Jump to content
NANANANA

2009 Bob Bilyeu Winter Classic

Recommended Posts

I think Jazz's arguments on the thread shed some light on particular issues being discussed, for several reasons. (No, it's not because I'm her debate partner and I have to support her)

First off, it's my belief that most of you aren't understanding her example of racism being included as well. As she mentioned above, she has personal experience. Like you all, she thought it was okay to create a "change" at a particular tournament. Now granted, the change that she advocated didn't occur in a debate round, it was directly after, and I can assure you that had we hit the individuals in a round, it would have occured in round. We understand that racism and sexism are two seperate issues, however, the movement for change is similar in both of these incidents. She proceeded to act on her urge to create change at the tournament, and as she stated, got into serious trouble for doing so. Was it because she was wrong? were the other individuals wrong? No. It was because it wasn't the time nor the place to address the issues, even though they began at a previous tournament.

 

I guess I'm still a little confused on what you guys are advocating the change be or what you want to see done. I don't think you're supporting the movement like you're contending in the round if you only decide to run the affirmative against certain teams in certain rounds. For example, not running it at all in prelims to assure that you have a slot in quarters then running it isn't supporting the movement. If you really wanted to advocate the change and weren't worried about losing and winning, then why not read it every round? (I'm not meaning to sound disrespectful or whatev, maybe you did read it every roundand won on it and I'm just wrong idk..)

 

Also, I agree with DPlott most when he asks why it has to be exclusive to CX debate? I'm sure this occurs in other debates like PF and LD, so even if you created a successful change in this form of debate, it would still occur in the debate community in the other forms of debate.

 

It's not that Jasmine, Matt, Daniel, or myself don't "respect" their arguments, we do. And if we hit them this weekend, we will debate it. But, we can still chose to disagree and express those in this form.

Edited by Berner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Waldo- this is why most project teams say that fiat is an illusion. Only when we asks questions about why the system is the way that it is are we able to change the system. The project is a project of social change.

 

Towson and other project teams certainly changed my views on the issue and based on the posts made on this thread, I can see that many other views have been changed.

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 was told, as a man formerly in Policy debate, on numerous occasions that I could not voice my opinion. I was told that I was ruining policy debate by presenting my arguments in a manner that I preferred (at a quicker pace), running topical counterplans, nuclear war/extinction impacts, and kritiks. Without knowing who judged you, I would guess that it had nothing to do with you being a woman that your arguments were not considered. I would guess that judge has an aversion to progressive debate. I would guess he/she would say the same thing to a Louisville Aff, collapsing capitalism, speed, poetry, irony, etc.

 

That is something I find interesting about your arguments. It seems to me that you tend to jump to conclusions, and claim sexist motives to things that aren't necessarily sexist. That is not to say that sexism does not exist. However, I understand that arguing whether sexism exists in debate is not going to be productive.

Edited by tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As pertaining to the larger discussion at hand, my opinion can be basically summed up by looking at Brad's and Katie's post/s. But I feel there's a part of this whole discussion that hasn't really been talked about and I feel it's very pertinent.

 

At what point was it decided that this sexism is directly a product of debate, rather than sexism perpetrated by our society, manifested through individuals within the debate community?

 

I know Marshfield has evidence on the question of sexism in debate, but from what I remember reading of it in our round (and I definitely didn't have time to read it all, so its quite conceivable that it does make this delineation) I don't remember seeing this difference addressed.

 

I also remember Marshfield's evidence about debate being a unique starting point, and understand that as well. But what I'm trying to get at is how is Debate a unique problem area, different from any other facet of our society which displays sexism (stay-at-home expectations, high-paying jobs, high-ranking jobs, high-tech jobs, appearance expectations, etc.)

 

Bottom line: How is this a critique of debate?

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

Actually one of our cards is written by a black womyn so we aren't just leaving them out is a black womyn female-yes. then you are included

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

First of we believe that we are not crippling education we are actually increasig it because we are makig a level playing field. Also, we do straight up policy debate as well.

Second, the only way to get people to change thier view is through discussion. Discussion starts in the round if ut had to go to cross-x okay

Third, we say that there is more sexism in policy making activities and I believe we have cards at school. Not denying ne other sexism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim- you argue that we are assessing sexist motives to things that aren't sexist. The project argues that sexism is something that is acted upon in subconscious ways. Individuals do not mean to demean womyn by using gendered language but exclusion is the end result. The aff calls us to question our role in the community. By educating the community as to the effects of its actions we encourage people to recognize their role in sexism and to .... stop being sexists.

 

Tom Tom- you are right in that sexism exists in all fields. The mechanisms and general principles of debate allow for these types of inequalities to persist (see above posts for justifications).

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

 

You're being very prejudiced against "jackasses" everywhere. Do they not hold an equal stand in debate too?

