Jump to content
kareemsafieddine

Cards that talk about ableist rhetoric

Recommended Posts

You need to understand the issues surrounding these words very well if you want to be run an ableist rhetoric argument. You shouldn't read a rhetoric argument like this unless the link is clear, e.g. they said something very ableist in cx. If you want to get into disability/crip literature, I would suggest reading a cripistemology k or a disability k, because those are much better arguments. If you do want to read ableist reps arguments, then it should be something that you don't do every round. Don't say that everything is ableist, because that desensitizes people to actual ableism, which is very present in the debate community and is a problem that seriously needs to be addressed. It's also good to read a k of ableist rhetoric against worse ableism, because most judges won't be very convinced that the other team should lose for saying a word like "stupid" even though that is an instance of ableist rhetoric. The fact that many judges won't be persuaded by these arguments just goes to show ableism in the debate space that has become engrained. There are also some things that you might want to do if you are going for an ableist reps argument

      1-Don't spread. Spreading is often difficult to understand, and can be exclusionary. Focusing debate on who is the fastest, clearest speaker who can present the most arguments is pretty ableist and makes the playing field pretty skewed towards people who are naturally fast, clear talkers. 

      2-Make you files more accessible. Make text available in larger fonts with better contrast colors and more readable highlight colors. Use fonts that are easy to read

      3-Make sure that none of your other arguments are ableist or use ableist language. Don't read ableism with a k that is ableist, and there are many kritikal works that are full of ableist comparisons and language. You might want to just read the text your evidence so that you are sure it contains no ableist reps.

     4-Read other disability literature to have a better understanding of what ableism is, as well as what disability is, how disability can be created by society, and resistance strategies. Many alts for ableist rhetoric rely on critical disability/crip studies, and you need to be well versed.

     5-Read this article about ableism in policy debate to better understand issues: http://stimstammersandwinks.blogspot.com/2014/04/no-equality-without-access-radical-call.html 

     6-Don't be a jerk in CX. Good practice in general, but you should really make an attempt to not be intimidating or rude in CX.

     7-Flash analytics. Flowing can be hard, especially if you have trouble writing, and processing a 5 or 8 minute speech can also be difficult. Flashing analytics isn't hard, because they're already typed out a lot of the time. If you have a document with analytics to reference, giving a speech is a lot more accessible and its easier not to drop things that you missed.

    8-Stand up against ableism in the debate space and elsewhere. Please. 

 

Overall, if you want to run an argument about ableist reps, then it should be a response to actual ableism. Be a good citizen of the debate community and the world and actually do something about ableism. Good luck!

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

     1-Don't spread. Spreading is often difficult to understand, and can be exclusionary. Focusing debate on who is the fastest, clearest speaker who can present the most arguments is pretty ableist and makes the playing field pretty skewed towards people who are naturally fast, clear talkers. 

      

This is probably going to get a lot of hate but isn't debate an intellectual activity, so the person who's smarter and more mentally acute is naturally going to win? Yeah spreading is inaccessible to some, but certain exclusions are inevitable, so why draw the line at spreading? Debate is meant to be intellectually rigorous, and spreading contributes to that.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that debate is definitely an intellectual activity and should be about who does the best debating, but that doesn't mean that it has to be exclusionary, and you shouldn't contribute to exclusion if you're trying to argue against it. It's ok if people spread while reading most arguments, and people will spread while reading most arguments, but spreading while talking about exclusion against disabled people is a bad look. When it comes down to it, spreading is probably at least slightly ableist but it probably isn't going to change and most of the issues surrounding it can be resolved through clear communication of analytics and full disclosure of speech docs. One good thing about debate is that nontraditional formats allow more flexibility of arguments and how the debate space is interacted with, which means that people can use their strengths and weaknesses to their benefit in their own ways, and can read arguments that compliment them. For some people, spreading is their style, while others don't spread or use performance or other avenues to communicate. 

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that debate is definitely an intellectual activity and should be about who does the best debating, but that doesn't mean that it has to be exclusionary, and you shouldn't contribute to exclusion if you're trying to argue against it. It's ok if people spread while reading most arguments, and people will spread while reading most arguments, but spreading while talking about exclusion against disabled people is a bad look. When it comes down to it, spreading is probably at least slightly ableist but it probably isn't going to change and most of the issues surrounding it can be resolved through clear communication of analytics and full disclosure of speech docs. One good thing about debate is that nontraditional formats allow more flexibility of arguments and how the debate space is interacted with, which means that people can use their strengths and weaknesses to their benefit in their own ways, and can read arguments that compliment them. For some people, spreading is their style, while others don't spread or use performance or other avenues to communicate. 

Thanks for these insights, but why doesn't that mean I shouldn't call out people using ableist rhetoric as a reason to reject the team. I just needed a card that says these forms of language are ableist. 

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...