Jump to content

Spacehack

Member
  • Content Count

    166
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Spacehack last won the day on August 11

Spacehack had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

122 Excellent

About Spacehack

  • Rank
    Champion
  1. Yep. I feel like we're just an extension of Chicago from time to time. EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, both my original post and this one are saying exactly what you said, just perhaps in a more wordy way. The point I was tryna make is that the "big national circuit tournaments" are functionally the only tournaments Iowa teams go to in Iowa. I think my only tournaments in Iowa last year were Valley, Dowling, Caucus, state, and natquals. The rest were out-of-state.
  2. As everyone else has noted there's no real singular "midwest style". Debate in both Kansas and Missouri are their whole own entities, and having someone from those states speak on it is probably best for understanding. Other than that you have Chicago, which is generally fairly "policy" heavy, with the rare team that succeeds with a more critical style. Iowa (where I'm from) is functionally just an offshoot of Chicago/Illinois debate-wise, so non-"traditional" (in that it's nat circuit debate, no lay judges), but mostly policy oriented, with a couple of K teams. Minnesota and the Minneapolis area are generally more critical, but schools such as Blake succeed with a more policy-focused strategy. EDIT: I guess I can speak a bit more to Iowa since that's where I have experience. Local-circuit debate in Iowa is mostly non-existent and is reserved for the most part for novices or JV teams that are struggling. As such, all the Iowa teams compete mostly on the national circuit with the exception of like state, and so the Iowa "style" is functionally the same as whatever the national "style" is at the time.
  3. This thread made me cry. EDIT: I guess that came off a bit asshole-ish, but I just feel bad for the OP. They came in looking for a legitimate answer to the question, and the first few responses were either totally wrong or (at least one) failed attempt at trolling. EDIT 2: Nevermind there was like only 1-2 people that were totally offbase. I am just an asshole.
  4. Spacehack

    Big affs

    Yeah I remembered that right after I posted my comment. Maybe find a way to use an actor besides the USCG?
  5. Spacehack

    Big affs

    Icebreakers seemed to do fine against the T-military debate last year, I don't know why that would change next year.
  6. Idk about Sanctions though. Obama's going to veto and they don't have enough votes to override a veto. I think we're stuck in the same trap as most of Obama's second term of having no good politics scenario.
  7. (quick hint: it's spelled FOUcault, so that might explain why you didn't get desirable results.
  8. Step 3 (removing the enters) can be done with verbatim simply by pressing F3. Overall good tutorial though. I like how it simply shows what to do instead of trying to write it out. Sometimes written instructions can be difficult for me haha. Were I new to paperless debate this would be awesome.
  9. I'd be willing to also judge this round if you all don't mind. I'd also just provide input otherwise ala Argogate.
  10. This is where I believe you misinterpreted the OP (again though, I could be wrong). I believe the OP wasn't saying that we shouldn't discuss the gender binary because that leads to discussions of "one side being better than the other". I think we can all agree if that's the only reason to discount the topic we should probably still continue with it. The problem with this topic is that it excludes people OUTSIDE the gender binary. If they flip aff they would be forced to argue against their own very existence because they now have to say that A. gender is binary (which is where I think you get caught up: the question isn't whether discussion the gender binary is good or bad, it's that there isn't even a gender binary in the first place) and B. that means we should exclude people outside of that. This is where the topic becomes problematic, not just because it leads to discussions of "male v. female" Also I haven't seen the PF-bashing beyond a couple isolated incidents in this thread.
  11. Your math is right, but you're applying it wrong. That .01% chance is the chance any given high-school debater is going to fall into your categorization, not the overall number/chance of any people in high school debate. That would be 49000*.05 (using your numbers) = 2450. Admitting that you used high estimates brings me down to around 500-100 trans* members of the public forum debate community, but even then it does appear more sizable than you seem to be claiming. Also I don't see why util necessarily seems to mean we ignore all minority rights. (not that I personally agree with util, but again, not getting into that debate), but I don't see why util means we marginalize a section of the community in response to some "education" about this topic - I feel as if under a utilitarian perspective that would probably outweigh.
  12. Adding to this, just because a minority/marginalized group makes up a small portion of the population doesn't mean their concerns shouldn't be addressed. If anything, it means we should pay extra attention in order to be sure we're accounting for them.
  13. I believe (and I might be wrong on this one, I apologize if I am) you're missing the point of the OP. The problem with the resolution (IMO) isn't that the resolution discusses gender. Obviously we need to discuss gender in some context. However when you force people that lie outside of the traditional gender binary to debate against (via switch-side debate) THEIR OWN VERY EXISTENCE AND PLACE IN THE WORLD you run into some problems. Arguing that the resolution doesn't (or shouldn't) lead to discussions of the gender binary is the very problem itself: if we whitewash gender in terms of the binary, we marginalize those who fall outside/don't identify with it. Quick Edit: I do think Snarf raises some interesting points, and what's above isn't necessarily a reason to reject the resolution, I just think you might have a slight misunderstanding of the issue here.
  14. Sorry, but that's not what Frank Wilderson himself is talking about. Other authors may use the idea of the Black body to refer to all that is not male, white, etc. but Wilderson specifically is in the context of Black people. This can be seen by his explanation of the Middle Passage as being one of the defining moments of civil society - Wilderson thinks that all of where we are right now is defined by the existence of the Slave (and, to a lesser extent, the Savage), and its impossible for America, the West, etc. to exist without a conception of the Slave and without Anti-Blackness (note that this is different from Whiteness - Whiteness refers to a system which is meant to keep up White hegemony, whereas Anti-Blackness refers to a system designed to keep down the Black body - it may seem like a small distinction but this is important). So no, Wilderson isn't talking about the oppression of womyn, and other people of color, he's very specifically referring to the oppression of Black people and the Black body in civil society - ie the oppression of Black people is categorically different from the oppression of other PoC - this is why you see people reading stuff such as the Black-White binary K as a response to Wilderson - some feel as if his analysis excludes other non-White people.
×
×
  • Create New...