Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Good

About jz01

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 09/15/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
    John Zhao
  • School
    Glenbrook South
  • Location
  1. this isnt true. there are amazing literature on why international agreements specifically in the context of CEDAW fails because its based on faulty premises of gender neutrality. if cp is so popular.. perm do both shields the plan. sex discrimination is illegal. cp must spend money, it creates an affirmative obligation for the fed gov to implement programs to combat domestic violence, etc. EDIT: i don't think there is an "omg awesome end all be all gender cp". it all depends on the specific internal links of the aff.
  2. Trying to install the debate countdown timer but I can't find a link to it ... they're all dead. Anyone got a copy of this specific timer they can reupload? Please and thank yous.
  3. again, this completely misuses the pp. pp is used when there is lack of scientific consensus on objective harms, not subjective morality. its not whether you can prove its dangerous, but whether you can prove its life. that you can't do, nor can you ever, because its an opinion. you can't use the pp to prove the validity of the pp. thats circular. pp requires existence of life, there is only potential life. "since the fetus will become a life it will become apart of the public, and therefore the act of abortion is bad because it is directly harming hte public." that just roundabout way of saying we should protect potential life. where does the "opposition to disprove it" come in? through the abortion debate. thats completely circular. by this definition, since women are already part of the public, the act of abortion is good, because it is already helping the public. what public is more valuable? [reinsert rest of abortion debate] also, the precautionary principle is a guide for policymakers, not the scientific community. it is a widely known scientific principle, but not one that is widely applied. look it up, we barely use a strong precautionary principle.
  4. interpretation is the same as redefining. even if its an interpretation, it is one that is not used by the rest of the scientific community, which nullifies the credibility of your argument. "its right to life outweighs the mothers right to her own body, the fetus should not be killed and should be allowed to live" how did you interpret the precautionary principle to say this? again, arbitrary and self-serving.
  5. ok i skipped a bunch of this discussion, i just wanted to ask a question... how does the precautionary principle apply to abortions? wiki: The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. someone claimed that since pp is accepted in common science, point that pp is used in pro life arguments prove its validity. how does the generally accepted "precautionary princple" apply in this instance? redefining pp as "Precautionary principle is talking about how when something may become full life, we should treat it as though it is life" seems arbitrary and self-serving. am i missing the boat or something?
  6. jz01

    Education Bad

    yeah, you're pretty much exaggerating and understating the evidence. but tell me, what constitutes proof in your eyes? also, i dont think i ever said debate was racist (if i did, i mispoke). i said its exclusionary. there is a difference.
  7. abortion has been legal since 1973
  8. oh noes! no fem link! thats a voter.
  9. jz01

    Education Bad

    http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-2.html http://opencaselist08.wikispaces.com/Towson+08 towson's 1ac when they won ceda (btw, mills refers to the racial contract if you're interested in reading more) from a different thread 1ac w/ cites Played music Shelton K. wrote an article on Black participation that expressed many concerns from black debaters about the predominately white community. He concluded Hill 97’ “Debate like the”…”of African Americans.” We see the western ideology that is rampant in this activity as white aesthetic that takes the white body and existence as the ideal debater and one who is normative Pegg McIntosh’s article unpacking the invisible knapsack of privilege “whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will alow them to be more like us. The somatic norming of the white body in this activity makes the white debate performance ideal and average Mills 97 “Finally, the norming”…”and dark races.” Tim wise a former debater describes how whiteness props up in this activity Wise 05 “I say that”…”the Nazi’s would win.” Some main practices that become structural norms to prop up the whit aesthetic 1. The sole reliance on traditional authors 2. Silence on the issue of white supremacy 3. Use of objective disconnected narrative These claims of fairness, objectivity, and predictability are ways to marginalize the oppressed and silence our voices Delgado 92 We have cleverly built power’s view of the appropriate standard of conduct into the very term fair. Thus, the stronger party is able to have his/her way and see her/himself as principled at the same time. “Imagine for example”…””performance of debate.” Larry Neal sheds light on this “Hoyt Fuller in his essay,”…”their colonizing gaze.” Bell hooks writes “That bls is a phrase.”…”despite racist domination.” Debate would become a space where we orient ourselves towards methods of liberation and justice -Resolutions would not be solely focused on how the USFG should do a certain action but how we as academics have agency to change the conditions of our society -People of color would not feel the psychic trauma of the white gaze when they present a revolutionary policy to liberate the oppressed -So called objective standards would not be the only criteria to adjucate rounds because they are rooted in a narrative of the stronger party -The education produced here will relate to how one lives and behaves and relates to formulating strategies to liberate the oppressed and dismantle white supremacy These would be some introductory visions of debate instead of propping up imperialist agenda and role playing the oppressor that will be exported to larger society Willaim Spanos “I am very much”…”world must occur.” White students have more ability to exert court whiteness into our furture political systems McKinney 05’ “Thus, white students”…”will be eradicated.” Questioning the legitimacy of the debate community Giroux 06’ “Reclaiming higher education”…”the intellectual community.” This activity has been on that has grown from the roots of white supremacy. The methods of the debate reflect whit ways of viewing and knowing the world. This method is presented in a privileged illusory fait fantasy world that is uncritical of racism and white supremacy Charles Mills 97’ “thus in effect”…”Fridays and Sambos.” This makes white supremacy and the white aesthetic an invisible unnamed system that has made the modern world what it is today Charles Mills 97’ “White Supremacy is the unnamed”…”political, are highlighted.” We must make a framework to address theses claims at their root As Charles Mills said. “what is needed”…”rights and duties.” Our FW- Dayvon and I believe Debate should be about the liberation of the oppressed and changing conditions of this white supremacist institution Our FW is who best engages consistent practice and advocacy that advances the liberation of the oppressed The white aesthetic creates objects to use as pawns in their overall game of exclusion Dayvon and I are constantly forced to become objects of the particular type of education and ground produced in this activity that isn’t conductive of our identity. WE ARE THE TRANSGRESSORS WHO NEED TO BE DESTROYED AND PUNISHED BY THE BALLOT. Larry Neal 68 “The western (white) aesthetic”…”system of ideals.” Thus Dayvon and I advocate that the debate community should embrace a Revolutionary aesthetic to destroy the dominate white western aesthetic As black makes we don’t embrace a universal aesthetic because our social location must be infused in our discursive acts to lead credents to the issue we speak of- our methodology of a revolutionary aesthetic is a way for people to self determine their own way to view identity and how to topple oppression that faces them. Claiming individual innocence is a white defense mechanism- honoring the claim ensures the perpetuation of racism DiAngelo 06 “At the same time”…”most superficial ways.”
  10. jz01

