[eDebate] Fullerton DT is running CEDAW: ANS ROSS

Adam Symonds adamsymonds
Sat Sep 28 18:55:26 CDT 2002


hey, this isn't really adam symonds, this is rj (if you've been paying attention to the posts, i believe adam has been the only one to reference me as serena's partner).  this may not be as eloquent or well thought out as ross smith's tirade, but i figure since i'm involved in these debate as much as serena is, i should get in my two cents.

i have spent pretty much my entire debate career arguing one thing - procedurals.  before this year, debate was nothing more to me than free trips around the country to try and prove how the other team had skewed my ground or destroyed my education in some way.  that all changed this year when serena decided to transfer from asu to fullerton and (by decree of the powers that be) ended up debating with me.  she showed me that debate can actually mean something to people.  that's what i got from her when she approached me with the idea of running CEDAW even though (or maybe because) it wasn't in the topic.  she had a beef with the way treaty placement on the different topics went down, and she thought this would be the best way to voice her opinion about that.  i agreed to it, not knowing what to expect - half of me was scared shitless that we'd lose every aff round because most judges would reject us simply because we weren't in the topic, and the other half was excited that most of our aff debates would inevitably end up revolving around procedurals.  in the end, i think i got a lot more than i bargained for.

look, all i want is to have CEDAW included in the topic.  it's the only treaty ever created specifically to deal with the issue of gender discrimination, and it would be the most predictable addition to the resolution (this is in response to ross smith's bastardization of our argument with his multiple "affs" consisting of every politics scenario conceivable) because it was the only treaty, other than the core five, to appear in more than one resolution.  and i believe both adam and serena argued that if you agree in the round that CEDAW should be in the topic and want to debate substance, we'd be more than willing to oblige a debate on the merits of the plan.

i didn't set out to do this because i had an agenda, nor do i have anything from my life to complain about.  i'm not poor, i'm not disadvantaged in any way (other than being left handed, which makes flowing a pain in the ass).  i'm your average middle class heterosexual white male.  i'm doing this because i think it's the right thing to do.  too often discussion of gender discrimination is pushed to the back burner.  we had a chance to change that by including CEDAW in the core five, but we opted instead for a bilateral treaty that's gonna pass anyway and doesn't really do anything except allow for the discussion of nuclear weapons which CTBT already allowed for.

are we going to clear at major tournaments with this aff? maybe.  will we win the ndt? probably not.  but as long as glenn frappier keeps cutting kritiks (you heard right folks, glenn cut a criminology k for gsu), i believe there will be room for our aff even in the most hardened of hearts.  hell, you policy die-hards are the reason i'm having so much fun doing this.

rj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020928/25fcfa3a/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list