Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Good

About Penguno

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 11/09/1988

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  1. Naturally the homosexual turns his back on the other homosexuals who write about this BS. You need to read the first page: "Draft Paper Only **please do not cite*"
  2. This whole thread just needs to go right on back into the closet.
  3. Heteronormativity doesn't exist. Gay people are just moral degenerates and do naughty things that should not be brought up in debate rounds. Why do I need to know what you do with your pervert friends when I read my space aff?? I don't like talking about hard power with gay people around (and really, only gay people run queer theory because it has nothing to offer outside of gay dude sin-rationalizing anyway.) I'm not judging gays, I just think they have an identity disorder and we should be talking about things more timely and relevant to the topic that we won't ever get to talk about, like hegemony and the economy.
  4. Penguno

    2011 TOC

    Engaging in debate and engaging debate are not mutually exclusive. Debate is a competitive activity, and maybe that does mean that sometimes people will run the argument for strategic purposes, but that is not to say that even in those instances something valuable doesn't emerge. Having those conversations can be immensely important for the people who are engaging in it, even if the motives to initially go into it are flawed. There's also ways to challenge teams who deploy it in that way. It's very difficult to say "X Person doesn't actually give a shit about 'projects' in debate." But if they engage in practices that prove that (methodologically contradicting itself, not engaging in their own framework, etc.) it should be easy to call them out on that and potentially win on it. There's a problem when you say you're trying to "deter" people from doing that. How exactly ARE you deterring people? This trope that they do this "every debate" and that being bad is so tired and not a real argument. This fear is so misplaced and such a major distraction from what happened. Yes, even teams like Beacon and others who challenge debate enjoy winning (SHOCKER.) A lot of people in high school are deterred from engaging in these debates because they don't think it's feasible. This sent out a message that's really important and provided a role model in the high school community for people who need these kinds of arguments. Finally the role model is in the TOC and not at CEDA or the NDT. It's your community that has finally rewarded this style of argumentation with the economy of the ballot. At the end of the day, that's such a bigger deal than all this bullshit "poser fear" and fear of others being un-genuine.
  5. Penguno

    2011 TOC

    Liam- I'm not exactly sure why you're quoting me and if you're indicating you fear things like what I'm saying. Some sort of clarification would be nice. However, it's silly to think that this will be incorporated into a 6 off strategy component when the point of the criticism is that it's very much methodological. Running it with 5 other off cases makes it significantly easier to defeat because of significant framework problems. Maybe some people will run these arguments because they think they are winners, but there's still value that comes from getting to know that literature. The idea that no one would learn from it is kinda absurd just because its incorporated in strategies; education is probably inevitable. Even in your incredibly warped sense of what the Fem K is, people learn about concepts like how masculinity becomes hegemonic and how politics is defined in ways that reassert male values and dominance. At the end of the day it's probably better that minority debaters have someone in the high school circuit that they can look up toward that prove that focusing on their identity can not only be personally liberating but also successful. That very aspect outweighs your silly fear of inevitable bad debater reappropriation. If you really cared about the pedagogical possibilities this very phenomenon offered to the community, you would realize that. Bad debaters who don't know the argument and do it incorrectly will lose. If you do your work, come to know these types of arguments, and are decent at debate, you should be able to beat them. If you can't, maybe you should do work and think about how to approach these arguments that are undeniably inevitable.
  6. Penguno