    Education Bad

    it's our reliance on evidence. whoever has the most evidence wins. whoever has the evidence from the most qualified sources wins. there are certain structures for how to debate -- policy debate rewards teams who can field mass squads, with large amounts of coaches to do intensive and specific research. the very way we speak in debate -- not just speed -- but the actual format favors a very white culture which minorities cannot connect with. as for how can this aff be alternative -- i'm not a performance debater. i've hit performance teams and heard them, mostly they claim their advocacy as a project within debate to make it more inclusive. this involves an alternative mode of presentation that does not rely heavily (but still does) on evidence, and performance. usually also de-emphasizes line-by-line (but does not mean not responding to arguments). also involves framing the ballot as a way of affirming their project. its not a questioning of standing "outside" policy debate, but reforming it. btw, its zhao, not zhou.
  11. jz01

    Education Bad

    most debate arguments are bastardizations of their authors original argument. i'm not talking about what freire would believe in reality, but how debaters argue in a round. black aesthetic doesn't contradict what i said...i dont know are you trying to make a point or just explaining something? if you continue reading (from the passage above): ...this seems like a pretty good link to traditional policy debate. many performance teams (i've had brenda montes as a lab leader at michigan) criticize the faith and memorization of policy debate.
  12. jz01

    Education Bad

    true, but most performance teams would probably argue he hates the process, nature, and style of education that traditional policy debate fosters.
  13. first, yeah i am right about the whole funding thing. second, yeah, there would be backlash -- directed at the courts, not the president. second, your argument is illogical, abortion debates have already occurred, and been compromised over for health care. the plan would be fueling a controversial fight -- since its already done with. why would democrats fight again? that makes no sense. they wouldn't. they would not try to get in a huge debate...when they are trying to pass health care? also, i hope you know congress does follow a schedule. congressman dont just get on the fucking podium and rant about how bad supreme court decisions are. why would obama get tied up in this? hes not a dumbass. 1 appointment does not = plan. more judges had to vote... obama would distance. normal means = delay, plus diff actor is a bad analogy for courts aff. delay is bad because severs out of timeframe for aff which kills aff ground. that doesnt occur for a courts aff. its not a diff actor, resolution says usfg? this seems pretty legitimate, get your head of the gutter, just because most people reads congress doesn't make alt actors "OMG ILLEGIT" or other normal means situations "OMG ILLEGIT". and yeah, entitlement programs means the legislative and executive branches dont have to lift a finger. maybe read something about the poverty topic before posting in the poverty forum. and if you read my actual post, i said its not a question of shielding. supreme court is entirely different body. i just feel like im repeating myself.supreme court doesn't get percieved by the public nor media, no one knows what the fuck they do, nor percieve that actions as subjective. fights have occured like... 4 times in the past how many decades over a controversial issue? courts affs like abortion wont have solvency deficit issues, most are based on k advantages, not nuke war/terrorism.
  14. i dont know if you are kidding. but dont do this.
  • Create New...