Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/27/18 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Every day... thousands of debaters across the country struggle to access this beautiful activity that we all know and love... because of the select few that decide to ruin it... with plans that aren't substantial. You, judge, have the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of so many young scholars. All you have to do? Sign your ballot for the Negative.
  2. 1 point
    If you're trying to advocate for a liberation movement or a group that you don't belong to, I think it requires a real commitment to the argument and an understanding of the issue that's more than surface level deep. Cooption of the ballot is a problem that's far too prevalent in debate, and while it's to some degree inevitable, there's a pretty big difference between advocating for a trade agreement or investment that you don't think actually solves anything, and advocating a certain identity politics movement without actually caring about it (and how discussion in a debate round impacts the way the community sees it). Even if you *do* consider yourself part of the movement, it's important to recognize the way privilege limits your understanding and implicates your ability to effectively advocate for it. Ex: what does it mean when straight white cisgender males pick up a Fem K or Q Theory or some critical Race K and win round after round on it, especially against women/queer people/people of color? When they say that they need the ballot because discussing these structures of oppression is an a priori issue, and there's an ethical obligation to vote for the kritik? Even if they genuinely believe the arguments they're running, using the voices of those they claim to speak for to win rounds is suspect at the very least, especially when it doesn't do much for the exclusion/invisibility that these voices actually face in debate. It takes a hell of a lot more courage to speak up in the face of oppression that continues to silence you, and being able to read identity politics arguments without being accused of exploiting your own identity/experience as "unfair" is a pretty privileged situation to be in, and one that continues to disturb me. tl;dr Realize that your discourse has real and very tangible impacts. If you're a guy and you want to read fem arguments, question yourself why - if it's to be strategic, just don't, there are a million other arguments you could run. If you genuinely think it's an important issue, realize that as someone who benefits from the system (even though the patriarchy is sometimes violent to men), you should take responsibility for the violence you have upheld in the past. Ask yourself if the solution is really for you to be asking for a ballot.
  3. 1 point
    ... First, no. The subject positionality of the speaker is inherently tied to the efficacy and political value of what is spoken. Understanding where we stand (excuse the pun) is especially important when dealing with issues of identity politics (and this is even more relevant in the context of policy debate, where legitimate experiences are often, but not always, co-opted for a ballot). Second, that is not the position being taken on this thread - none of us are saying that men should be, without exception, prohibited from running a feminism K. Rather, I was simply pointing out the importance of one's socio-political standing in relationship to specific brands of arguments and alternatives. To draw a parallel to race Ks, there is a difference between being a white person running Wilderson and saying that we should do a paradigmatic analysis of oppression and saying kill all the white people and burn the state. It is not a question of ad hominems, it is a question of what constitutes genuine interaction with the Other.
  4. 1 point
    Since this discussion seems to be segwaying a bit towards Q Theory I just have a word of advice. While many Q Theorists (and indeed many feminists as well) approach their critical project not solely as an affirmation of femininity, but as a broader acceptance of Otherness and a breaking down of binarization. However, there is perhaps an even larger group that would criticize such a notion as a destruction of identity and a cessation of struggle - if you are actually LGBTQ then this is a fine strategy but if not you are setting yourself up for a very complicated counter-k (or at least speaking for others). For the same reason that white people cannot put on a mask and suddenly be able to start freestyling poems about their experiences in the hood while running Afropessimism I think there is a problem with males running a fem k AND THEN claiming to be re-setting gender norms. While I have NO PROBLEM with guys running fem Ks and it probably is a way to break down binaries, claiming to move beyond your identity without a very blocked out defense of that is a bad idea (e.g. I have a lesbian seperatism file that is the wilderson of fem ks but I don't feel comfortable using it as a way to get a ballot - especially when the alt is to castrate politics).
  5. 1 point
    I've stopped engaging with him. If you fight with an idiot, they'll drag you to their level and win from experience. It takes a lot of privilege to respond to a thread about male engagement with feminism with "well patriarchy is good sometimes".
  6. 1 point
    The assumption in this thread that topical CPs can't be theoretically justified is kind of hilarious but kind of sad. Most people think they're legitimate. The resolution is the starting point. You pick a plan within that, and then you give up your right to the other arguments within the resolution. Otherwise the negative could respond to SPS plans by saying that space militarization was bad. If space militarization is bad, that might disprove the resolution, but not the plan. Similarly, topical CPs might affirm the resolution, but they negate the plan. Negating the plan is all that is necessary to win the debate, otherwise we shouldn't discuss plans at all and should only discuss the resolution as a whole. EDIT: For clarification, lots of people hadn't posted at the time I started writing this post. Everything after codyarmstrong's hadn't been written at the time I wrote this. I just submitted the post later. That's why I talked about an assumption that topical CPs are bad.
  7. -1 points
    Being a man is irrelevant with a Fem K. You can support women's equality to men as a man. If the other team tries to tell you otherwise just say that's "ad hominem" and not a reason any of the claims being made are any less valid.
  8. -1 points
    The vagueness of your post is quite irritating. What does such an understanding of the issue look like? How is it different from other understandings of the issue? Why? What is this difference? Why is it bad? I tend to think that it's fine if straight white cisgender males win rounds by discussing issues such as this. Yet from your tone I assume you disagree. Let's move beyond rhetorical questions. What do you think that it means when straight white cisgender males win rounds against minorities? Do you have an actual argument that this is bad, or is raising the mere possibility as much as you're intending to do in this thread? The presence of alternatives obviously isn't sufficient reason to avoid any particular argument. Again, what argument do you advance to defend your belief than authenticity is so important? Why is it that only "guys" should question their motivations for reading Kritiks and no one else? Here you conflate benefiting from a system of oppression and upholding such a system. There may be theories under which the two are equivalent. But you advance no such theories here. This is frustrating because it makes it very difficult to assess or engage your views on privilege. Despite the popularity of the opposite saying, answers really are much more important than questions. While your post does provide some of the latter, it does very little to achieve the former. Because your post has so few answers, I think it's more about signalling sympathy with minorities and outrage with oppressors than trying to give good advice. That sort of behavior is very counterproductive to making the world a better place, which is why I'm challenging it here.
  9. -1 points
    This distinction makes almost no sense. 1) If a black person does it in the academy its not academic cooption, but if a black person does in the same academy.....its not. 2) Also, the distinction between it being ok with no rap.....but not ok with rap. As if white people don't have pain & oppression. Have you seen pictures of poverty from West Virgina or LA's Skid Rod? Should I protest African Americans in professional sports who make milllions, who have more celebrity and economic power than me??? Their black bodies are actually VERY advantegous. Should I protest or physically attack Sports Illustrated models because they have bodies I will never have.....and that 99.5% of the population will never have? Should we physically attack those with "good luck" via body or other reasoning.
  10. -1 points
    @nathan: who are you quoting - you stripped the name. On rapping: If its someone else's rap, then its just like other evidence. (Assuming the performative aspects are not, themselves, original. Ie, a faithful reproduction of someone else's performance is simply bringing that performance into evidence). If its an original piece by the debater, then it is testimony (insofar as it is not an analytical argument or a summary of other evidence - certainly the performative aspects are testimony) and is inappropriate for any race. Testimony by debaters destroys the educational foundations of debate, by making it impossible to research or reference their evidence, since it is not publicly available. No one considers a private e-mail correspondence with a professor, economist, or other relevant authority to be appropriate evidence because it cannot be publicly accessed. That standard applies to all evidence, and is fundamental to the pedagogical mandate of the activity.
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-06:00
×