 

Oh, but using womyn to replace woman and women is going to get confusing. You may need a second word to cover the meaning of the other word. Or, you know, you could just be logical and use the original words? That would help figure this problem out. OOPS! "Help" has a "he" in it. Guess I'm sexist too guys.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know what girls are whining I am not paying attention, I did read Tim Brooks post. If it is the AWFUL girls that I judged round 3 against some d00ds from P Hill, then shut the hell up. I didnt vote against you because you were women I voted against you because you sucked and were basically YELLING in cross-x. Learn some tact, learn to debate, and quit yelling at people who aren't having a heated argument with you. Pembroke all mcwhorter in the block was the ONLY way to roll son.

 

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont know what girls are whining I am not paying attention, I did read Tim Brooks post. If it is the AWFUL girls that I judged round 3 against some d00ds from P Hill, then shut the hell up. I didnt vote against you because you were women I voted against you because you sucked and were basically YELLING in cross-x. Learn some tact, learn to debate, and quit yelling at people who aren't having a heated argument with you. Pembroke all mcwhorter in the block was the ONLY way to roll son.

 

 

Jamie

 

Jamie, if I recall correct, third round you judged Thomas and Peter? If so, their opponents were from Neosho, not Marshfield. Aside from that, I discovered that the judge in question went to Hillcrest.

 

Still, this thread has no particular destination. While my views aren't going to change, and I think that this will do nothing but turn to a useless conflagration of the discussion, I am locking the thread to give me time to split it into a separate debate.

Edited by My Pet Monster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not our place to close the thread, Jacob. We can talk more about this later but for now it will remain open until we can create an alternative thread. I understand your team's wishes to keep this off the parkview tournament thread but we have to let people talk. It's why the site exists.

 

And between me and everyone else...it's far too time consuming to split the threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont know what girls are whining I am not paying attention, I did read Tim Brooks post. If it is the AWFUL girls that I judged round 3 against some d00ds from P Hill, then shut the hell up. I didnt vote against you because you were women I voted against you because you sucked and were basically YELLING in cross-x. Learn some tact, learn to debate, and quit yelling at people who aren't having a heated argument with you. Pembroke all mcwhorter in the block was the ONLY way to roll son.

 

 

Jamie

 

I know Peter and I had you judge us round three, but that was against Neosho A, we only read one McWhorter card, and I don't recall any yelling.

 

Maybe you're thinking of a different team of ours which you judged, as we do usually spend a little more time on the K (Kearney dared us not to run it that round).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of we believe that we are not crippling education we are actually increasig it because we are makig a level playing field.

.

 

Tell me you ARE joking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell me you ARE joking.

I'm Completly serious. Until everyone's voice is heard and considered in the same light then we can't strive for this education we are alwayz talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm Completly serious. Until everyone's voice is heard and considered in the same light then we can't strive for this education we are alwayz talking about.

 

 

you kill edu. but skewing the neg voice. This isnt a good place to run the tournament

And dont mind me asking. Who ever runs this aff, do you ever wear a skirt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DISCLAIMER: I am completely serious

 

this is to ali/shawna

you guys claim that male voices resonate more with judges (because they're deeper and heard more?)

 

heres the point-elijah hasn't even hit puberty yet, and i'm pretty sure that his voice is higher than yours. he says things like "omg" & "i love bubbles" ect.

do i need to add that the person with the higher voice should ultimately win into my framework?

 

just a thought........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you kill edu. but skewing the neg voice. This isnt a good place to run the tournament

And dont mind me asking. Who ever runs this aff, do you ever wear a skirt

 

We contend that running the case in-round is the only way to begin the discussion and draw the attention we need. If we had just made a post about sexism on cross-x, the discussion wouldn't have had nearly this much participation; running it in a round is the only way to really start the discussion.

I don't know where you're going with this, but my partner and I run this aff, and my partner wears a skirt when we want to wear brown because she doesn't have a brown suit. I personally do not wear skirts very often because I think slacks are warmer, but I have warn dress suits or skirts before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We contend that running the case in-round is the only way to begin the discussion and draw the attention we need. If we had just made a post about sexism on cross-x, the discussion wouldn't have had nearly this much participation; running it in a round is the only way to really start the discussion.

I don't know where you're going with this, but my partner and I run this aff, and my partner wears a skirt when we want to wear brown because she doesn't have a brown suit. I personally do not wear skirts very often because I think slacks are warmer, but I have warn dress suits or skirts before.

 

Well. At the point in time in which you advocate you want this change, and you wear a skirt, well its like fist hitting fist. You play into the the basics of sexism. Women didnt pick skirts mean did

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we run into a major problem when we begin painting the picture of the problem that is sexism with broad strokes. I hate to say I'm ever opposed to something just, "as a general rule," but more and more I'm troubled by pretty much any debate argument labeled as The Movement.

