Jump to content

Whiny Senior

Member
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Okay

About Whiny Senior

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 06/11/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
    Ali Geren
  • School
    Marshfield High School
  • Location
    Marshfield
  1. ...we're just discussing our case. Sorry? I mean, isn't discussing our case better than calling each other 'bitch' and 'jackass' simply because we disagree? I thought so... guess I was wrong... I understand your argument about how debate isn't the best venue... just as I think you understand mine about how it is. I read Katie's post. She made some valid points. ...but I'm just defending my case and the movement.
  2. Fair point. But our argument is that before we can discuss alternative energy, there has to be a level playing field. And just because you can't change something completely doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Besides, we read a card in the aff by Griffin and Raider that says that breaking down sexism in the debate community is the first step towards breaking down sexism in the world. If you feel like racism is a problem in the debate community, by all means, write and run a project aff discussing that. More power to you. But ours STILL has nothing to do with the color of your skin.
  3. And the color of your skin has NOTHING to do with it. You can be a white woman, you can be a black woman, hell, you can be a pink woman with purple polka-dots. In SWMO, there is still sexism committed against you. NOT that there isn't racism, but we never even TALK about racism. Our argument, once again, is sexism.
  4. THAT'S why we're running the movement. By saying "But sexim will always occur" you only proove our point. We got people thinking. When people start thinking, mindsets change. And, sorry, but I still don't understand how we're 'destroying what debate was founded on.' Like Sammy J said, SWMO debate wasn't founded on sexism...
  5. ...I'm sorry, but have you read the ENTIRE thread? Because unless I'm very much mistaken, we got some people thinking and that was our goal. And out of curiosity, how are we killing what debate was founded on?!
  6. ...And the color of your skin has nothing to do with it. We're arguing sexism, not racism.
  7. I'm sorry you feel that way. We maintain that the best way to change the debate community is THROUGH debate. Just saying. If we wanted to change the OO community, we'd do OO.
  8. ...wow. ...no seriously. Wow. Did that just happen? Really? Wow.
  9. Question... Isn't having sexism "committed" (for want of a better word) against you a personal issue? This aff differs from others in that it IS personal--I mean, it's not like alternative energy is a 'personal' issue, but isn't sexism? Just an innocent question and not an insult, I'm just curious.
  10. Fair point. Like Judith says, it forces the other team to think about it. Sure, we could all sit around and have coffee and talk about womyn in debate, but it doesn't begin breaking down the mindset the way a debate round does. The conceding of the round was to prove a point, I believe. Again, Sarah and Haley, correct me if I'm wrong, but by conceding the round, they were able to proove (at least to a few) that the Movement is more important. It's all based on individual rounds, I believe. For example, I (or rather, Shawana, as she's the 2A) could have conceded our third round when we ran it, but it wouldn't have prooved anything. Conceding a quarters round simply made a point.
  11. Ideally, voting affirmative allows the team that runs it to advance, allowing more people to hear our voice. Of course, the ballot isn't really important to us. We want the judge to vote affirmative so that more people can hear our voice, but it's not about the ballot, not really. We argue that there are bigger problems than alternative energy and before we confront and overcome those bigger problems, we cannot discuss alternative energy. Shawna and I chose to run it in Prelims because we knew there was no way for us to break by that point and we wanted to have our voices heard. The decision to run it in an outround by Carthage was made before they knew who their panel was--and, yes, they were open-minded, but I guess you could call it luck of the draw. Carthage--and correct me if I'm wrong, Sarah--but Carthage also chose to run it because none of the Marshfield girls were able to break to outrounds, because we were all running the aff (and I don't blame ALL of it on the aff or sexism--debating well DOES play a part). The round took the first step. Like the Griffin and Raider card talks about, breaking down sexism in the debate community is the first step towards breaking down sexism in the world. It begins the process, basically. It gets people talking, which is a short-term goal of the aff. The long-term goal, of course, IS to increase womyn in the activity. Right now, according to Griffin and Raider, Warner, and Zolt-Gilburne, womyn are excluded for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that several arguments are made that don't neccisarily 'interest' them (that's Griffin and Raider). Of course, this sounds petty and vain, but basically our interpretation of that is that until the debate commumnity chooses to change and actually listen to other arguments, then womyn will never be fully included. I applaud your efforts at trying to integrate womyn into your squad. Remember that we never actually call our opponents sexist; rather, we call the debate community sexist. Basically our argument is that once we break down the mindset of sexism and exclusion in the debate community, womyn will join up and stay in the activity because they feel like they belong. As to the question of how we reach the overtly sexist judges not AT the tournament, the answer is that we continue running the affirmative. We have to take the first step. The round got people talking. That's the key. Talking breaks down the mindset.
  12. Ideally, voting affirmative allows the team that runs it to advance, allowing more people to hear our voice. Of course, the ballot isn't really important to us. We want the judge to vote affirmative so that more people can hear our voice, but it's not about the ballot, not really. We argue that there are bigger problems than alternative energy and before we confront and overcome those bigger problems, we cannot discuss alternative energy. Shawna and I chose to run it in Prelims because we knew there was no way for us to break by that point and we wanted to have our voices heard. The decision to run it in an outround by Carthage was made before they knew who their panel was--and, yes, they were open-minded, but I guess you could call it luck of the draw. Carthage--and correct me if I'm wrong, Sarah--but Carthage also chose to run it because none of the Marshfield girls were able to break to outrounds, because we were all running the aff (and I don't blame ALL of it on the aff or sexism--debating well DOES play a part). The round took the first step. Like the Griffin and Raider card talks about, breaking down sexism in the debate community is the first step towards breaking down sexism in the world. It begins the process, basically. It gets people talking, which is a short-term goal of the aff. The long-term goal, of course, IS to increase womyn in the activity. Right now, according to Griffin and Raider, Warner, and Zolt-Gilburne, womyn are excluded for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that several arguments are made that don't neccisarily 'interest' them (that's Griffin and Raider). Of course, this sounds petty and vain, but basically our interpretation of that is that until the debate commumnity chooses to change and actually listen to other arguments, then womyn will never be fully included. I applaud your efforts at trying to integrate womyn into your squad. Remember that we never actually call our opponents sexist; rather, we call the debate community sexist. Basically our argument is that once we break down the mindset of sexism and exclusion in the debate community, womyn will join up and stay in the activity because they feel like they belong. As to the question of how we reach the overtly sexist judges not AT the tournament, the answer is that we continue running the affirmative. We have to take the first step. The round got people talking. That's the key. Talking breaks down the mindset.
  13. AND we don't "demand to win the game because of this." Remember the Quarters round at Parkview? If not, allow me to remind you: ...They conceded because the Movement is more important than winning a debate round.
×
×
  • Create New...