Jump to content
Deleuze

Good News sure to make you at least a little happier

Recommended Posts

Undoing the merger would be terrible. Almost everyone on both "sides" thinks so. That said...

 

1) Mutual Preference Judging = the same thing?

Obviously not - MPJ is far from perfect for ideologically cordoning yourself off from difference, and it's also receding rapidly this year (cf. Gabe Murillo-led tabroom initiatives at several majors and mid majors). Segregation would turn a fractured community into two different and unrelated communities.

 


2) They seem to read framework and ignore it anyway?

Big difference between getting owned becuase you read framework and then trying to ignore this, vs. not ever having to ideologically or physically interact with performance debate. Also FW-reading is receding as a practice (cf. Cal's declaration from a couple weeks ago). Also most teams don't just read FW in their 1NCs. Also reading FW still requires engagement of the other side to win (albeit in a potentially offensive manner).

 


3) Seems racially problematic to assume that "black = performance" or "performance = black", or any other race for that matter.

I think you're slipping pretty close to equating colorblindness with antiracism here, for what it's worth. Regardless, "non traditional debaters" constitute an extremely high percentage of teams that would be segregated under this proposition. But even so, a policy-only debate league would still manifest whiteness in its argumentative style even if it were to approach anything close to proportional minority representation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is problematic to assume that all black debaters are performance debaters, many performance debaters are white, hispanic, or asian. I am not making the argument that all black debaters are performance debaters. However there are many performance debaters who aren't white, from my understanding, the majority are not white. splitting the community as such would literally segregate the community. that's bad.

 

The framework thing, i know from a friend who debates 'policy style' at berkeley that Cal has ceased to run F/W arguments for the past month or so in order to avoid crowding out the perspectives of project/ performance teams. A lot of policy teams (but not all) are trying to move away from the framework approach and try to actually engage the teams on the "case level."

 

And yes MPJ does mean they preach to the choir sometimes, however they will inevitably be judged by those who prefer policy style debate, especially in outrounds. if we split it up on those lines than I'm guessing only so-called "K hacks" would be judging them, really messin w/ the whole argument that they're generating discourse on privilege in debate. 

 

This is in no way an attack on you. i just disagree that splitting up the community along these lines would be a gud idea.

I don't feel attacked! Discussion good, judge.

 

1) A CEDA/NDT split wouldn't be purely policy/kritikal, or policy/performative, even if it was majority those categories. If you split the two and eliminated MJP, there would arguably be more judging diversity within a balance. I think that balance is best because the discursive violence performance debaters experience when they are judged by racist or sexist critics ("you were a bitch" and "your identity doesn't matter", for example) justifies keeping students away from those adults. 

 

2) I doubt your friend at Cal Berkley isn't running framework because he hits a lot of performance debaters. Its more likely that he stopped because of the discussion at the NDT/CEDA tradition page. Out of round discussions solve your impact. 

 

3) I'm uncomfortable essentializing "performance = black / brown" to a degree sufficient to say a split would divide the community along racial lines tantamount to segregation. There are feminist performance debaters who are white, black, brown, and red (to use Wilderson's parlance); there are queer performance debaters of similar racial diversity; there are performance capitalism affirmatives (I know; I read one) by racially diverse debaters. I'd debate at CEDA along with all the other performance teams whose axes of difference are not reducible to color. I also know a large number of black and brown debaters who are most comfortable going for "extinction outweighs, util good". 

 

[edit: a post posted before this one. if you feel something isn't answered by this post, just write "extend ___" and I'll address specifically]

Edited by Snarf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel attacked! Discussion good, judge.

 

1) A CEDA/NDT split wouldn't be purely policy/kritikal, or policy/performative, even if it was majority those categories. If you split the two and eliminated MJP, there would arguably be more judging diversity within a balance. I think that balance is best because the discursive violence performance debaters experience when they are judged by racist or sexist critics ("you were a bitch" and "your identity doesn't matter", for example) justifies keeping students away from those adults. 

 

2) I doubt your friend at Cal Berkley isn't running framework because he hits a lot of performance debaters. Its more likely that he stopped because of the discussion at the NDT/CEDA tradition page. Out of round discussions solve your impact. 

 

3) I'm uncomfortable essentializing "performance = black / brown" to a degree sufficient to say a split would divide the community along racial lines tantamount to segregation. There are feminist performance debaters who are white, black, brown, and red (to use Wilderson's parlance); there are queer performance debaters of similar racial diversity; there are performance capitalism affirmatives (I know; I read one) by racially diverse debaters. I'd debate at CEDA along with all the other performance teams whose axes of difference are not reducible to color. I also know a large number of black and brown debaters who are most comfortable going for "extinction outweighs, util good". 