 

There are a couple of reasons for this, but it's primarily because I just think it's disingenuous to employ such a position as a tactic when winning a debate, which is why I'm pleased to see that you all conceded the ballot. Demonstrated commitment. I'm not sure that there's anything worse than using the real life otherization and oppression of individuals in your competitive discourse, claiming that you're doing something REAL with it, and not simply as a hypothetical.

 

But it goes beyond that, though. At some level, it begins to feel incredibly personal to hear these types of arguments. Especially when you're part of what is considered the privileged, oppressive group. I would go so far as to say that this is a distinct type of oppressive otherization that can be nearly as damaging as the oppression you claim to have suffered as a result of sexism. The position so many men, particularly those generally sympathetic to the plight of the other, find themselves in when they're told by an advocacy that they're part of the problem, that their very existence, or at the very least, their will to use whatever agency they may have access to entrenches the oppression suffered by millions is one of almost crippling guilt, neuroses, and all around no-fun-ness. I also think that at some epistemological level it's just false. If we're all a product of our social stratification, if the oppression we suffer is complete, that it's felt by all people in different ways simply because of our social strata, then no one is to blame. The oppressed are simply oppressed by another group of the oppressed, and it goes on ad nauseum. The only means of resistance we have to such ontological terrorism is to continue, to adapt, and to live.

 

I think it's best to keep in mind that Foucault, the author I've managed to use to justify every paranoid thought I've ever had (and I'm one paranoid fuck), would never suggest an alternative. That any shift from an ideology simply brings us under the gaze of another, just as oppressive if not more so ideology. Some means of resistance exists, but I think that in this case, the best means of resistance is subsistence.

 

Just my $.02

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you kill edu. but skewing the neg voice. This isnt a good place to run the tournament

And dont mind me asking. Who ever runs this aff, do you ever wear a skirt

the negative stills gets their voice heard. Since a tournament is where is happens then we need to address the problem there. Yes I have worn a skirt. It doesn't matter what I wear has nothing to do with my voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just add me to the 1AC and all the problems will be fixed. ;)

 

Just kidding, but anyways. I think there is a point, being a woman and all. I mean, noone's really ever like, "Chey, shut up, you're a woman. Make me a sammich." or anything. Honestly, I think the typing like "u" and "ur" on here makes people look dumb, including women. Maybe it's just a pet peeve. But, regardless, if you guys really want to do something about it, start there. Don't play the woman role or whatever, and noone will see you as that. Additionally, you guys have a lot of balls for running that. And people saying it's made them "lose respect" or whatever, is ridiculous. It was a good argument. I probably couldn't ever run it 1.) Jeff would refuse to and 2.) There's a guy on my team, but either way, it rose my respect for you guys (Marshfield/Carthage). And whether or not I cried in that quarters round, I did not, obviously other people argee and obviously it is a problem because there were probably eight or more girls in there crying. I don't really experience it, but I think some people apparently do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know Peter and I had you judge us round three, but that was against Neosho A, we only read one McWhorter card, and I don't recall any yelling.

 

Maybe you're thinking of a different team of ours which you judged, as we do usually spend a little more time on the K (Kearney dared us not to run it that round).

 

 

Both of us thought that the girl who did the 2a was yelling in cross-x. She was for certain being rude out of her mind. Her voice was escalating rapidly. I knew that you all had been reading McWhorter as per Joel Reed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben - I think this is crucial. When we discussed stratification it was fairly intertwined with an incredible amount of deterministic preconditions. The fact that we are stratified is not the only aspect that is beyond out control, but our placement within that system is not of our choosing either. I think what we concluded was that the best strategy against these decisions was to say that an inability to control stratification is no reason to defer to the oppression of that group, because we are all victims of a powerful discourse of oppression at some unique level. It seems like these forms of oppression are zero-sum (when seeking alternatives, that is).

 

Also probably important to note that Foucault felt that the power structures we aren't aware of are the most dangerous. This is why shifts are more dangerous, because as members of the naive power structure we haven't had the time to deconstruct our roles, and therefore end up fucking someone else even worse: Furries!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jasmine- They shouldn't "lose the round" becuase they wear a skirt- the argument of the 1AC is that womyn should get to be who they are and be heard as a result of that. If womyn want to wear pantsuits that it great, if they prefer skirts that is okay too. It is unreasonable to tell a womyn that to be heard she needs to dress more like a man. The theory I am discussing is known as Difference Feminism.

 

Chey- Having a male partner is not a reason to not be able to read a fem aff. I argue for African American inclusion in debate rounds even though I am not African American. It is about a movement of equality which involves the participation of all people.

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...