Jump to content
ethank

Card Cutting Ethics

Recommended Posts

I am of the opinion that changing words in cards is bad. If you are quoting an author who is racist by reading his/her writing, you should not be allowed to delete objectionable parts. I was cutting this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/03/us-usa-biofuels-congress-idUSTRE6124L720100203 One warrant is 

"Critics say federal attempts to constrain emissions of greenhouse gases will result in higher petroleum prices and retard U.S. growth." 

I know that the [likely] ableist language the author uses is probably bad, but I am just looking for opinions on the ethics of rhetoric changing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that changing words in cards is bad. If you are quoting an author who is racist by reading his/her writing, you should not be allowed to delete objectionable parts. I was cutting this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/03/us-usa-biofuels-congress-idUSTRE6124L720100203 One warrant is 

"Critics say federal attempts to constrain emissions of greenhouse gases will result in higher petroleum prices and retard U.S. growth." 

I know that the [likely] ableist language the author uses is probably bad, but I am just looking for opinions on the ethics of rhetoric changing. 

In that sense the word itself isn't being used in an ableist way since "retard" has historically had other definitions (for example: flame retardant suits). The word means to slow ("to slow up especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment :  impede" -Merriam Webster) and that's how it's being used in that context. On the other hand, this doesn't mean that the word doesn't still carry the potential for negative discursive effects. See this thread to see arguments on both sides: http://www.cross-x.com/topic/57279-dng-schizo-and-ableismetc-arguments/

 

Anyways, the way I usually have seen things like this is either a strike through or some other form of acknowledgement that objectionable language was used, but the debaters make clear that they do not endorse this language, which I can see. It really comes down to how desperate for a specific card someone is I feel, and of course how much of a 'thing' it is in the card, like how serious or frequent, and the context or argument of the entire source.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that sense the word itself isn't being used in an ableist way since "retard" has historically had other definitions (for example: flame retardant suits). The word means to slow ("to slow up especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment :  impede" -Merriam Webster) and that's how it's being used in that context. On the other hand, this doesn't mean that the word doesn't still carry the potential for negative discursive effects. See this thread to see arguments on both sides: http://www.cross-x.com/topic/57279-dng-schizo-and-ableismetc-arguments/

 

Anyways, the way I usually have seen things like this is either a strike through or some other form of acknowledgement that objectionable language was used, but the debaters make clear that they do not endorse this language, which I can see. It really comes down to how desperate for a specific card someone is I feel, and of course how much of a 'thing' it is in the card, like how serious or frequent, and the context or argument of the entire source.

Yes, I know that the word is being used as a verb, but I think it's probably good if we push away from using it. I wouldn't use bitch for a female dog, because of its meaning outside of its denotation. I can always find another ptx link but I was just wondering opinions. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know that the word is being used as a verb, but I think it's probably good if we push away from using it. I wouldn't use bitch for a female dog, because of its meaning outside of its denotation. I can always find another ptx link but I was just wondering opinions. 

You're reading the cards - its your advocacy. A 1AC/1NC is not a patchwork frankenstein of other peoples' scholarship - it's a piece of scholarship you put yourself into. It relies in part on the scholarship of others, but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When you start thinking of the case as your advocacy rather than a regurgitation of word vomit, it becomes permissible to alter what a card says as long as you tell the other team what the original said and what you changed it to. 

 

I can't see a reason why that would be wrong.

  • Upvote 1

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...