 

[edit: a post posted before this one. if you feel something isn't answered by this post, just write "extend ___" and I'll address specifically]

Like i said before, I don't think all black debaters perform, and of course many black/brown/red etc. debaters like straight up policy but (although I do not have statistics on this) from experience and general perception in the community, the majority of performance debaters are not white. I'm not making the essentialist argument that black ppl only do performance debate, white ppl only do policy.

splitting the community along these lines wouldn't be like Jim Crow segregation, but still, it would create two separate communities, one dominated by 'elite' policy schools like Northwestern, Dartmouth etc. which are, in general (but not always) filled with people in positions of privilege regardless of their race. the other community would be less privileged, regardless of race. I think this is bad. like really bad. Like I said before, after the split the "elite" schools would not have to confront their privilege if the NDT brought debate back to a game of competing advocacies, divorcing themselves from their advocacies in favor of switch side debate while ignoring their discursive implications. (okay maybe they would run some cap k's but still)

 

that's all i got

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Privilege.

 

You can't just use that as an all purpose argument against anything you don't like. If ignorance is leading to bad arguments, actually addressing those arguments is the best way to help people realize their worldview needs to change. But using the concept of privilege lazily is stupid and polarizing, yet very prevalent in some circles regardless. Act like an actual debater and use arguments instead of thought killing memes.

Edited by Chao
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't just use that as an all purpose argument against anything you don't like. If ignorance is leading to bad arguments, actually addressing those arguments is the best way to help people realize their worldview needs to change. But using the concept of privilege lazily is stupid and polarizing, yet very prevalent in some circles regardless. Act like an actual debater and use arguments instead of thought killing memes.

Yup, I come to Cross-X for intellectual stimulation.

 

But also, y'know, "You're ruining my fun" is pointless privileged blather in the face of meaningful critiques of debate praxis and its role in marginalizing non-white, non-male bodies.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With one hand you reduce his arguments to "you're ruining my fun". With the other you lift as of yet unmade criticisms to the status of "meaningful critiques of debate praxis". It's obvious that you're interested in promoting your view of debate through tactics other than reasoned debate. That doesn't speak well for the true meaningfulness or legitimacy of the positions that you're here framing as self evidently right.

Edited by Chao
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How am I sitting in an ivory tower? Inside of debate, I have no superior status or abilities above these women. They come to debate just like I do. I disagree with their style of debate, because I believe that it decreases the enjoyment and educational benefits of the activity. 

 

Also, why does a lack of diversity automatically mean there's an issue? There's nothing about the activity of policy debate that actively discriminates. I don't believe that there's anything about my style of debate that is biased towards white people. You're mistaking correlation and causation. The fact that there are less women and less black people in debate doesn't mean that debate specifically excludes them. 

 

Right. A style of debate that tends to favor people/schools with more money and more free time totally isn't exclusionary. It's not like people with money problems can't afford laptops or debate camps or spending a large portion of their time working on debate rather than supporting their family or whatever. 

 

Just because the activity doesn't "actively discriminate" doesn't mean that it isn't extremely favorable to those of a higher social class. And minorities tend to live in worse socioeconomic conditions than non-minorities. 

 

If the argument you're making here is that "policy debate doesn't hate black people, so it's not discriminatory!", you truly do not understand what these performance teams are trying to get at.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. A style of debate that tends to favor people/schools with more money and more free time totally isn't exclusionary. It's not like people with money problems can't afford laptops or debate camps or spending a large portion of their time working on debate rather than supporting their family or whatever. 

 

Just because the activity doesn't "actively discriminate" doesn't mean that it isn't extremely favorable to those of a higher social class. And minorities tend to live in worse socioeconomic conditions than non-minorities. 

 

If the argument you're making here is that "policy debate doesn't hate black people, so it's not discriminatory!", you truly do not understand what these performance teams are trying to get at.

 

Blaine-This.gif

 

Emma_Watson_THIS_Gif.gif

 

Tumblr_lm74ypXC1D1qii6tmo1_400.gif

 

But seriously - this. Just because we aren't explicitly exclusive doesn't mean we don't set up serious institutional barriers to the activity.

 

Check yo' privilege, people! 

Edited by jacobstime
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most performance teams would argue that there are problems within debate culture itself that are partially responsible for the lack of diversity. It's not all an issue of economics or external societal forces according to the cases they read.

Also, those gifs are hilariously low quality.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why this got so many downvotes...there's massive support for a split in the college community, including major voices in The Resistance who have explicitly said as such. There was a discussion pre-merger (CEDA/NDT weren't always merged) about the merits that has been raised again, with a relatively strong degree of merit. What's facially reprehensible about that...?

THANK YOU DAMN. these ppl just dont know the history of the debate like us man

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...