes this position in the old saying, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." The more youth changed and turned against racism, the more that stayed the same, that took in those beliefs.

 

Society encourages such significant sexual behavior. And so society will be what stifles the efforts to break down those barriers for society. In a world in which the objectification of women is perpetrated as much if not more than by women, what hope does the debate community have? Towson's case for CEDA last year, the idea of the black aesthetic, was alleged to begin its workings when they won the tournament. They did. What happened? Is racism gone? I didn't think so. If they can win such a large tournament and have no apparent effects, what does this round at Parkview hope to offer? And so there lies my entire point.

 

This is what you insist upon as the reason why your opponents must lose, and that is the exact reason why such argumentation destroys debate.

Edited by My Pet Monster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you just dont understand the args. Im not going to continue making a mockery of this project, i just support it, couple reasons

 

1- i chose my debate partner (girl)

2- i encouraged my sister (girl) to do debate, and she has started in 7th grade

3- ive dated like 5 different (girls) who debate

4- my debate coach is a (womyn)

5- Lilly Ledbetter gender politix dis-ads

 

and the pem hill boys are correct, Douglas Miller gets unrelagated credit for the sweater vest. I first tried the garmet to poke fun, but after its cotteny joy allowed me to debate without a jacket and be more than aestheticly pleasing, it became a lifestlye.

Edited by My Pet Monster
Multi-post.
  • 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...