Ethics of changing language in evidence

[Matthew Kuss]

*oooooh i have a cool idea!
*how about we stop debating evrything out?
*some things are just not debatable!

*sure there are different justifications for handling gendered language in
*different ways but one is not more logical than the other.  yall just like
*to debate everything out like there is always a right way to do things and
*there isn't.  when we try to debate about things that are unresolvable we
*begin to hurt people's feelings and piss people off.  and it's for no
*reason.  oooh i know why don't we discuss clinton's political capitol like
*usual!  isn't that what everyone wants to hear anyways?
*
*aiight peace out!
*oh and this wasn't hester- it was rashad.
*don't hate on me either because i was just being real!

Well, you will be pleased to know that the discussion has been shifted, by
me at least, back channel.

However, I hope you can realize that it was not about logical ways of
handling gendered language. It was about what is okay to do in a debate
round. Whether or not it is okay to alter evidence. I think this in an
important issue, independent of the gendered aspect of a card.

I would think that it would be a fruitful discussion to determine how far
one can alter a card used in a round. And while it may be keen to try to
exclude that type of discussion now, it will be held eventually.

Matt