Was The Rutgers Strategy Justified? (NDT Finals 2016-2017) in Culture Posted March 31, 2017 · Report reply I know I'm a bit late but I just saw this and wanted to respond. I watched the round before it was removed. I come from a white place of privilege and although there were a few comments in which I thought were unnecessarily malicious. I agree the overall stratagey was acceptable. Looking at it from a concept of ethics in which the debate community resides in malicious action against opponents in a debate space should not be allowed. One however must weigh the morals of what happened from the perspective of what people feel in their own position which I believe the uncomforability is alloweed. I also believe that people from a position without or with less provoke especially poc do intrinsically face bias in everyday life and in an ideal world other societal memebers can lift them up. When that is not possible which it seems to be indicated to force the conversation to increase confirbility it is necessary to create tension. Martin Luther King had a 4 step philosophy he used to take action a drehen he said all else failed non violent protest was the last resort used to force tension in spotlight. The means at which it was forced might be disputed but the fact I just read 6 pages on cross x about this shows the discussion has been forced. I do not know if they could have had such a large impact on the community doing it another method. I always would like to praise Georgetown for not directly insulting them back. I believe the self determination and moral integrity there was good. It's too bad that people believe the biggest impact was who won the round when in reality it is the events that followed. Despite debate being a competitive space the more important aspect is to learn how to argue and the world around you including other people's struggles.