CynicClinic

RFD:

I haven't forgotten about this - I've just had a lot of difficulty keeping up with my schedule lately and haven't had time to return to this round. Please rest assured, however, that I was having way too much fun to quit prematurely.

The issue is with the whole, "general prevalence," thing. It is a generalization, which is exactly the sort of mindset you want to avoid here. Since you've mentioned it, though, let's examine that statement. Although statistics vary (again, underreporting and inconsistent reporting are problems), here's an article that may change your perspective on male rape: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html From that sample, if you present the rape issue purely from the perspective of female victimization, you are disregarding the experiences of 38% of the victims surveyed - that's hardly an insignificant number. And the thing is, even if the number was 1%, you still shouldn't gloss over it, because trying to quantify a threshold at which suffering can be discursively disregarded is problematic in its own right.

Your logic is backwards here. It is problematic to assume that rape victims are of a particular gender, even if the victims are predominantly female, because that has a silencing effect on the other victims that are not so - not to mention that issues such as male victims being unwilling to come forward due to traditional masculine gender roles mean that we likely don't know just how prevalent that particular issue really is. Gender-neutralizing is the inclusive thing to do.

Good luck at District!

The 1NR may be delayed - I'm swamped at work and in class right now. I apologize for any inconvenience this causes.

I'll judge - here's my paradigm.

So should we just post our Condo 2AR and Framework 2NR now and save time, or...?

I agree with Ryan. The round that we attempted to do in this format never actually finished, largely due to the difficulties of coordinating the schedules of all 4 people involved. That said, I would love to give it another try - at least for a round.

I'm good with that as long as we can get a 3rd judge to complete the panel - any takers?

You know me so well, Ryan - that said, it does make sense that the guy studying semiotics would have a bone to pick with the flippant interpretation of words.

I don't always go for theory, but when I do, it's 4 different specification arguments. The word count should be 1,600 on the nose. Ready for CX! 2NC Holden.docx