Jump to content
NickDB8

Was The Rutgers Strategy Justified? (NDT Finals 2016-2017)

  

126 members have voted

  1. 1. In your opinion, was what Rutgers did an effective strategy of liberation?

    • Yes
      37
    • No
      54
    • Maybe / I can't determine that / other
      35
  2. 2. In your opinion, was what Rutgers did justified, or ethically correct?

    • Yes
      32
    • No
      76
    • Maybe / I can't determine that / other
      18
  3. 3. Assuming you watched, who do you think deserved to win the round?

    • Rutgers
      50
    • GTown
      60
    • I did not watch
      16


Recommended Posts

I've watched it again to confirm, and literally nothing in the 2NR talked about the importance of white discomfort for creating change. The 2N did mention that Georgetown is complacent towards status quo exclusion, but that's not the same argument. The 2NR went for framework, and implicated framework as the reason for Georgetown's complacency. I don't know why people in this thread are acting as if white uncomfortability was central to Rutgers' advocacy. Saying that discomfort per se is good was basically one throwaway line from cross examination. These arguments about reciprocity, valid or not, were not articulated by Rutgers.

I think it's mostly because the majority of the 1NC was focused around setting up that argument for clarification in the block. If that isn't the argument they're making, then I'm not sure why "The Roast™" was that relevant, or necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's mostly because the majority of the 1NC was focused around setting up that argument for clarification in the block. If that isn't the argument they're making, then I'm not sure why "The Roast™" was that relevant, or necessary.

 

The 1NC had about a minute's worth of actual argumentation, which was the framework shell. The rest was insults, without any explanation of how those insults were supposed to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1NC had about a minute's worth of actual argumentation, which was the framework shell. The rest was insults, without any explanation of how those insults were I supposed to work.

I didn't see the full debate so can anyone explain what the justification for the insults was if it wasn't about destroying white comfort?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened during the 1NR? I didn't get a chance to see it.

So, I didn't love the 1NC, but I could appreciate it. I appreciated that it was bold and edgy and very forward thinking, and while a little mean, it was done in a joking spirit.

 

The 1NR on the other hand, is where Rutgers lost me. Nicole (who goes by Nick) basically resorted to hurling insults at Natalie. Not comedic roasts-- insults. Insults about her appearance, including by going after her for the fact that she straight-ironed her hair for outrounds (that was the one insult that I specifically remember). She also screamed at one of the judges, calling him a "fat fuck". (Unsurprisingly, that judge was the one that ended up voting aff) Nick also said that she thought it was a beautiful thing that Georgetown would have to watch this round over and over again, and that their mothers would be watching it too. And if you heard her tone, any benefit of the doubt given to Rutgers that the 1NC was good-natured, even if designed to stir up white uncomfortability, would be gone. It felt very hateful and it was a sad sight. 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched it again to confirm, and literally nothing in the 2NR talked about the importance of white discomfort for creating change. The 2N did mention that Georgetown is complacent towards status quo exclusion, but that's not the same argument. The 2NR went for framework, and implicated framework as the reason for Georgetown's complacency. I don't know why people in this thread are acting as if white uncomfortability was central to Rutgers' advocacy. Saying that discomfort per se is good was basically one throwaway line from cross examination. These arguments about reciprocity, valid or not, were not articulated by Rutgers.

 

But uncomfortability is what we are discussing. We aren't really talking about the mechanics of the round, or who should have won the flow- we're talking about whether Rutgers strategy was ethical or an effective liberation strategy. White uncomfortability is central to any defense of the method Rutgers employs, that's what everyone on this thread is debating. The 2nr doesn't really matter for the purpose of assessing whether what Rutgers did was right or not.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm a bit late but I just saw this and wanted to respond. I watched the round before it was removed. I come from a white place of privilege and although there were a few comments in which I thought were unnecessarily malicious. I agree the overall stratagey was acceptable.

 

Looking at it from a concept of ethics in which the debate community resides in malicious action against opponents in a debate space should not be allowed.

 

One however must weigh the morals of what happened from the perspective of what people feel in their own position which I believe the uncomforability is alloweed.

 

I also believe that people from a position without or with less provoke especially poc do intrinsically face bias in everyday life and in an ideal world other societal memebers can lift them up. When that is not possible which it seems to be indicated to force the conversation to increase confirbility it is necessary to create tension.

 

Martin Luther King had a 4 step philosophy he used to take action a drehen he said all else failed non violent protest was the last resort used to force tension in spotlight. The means at which it was forced might be disputed but the fact I just read 6 pages on cross x about this shows the discussion has been forced.

 

I do not know if they could have had such a large impact on the community doing it another method. I always would like to praise Georgetown for not directly insulting them back. I believe the self determination and moral integrity there was good. It's too bad that people believe the biggest impact was who won the round when in reality it is the events that followed. Despite debate being a competitive space the more important aspect is to learn how to argue and the world around you including other people's struggles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a forum about the merits of NDT finals - not a framework debate so hop off those blocks for a sec.

