Jump to content
MarekIntan

Hypothetical Question on the Pirates Aff

Recommended Posts

Out of pure curiosity, do you feel that there is a serious ethical violation when someone runs the Gay Pirates 1AC, but they themselves are completely cisgendered and straight? 

 

Personally, I feel that there is something very wrong with a straight person running the Pirates 1AC. I feel that when a straight person runs this case, they are exploiting the struggles of the gay community for their own personal gain, and I do not believe that is ethical. If they haven't suffered the struggle of being gay, why do they get to pretend to be gay and experience those struggles and win a ballot for it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people now read wilderson and politics in the same 1nc. i think authenticity in debate is just factually never going to occur 100% so there's no point trying. that said, i don't think it's super problematic. whether it is a good thing or not, i know for a fact many queer theorists think that straight/cis people can be 'queer,' ex. oklahoma GW read an aff about INA and queer immigration that defined some latina/o people as 'queer,' and I think 'pirates' in particular are a community that didn't/wouldn't police identity

 

do i think it's exploitative? sure, but 1. debate is already hella exploitative. speaking for others is inevitable and widespread. 

2. sorry for all the 'gay pirates' in the real world we happen to be speaking for, i'm sure they're super offended

3. for the 'actual' queer people in debate, it's probably offensive if their angle is "i'm gay so vote for me," and they don't happen to be, but if it's just an argument about how we need to queer debate/debate practices, i'm sure most people would be fine with it. if it is "i'm gay so vote for me," obviously that raises a lot more ethical dilemmas than just SFO. 

 

"exploiting the struggles of the gay community"

those debaters who are actually helping queer people by reading "gay pirates" affirmatives in debate... nonsensical

 

"why do they get to pretend to be gay and experience those struggles and win a ballot for it?"

1. i think it's problematic we're assuming there is some monolithic gay entity that is capable of being 'spoken for' in the first place. there are queer individuals obviously but they all have widely varying experiences.

2. i think if we are giving out ballots on account of whose struggles have been worse in the real world we are setting a bad precedent--it makes debate into an endless circular confession of privilege(s) of the sort Andrea Smith talks about

 

all in all, if you're pretending to be someone you're not and misrepresenting them, obviously that's problematic, but if it's an argument more about how there are exclusionary practices in debate, that seems fine

 

/rant

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Brah - i think its more probelmatic but im not gay but have ran this on the neg  , but if they truly believe in their advocacy is the real question , if the answer to that is no , then i recommend going with all of their advice 

 

 if it is yes = more towards Andrea Smith Privilege PIC - i have the cards to make this - if your intrested but focus on making any counter-advocacy you could debate with , or Framework , 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends what their purpose in reading that is. Is it to get an edge over their opponents? I would say that's wrong. But if it's something that you actually believe in, I would say it's ok to run those arguments because you believe in those things. For example although I am a white US born citizen my partner and I ran a racism impact last year not because we wanted an edge but because reading about the horrible things that happen to those who come into the US from mexico made us want to do something about it even if it is just reading a policy case.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well its not; The 1ac should literally be framed just like a heg aff "is the 1AC  good idea?" 

 
Debate is a game you just have to prove yo ish is good

 

if a team of straight people are running it, they probably should not be making strong ontological claims about the world and how only a few people can ever understand queerness. chances are if they are smart, they think standpoint epistemology is a load of BS and that its not just where you are in relation to queerness but rather do you have an understanding of what queer theorists are criticizing. 

 

That aside, queer theorists tend to not make strong ontological claims about the positionality of queer folk and usually dont say you have to be queer to understand X because they usually criticize sweeping static claims which is why queerness is so ambiguous at times

Edited by Alwaysgoforinherency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some user disclosed a Queer Pirates Aff a couple weeks ago (I think that's what your talking about). I believe that aff got around 60 downloads and since a lot of UDL debaters go on here, there's obviously going to be a proliferation of that Affirmative. One of our teams ran that aff simply because one of them wanted to be "weird and spontaneous", they wanted to win (and they did, they won all aff rounds, but lost all neg rounds) and I have no idea whether or not he believes in queer theory or not but I didn't bother to ask. We had some debater(s) from our league rant about that aff on Twitter (just talk to us directly bro, rather than throw indirects at us) and how our team was defending something that they don't believe in.

 

1st - 

 

The queer body is an indefinite identity - which means you don't have to be "gay" to be queer, you can be heteronormative and identity with queer bodies.

 

2nd -

 

If it's such a problem, then Chow '93, as listed above, solves the problem. Let them lose so they can understand that running stuff they don't believe in is problematic.

 

3rd - 

 

Commodification of suffering is inevitable, it's only a question on what you do about it - I mean, your question also begs the question as to why do so many debaters read a Cap K if their form of suffering is conceptually different than the suffering of those living in third world countries, Does debating about Capitalism being bad, and then going with your friends to McDonalds and Starbucks after the tournament to talk about all the "stupid stuff" you saw debaters do in your rounds make you "anti-capitalist" and "understanding" of capitalist structures of oppression within third world countries? That's a loaded question, but it's the right question.

 

Maybe this is where personal narratives come in - if you can insert your experiences and how they relate to what you're talking about, then there's obviously a low risk of commodification.

 

Edit - I know debaters from my league read this forum (which is why I put my name and school on my account) - if you have a problem with us, please just confront us directly rather than throw indirects on us, that gets us nowhere and just breads ressentiment between the schools (I'm indifferent about it)

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a bi person who wrote a large part of that aff, I approve of you running the aff. It's not about being queer, it's about fighting against the oppression of queer people. Also, queer theorists today use the concept of queer to describe other oppressed peoples such as POC, womyn, and the disabled. Read the Mary Nardini Gang evidence about totality. They use the term totality to describe systems of oppression as a whole. This totality attacks queers, immigrants, the economically disadvantaged, every oppressed group. Even though you aren't specifically queer, you can fight back against this broader totality. One of the other authors calls this a matrix of domination I think (I dont want to go find the evidence).

 

That being said, don't pretend to be queer and don't pretend to fully understand the queer struggle. Understand that life for queers is fundamentally different than life for straits because of the heteronormativity and cissexism in the world, and that queer theory and the queer struggle is shaped by that way of viewing the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a bi person who wrote a large part of that aff, I approve of you running the aff. It's not about being queer, it's about fighting against the oppression of queer people. Also, queer theorists today use the concept of queer to describe other oppressed peoples such as POC, womyn, and the disabled. Read the Mary Nardini Gang evidence about totality. They use the term totality to describe systems of oppression as a whole. This totality attacks queers, immigrants, the economically disadvantaged, every oppressed group. Even though you aren't specifically queer, you can fight back against this broader totality. One of the other authors calls this a matrix of domination I think (I dont want to go find the evidence).

 

That being said, don't pretend to be queer and don't pretend to fully understand the queer struggle. Understand that life for queers is fundamentally different than life for straits because of the heteronormativity and cissexism in the world, and that queer theory and the queer struggle is shaped by that way of viewing the world.

strait.jpg

 

I had to, I'm sorry xD 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 3

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...