    2011 TOC

    First, I want to congratulate Mtn Brook on breaking and the great work from Ross. Y'alls hard work paid off and I'm so glad to see my alma mater this successful! Nothing but love. <3 Second, what Beacon did was groundbreaking and deserves nothing but praise. Fear of "posers" is as silly as saying we should fear posers who run the politics disad or a CP because other people had success with those arguments. Fact is that arguments such as Beacons have incredible pedagogical value and a place within the community. Bad debaters who take other people's arguments is inevitable. Yet these forms of arguments can be important for the people who advocate them that you're calling "posers." Debate should be a place where people can learn to be advocates, and that certainly includes identity politics. Just have a strategy against this type of debate; it's really not that difficult. I wrote more on this on the official thread for identity politics / performance arguments in the critique section. Congratulations to everyone else who broke as well!
  7. If you want to stick to philosophy that doesn't defend liberation of the oppressed, I suggest Wendy Brown's Nietzschean criticism of identity politics. There's also plenty of other postmodernist who think these types of politics are bad (the anti-identity collectives that are found in a lot of strains of queer theory.) As for predictability, at some point in time we've got to stop and ask ourselves if identity politics arguments are really all that unpredictable. If you think a framework debate and saying "OMG -- I had NOOOOO idea that a team would EVER talk about whiteness/patriarchy/heteronormativity/whatever" you really need to get a clue. These types of arguments have been run for quite a long time and all they ask is that you have a methodological disadvantage to what they are doing. That's really, really easy to do no matter what side of the camp you're on. Besides, you get to read the best form of the politics disad: the identity politics disad.
  8. Identity politics teams are not always saying "Fuck the res and the rules." There are various strands. 1. Through encountering the resolution they believe that there is a certain group of people who are oppressed that need a new and different kind of politics than what is traditionally upheld in debate (Towson, Liberty, CSUF). Or they recognize that the resolution is inherently structured by an opressive social structure and traditionally affirming the resolution or engaging the affirmative at the level of political process and disads is not a useful strategy for confronting the real problem (Beacon). Sometimes this form of debate involves personal stories, sometimes it doesn't. It's really not hard to be prepared for this debate. If you're a straight up team, maybe try reading specific disads to not having a political program or engaging the state, and why that is problematic for the oppresed people they are trying to liberate. That's a lot better than a framework thats like "lolz cheaterz go talk about this somewhere else." 2. A recognition that debate practices (line by line, speed reading, techne, jargon, flowgocentrism, diversion from experience, call for "qualified" authors as if the only people who are legitimate have PhDs, etc.) Usually these affs are not simply bitching and moaning, but instead recognize the hegemonic practices within debate and use their speeches to prove there is a different way we can engage eachother and understand issues. This form can be tied to the strategies above, but that is not always the case. For a lot of people who are disadvantaged, its not that easy to assimilate into this style of debate. Even if its true that people can learn all these things, debate is not attractive for these people who need debate the most. People who are oppressed and disadvantaged should learn how to defend argumentation and strategies in ways that are applicable to the real world and speak towards their social position. In fact, part of the problem is that people who are oppressed think that oppression is natural and inevitable instead of recognizing it as part of a larger social system of dominance (ie the intersections of whiteness, patriarchy, capitalism, heteronormativity, able-bodyism, etc.) Making debate into an activity that is more attractive for these people and gives them avenues to propose strategies for liberation gives them political agency outside of debate rooms and can help mobilize resistance movements. This discussion should happen in AND out of debate -- there is an economy of ballots that changes debate practices. Speed, techne, cps, kritiks, etc were not "mainstream" until they won rounds. Individual debater success CAN change debate practices -- Sarah Lundeen is a perfect example. She was the first person to read gendered language in the 90's and as a result, people still today gender edit their evidence because the community has recognized that certain discourse can have power (even if you do it just so you won't link to it and lose a round, that still recognizes the power of the criticism.) Now a lot of these teams will have a framework that is about methodologies or strategies to liberate the oppressed. Towson and others make their framework about whose strategy is best for resisting whiteness. Within this framework, you have ground. They have defended a specific methodology upon which they think we can solve a problem. All you have to do is prove that that is wrong. Are they a focus on black liberation? Sounds like a particular struggle that distracts us from universal movements against capital or something else. Propose a counter methodology that avoids a disadvantage to what they are talking about. A trick if you are negative against these teams is to ask them to give up the permutation so you can make the debate a forum for discussing the best strategy for liberation. If they say no, then it proves they are an ingenuine form of politics -- which in the context of their type of debate is REALLY, REALLY bad. Competition is inevitable -- two teams, one winner. If their framework is really about liberation or methodologies, then competition can be used in a productive way so that debaters can engage in discussions as to which team has articulated the best strategy. As for being privileged and engaging these debates: part of their argument IS that you have to confront your privilege. What you are describing is simply that you are uncomfortable. They have a specific reason as to why that is good (comfortability reproduces uncritical reflection of privilege.) But just because YOU are white or upper class doesn't mean you can't investigate literature that isn't. Find liberation literature that says particular strategies are messed up and we should have a better one -- investigating that is an act of recognizing that there are messed up social systems in the world and that you can engage in acts of solidarity with particular resistance movements that are better than the affirmative.
  9. Congratulations to Mountain Brook! Much love from Spokane, -JS
  10. Still available for NFL's -- Will be in Birmingham for the Summer, so you don't need to pay for a ticket or lodging. Debated at Mountain Brook for three years (TOC debater) and have debated at Gonzaga for two years now. got questions or want some quals? Jsydnor88@gmail.com Thanks! Jim Sydnor Gonzaga '11
  11. This K has actually had a successful track record.. It's a throwback to Rahul and my senior year. We qualled for the TOC and beat College Prep KP at the TOC with it. I've used a similar K to this in college rounds and havn't lost going for it yet... And despite the mission failing, I know TQ did win a fair amount of rounds with this K during the year. Fullerton GM ran a very similar argument (more DeBeavoir) on the college Middle East res and I'd say they were a pretty successful team....
  12. Will be in Birmingham for the Summer, so you don't need to pay for a ticket or lodging. Debated at Mountain Brook for three years (TOC debater) and have debated at Gonzaga for two years now. got questions or want some quals? Jsydnor88@gmail.com Thanks! Jim Sydnor Gonzaga '11
  13. Congratulations to Mountain Brook for winning JV and getting to semis in novice!
  14. Good luck to mtn brook on getting their third bid.
  15. Congrats to Mountain Brook TQ on their second bid
  • Create New...