 

that being said, this argument has some pretty bad implications. If not in a round, then where? Where is there space to talk about debate if not in debate? Do you really think the same amount of discussion produced by that round would have been produced had they not implicated social location in a controversial way, in an important round?

 

"Where is this violence?" I think a cogent example is Kansas HW's "list" of unacceptable affs that were pretty much only blackness teams. They essentially gave a case list of things another team's model justified when they were going for FW, and the affs they mentioned were only race teams, implying that those types of debaters don't deserve a place in the resolution, or debate. If you don't understand why that's anti-black, then you've got some learning to do.

 

To address your fairness claims - what happens when sprinters structurally, rather than procedurally can't begin from the same position? The assumption that the topic enables a neutral approach to it paves over differences inherent to identity which create different ways of relating or accessing the topic. It is impossible to begin from the same point, and the belief that everyone can is absurd and probably anti-black.

 

Kind of straying away from the topic - but that isn't a fair representation of what happened with Kansas

 

The list was a compilation of every single aff on the college wiki without a plan, Kansas used that to show how unpredictable debate would be without a constraint on the aff. Your characterization of it to exclude just antiblackness teams is false - KU compiled a list before the round at Gonzaga. It by no means was meant to exclude debaters, just unpredictable affs that don't have plans.

 

Secondly: making a claim that someone is being abusive in round isn't to say that they don't have a place in the resolution/debate. Just because you go for T: must be QPQ doesn't mean everyone who doesn't have a condition should be excluded from debate, rather it's an interpretation of the resolution that they COULD implement that would make debate a better place. I don't think that expressing an opinion on what type of debate is most educational/fair by any means expresses which PEOPLE make debate bad.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an F.Y.I. they're having somewhat of a similar discussion over on the CEDA forums about this round - much of which has been in support of the strategy Rutgers utilized. By that I mean, the 1 minute of actual arguments in the 1NC (as in cards), and the stuff they went for in the 2NR. It's a long read but I'd wager its worth checking out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an F.Y.I. they're having somewhat of a similar discussion over on the CEDA forums about this round - much of which has been in support of the strategy Rutgers utilized. By that I mean, the 1 minute of actual arguments in the 1NC (as in cards), and the stuff they went for in the 2NR. It's a long read but I'd wager its worth checking out. 

Could you throw us a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey snowflakes - stop getting triggered by SJWs. Learn to respect freedom of speech. Quit the mock outrage hiding behind political correctness. 

 

Are you the manhood academy dude again christ wtf is it with this site and trolls

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey snowflakes - stop getting triggered by SJWs. Learn to respect freedom of speech. Quit the mock outrage hiding behind political correctness.

whoa, a conservative who actually isn't getting pissed at white people being targeted - nice. we need more like you

 

edit: assuming conservative; i've never heard "cuck" or "SJW" used by anyone on the left

Edited by NickDB8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey snowflakes - stop getting triggered by SJWs. Learn to respect freedom of speech. Quit the mock outrage hiding behind political correctness. 

Be careful; your edges are showing, d00d. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learn to respect freedom of speech.

 

I don't think Rutgers should have been silenced or otherwise censured. I don't even necessarily think they should have lost the round. I just don't like a lot of the things they said. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have to agree with everything said.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey snowflakes - stop getting triggered by SJWs. Learn to respect freedom of speech. Quit the mock outrage hiding behind political correctness.

 

I may get downvoted for this, but, objectively speaking, what was wrong with this particular post? It basically rewrites to, "Rutgers can say whatever they want in a round - and, if you are reflexively upset by what they are saying, then you are essentially proving their point by implicitly censoring them in some capacity." Sure, the way it was written was blatantly confrontational, probably to get a rise out of people, but wasn't that also Rutgers's methodology? Now we are talking about it as a result, and perhaps that dialogue can lay bare some of our problematic presumptions about the subject.

 

Hear me out.

 

Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate here, but this concept of, "censorship bad," is both the primary reason why I can't justify voting Rutgers down on their presentation (in absence of a won argument as to why I should do so from the other team) and why I avoid judge intervention as much as possible. It is not on me to restrict education and expression, nor dictate their forms, no matter what shapes they may potentially take. I would think that any logically consistent Conservative should reach the same conclusion.

 

At any rate: I'm giving you an upvote because you made me think. Thanks for that.

Edited by CynicClinic
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like when political arguments cross streams, using the rhetoric of the "wrong" side. Upvoted as well. I think the choice of username and language was intended ironically, but I still appreciate it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are reflexively upset by what they are saying, then you are essentially proving their point by implicitly censoring them in some capacity.

