Jump to content

Ironyz

Member
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Okay

About Ironyz

  • Rank
    Novice
  1. I have this counterplan that I'd like to run one round as a troll option. It's cut from this David Brooks op-ed about statues and just authority, so the CP is to build statues of my team. The net benefit is authoritarianism good. My answer to perm is performativity.
  2. What does everybody think about how policy debate looks as it is now? Are you satisfied with what it represents? Do you wish parts of it changed? If so, what parts? How do you think we can make debate better and more accessible? What is a good way to promote discussion about how to make the debate community more inclusive? I think that debate has evolved in a negative way. I do think there are positive aspects, but when certain people are excluded from the activity, it makes it problematic to enjoy the traditional affirmation of how things work. I wish that there were more inclusive resolutions that didn't exclude bodies based on their appearance and/or life. Certain resolutions ignore the way in which oppression is projected into them. I do not know how we can have a meaningful discussion without looking at the underpinnings of how the debate community works and how the topic functions. I do think that in contest round competition, these discussions are still meaningful. It challenges our normative views. It includes previously excluded narratives. I think both of these forums can be forms for change, but excluding discussion in a competitive framewerk does not change what happens under these competitive framewerks. I hereby declare this thread an open forum for discussion about ways in which the topic, as well as the debate community, is exclusive. Anybody is welcome to participate in this discussion. -DJ
×
×
  • Create New...