I can't get on board with that. I think the argument is fundamentally contradictory. After all, aren't you implicitly censoring me by saying my reaction amounts to censorship?

 

Censorship can come from institutions and people in power. Censorship can come from a community. But individuals cannot engage in censorship simply by expressing a dissenting opinion.

 

I think our disagreement here echoes an interesting conversation that you and I had a while back about judge intervention, and it's an ongoing disagreement I think you and I will continue to have as long as we talk about these kinds of issues. And I always value your perspective.

 

Still, I sometimes feel like "freedom of speech" get used today a little bit like the way kids back in elementary school would use the phrase "it's a free country" to justify doing whatever they wanted. And I'm sorry if that comparison is demeaning, but my point is just that freedom of speech is thought of too broadly. It's not unlimited in the law, and nor should it be. And just like it being a "free country" doesn't stop kids from getting in trouble, "freedom of speech" doesn't stop people from criticizing you or the things you say.

 

(And I mean "you" as an abstract, not "you" as in CynicClinic)

 

Edit- typo

Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't get on board with that. I think the argument is fundamentally contradictory. After all, aren't you implicitly censoring me by saying my reaction amounts to censorship?

 

Censorship can come from institutions and people in power. Censorship can come from a community. But individuals cannot engage in censorship simply by expressing a dissenting opinion.

 

I may have miscommunicated my point here. You are absolutely entitled to comment however you want to about the round - that's the beauty of free speech. However, if your reaction is to exclude the speech act in question from debate, that would be, by definition, censorship. Such an opinion is far from disallowed, but that isn't really what I'm getting at in the first place. Actually, reading through the rest of your post, I think that the two of us are mostly in agreement up until drawing the line on, "censorship bad," versus, "censorship situationally good," much like in our judge intervention conversation - that is the question at hand. In my view, that should be determined by the debaters, not by the judges, but I definitely respect your opinion on the matter. Furthermore, I completely second that freedom of speech doesn't protect you from criticism - to the contrary, it enables it.

 

Edit: I think I see what happened. In the part you quoted, I was speaking in the context of the round, and the key word was reflexively - I was specifically commenting on Rutgers's argument of systemic exclusion vis a vis the knee-jerk reaction to, "improper," speech and forms thereof. I apologize for not being clearer.

 

... "freedom of speech" doesn't stop people from criticizing you or the things you say.

 

angif-hit-the-nail-on-the-head.gif

Edited by CynicClinic
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo this person posted "if I could Hitler one group it would be n******" before that so don't give them too much credit

 

Edit: and I'm pretty sure that post getting deleted is why they posted about free speech.

Edited by PailAmbrose
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo this person posted "if I could Hitler one group it would be n******" before that so don't give them too much credit

 

Edit: and I'm pretty sure that post getting deleted is why they posted about free speech.

 

I'm aware of their track record in previous posts, but I don't see what that has to do with the current discussion in this thread. If a troll makes a valid point that leads to a productive discussion, even if they do so completely by accident, it's still a valid point and the discussion still has value - to imply otherwise would be argumentum ad hominem.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware of their track record in previous posts, but I don't see what that has to do with the current discussion in this thread. If a troll makes a valid point that leads to a productive discussion, even if they do so completely by accident, it's still a valid point and the discussion still has value - to imply otherwise would be argumentum ad hominem.

Because when that person is telling you that free speech is important, they're also referring to their own racist posts where they called for the extermination of n******. This is specifically problematic when there are actual black people that use cross-x, but you want to frame the points raised by a user that goes around using racial slurs as valid and constructive...

Edited by AtlanticCoast
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't watched the round; by the time I had gotten around to it, it'd already been removed off YouTube. Given the requests of the team, I accept that I won't see the debate, and perhaps haven't had the same visceral, emotional reaction to it.

 

That said, given from what I've read about the debate, (and also given that almost everyone else in the discussion has disclosed their privilege: I'm white, and able-bodied, and not queer, and I'm middle classish, so use that understanding as you will) to me it feels like Rutgers was justified.

 

Black debaters, I'm sure, have heard worse things than what was said by the Rutgers, and probably more serious things, too. If exposing that and inciting a conservation, like this one, is facilitated through what they did, that's okay. I understand that they probably went "too far" because all revolution is too far; and that what they did in going "too far" is exactly how far they should have gone for the sake of the political implications of what they did. Maybe they didn't make that argument specifically in round; my sentiment stands. That said, that action is grander than simply roasting GT, and when GT had to be used as objects or symbols for a larger action (especially when it involves personal attacks), I feel bad for them -- they just happened to be there.

 

edit: When I wrote this I had only seen up to pg. 3. Don't know why the discussion after that didn't load, but hopefully this ground hasn't since been covered / doesn't seem non-sequitur.

 

e2: as I read through more of this my opinion shifts more. Disregard what I said before.

Edited by 2ac

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...