[eDebate] Debate Like A "Gyrl!"

[debate at ou.edu]

Look,

I posted my debaters aff to find out how we can talk about gender in the community.  If you think one of the quotes references you, then feel free to feel accused.

Your response my students will never be read by my student.

She quit.  She is not doing it anymore, so you dont have to worry about you  (though i dont know who you are and no names were used)  She cannot find space to be herself in debate.  Kritiks treat her like she is dumn, lye to her after rounds, and then she also gets insulted by the other teams.  I would quit too.

Feel better now.

Jackie Massey
OU Debate

----- Original Message -----
From: Lindy Simonsen <lindycws at yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:41 pm
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Debate Like A "Gyrl!"

> This is posted on behalf of Chris Thomas
> 
> 
> I asked Lindy to post this after I was told by my teammates that I 
> was actually referenced in someone?s affirmative case. I had to 
> question why I was referenced; did I do something really 
> intelligent in a round and they want to reward me? Did I say 
> something really offensive and they hate me? Was I just 100% really 
> hot in my hot pink high tops and they want to know where I bought 
> them? But no. It was the references within the context of 
> Oklahoma?s case concerning the way in which we view femyles and 
> gender inequalities in debate-In a round at UNI this year I made 
> the comment that, ?You should not debate feminism with a womyn 
> studies major because you will loose?
.but I think Oklahoma and 
> this team specifically fail to realize a couple of things

> 
> 
> 
> 1. You all talk about the power of words and the way in which we 
> use these words. You all argue the way in which we frame things are 
> very important and I am almost 100% sure that you all would not be 
> opposed making sure you understand what and how people use those 
> words. My comment to your team was never intended to mean that 
> because you are not a womyn?s study major you cannot discuss your 
> ideas of feminism and referencing me in that context is not only 
> insulting but degrading. I should not have to apologize for my 
> actions in that round because the team in which I debated never 
> truly told me that they were so offended by my comment. Not only 
> that but next time I hit an Oklahoma team I will make sure not to 
> have any fun nor make any type of joke in the round. Sorry for 
> trying to have some fun in the round-if you teams cannot understand 
> humor maybe they need to learn that before feminism. And if for 
> some reason you did take my comment wrong and you hate me for it, I 
> apologize. I
> understand how things can be taken out of context in debate rounds 
> and in general and I never meant to make enemies out of a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. And if we want to discuss saying horrible things in the round I 
> distinctly remember having my femyle partner being told that 
> because she is a womyn and she debates that she should not read 
> that war is bad, that war kills mass amounts of people or that war 
> should be weighed as an impact. It bewildered both of us in and 
> after the round as to why Erum should not be able to debate the way 
> she wants to debate. Isn?t this your argument? Why should you all 
> be forced to debate impact story after impact story instead of 
> individual impacts? But if I understand it correctly, forcing my 
> partner not to read what she wants to read is the same harm you see 
> in our debate community today. 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I don?t remember this but I was never asked whether or not I 
> could be places in your affirmative case and be mentioned in such a 
> disgusting and insulting way. I do not feel like having my 
> integrity, my morals and my name be smeared across the floor 
> because you want to make a point. This is even worse when the 
> comment you quote is misquoted and misinterpret-where does this 
> end? It is legit for Erum and I to say ?we hit this one Okalahoma 
> team once and Boooooooy where they shitty!? I do not think this 
> would be polite or acceptable in any manner.  If you continue to 
> feel the need to reference me such a manner- I will have zero 
> problem doing the same for your teams. Just kidding, I will not 
> sink that low. 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Assuming makes an ass out of you and me. Now before you go 
> quoting me again in your affirmative case just listen. Sure I am in 
> the womyn studies program here at KU, that does not mean I am any 
> better than other debaters who debate feminism-I am pretty sure of 
> that. And if you had the time to ask myself, my partner or anyone 
> on my team whether that comment was meant in any sort of insulting 
> manner they would have laughed and told you no. Do it now
as you 
> read this find the e-mail of a KU debater or even e-mail myself 
> (csthomas at ku.edu) and ask me and let me explain. I understand my 
> humor is kind of sarcastic and out there but I do not think my 
> humor is a reason to punk me and deem me as a dickhead-because 
> simply I am not. 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have any questions or want to discuss keeping me in your 
> speeches, contact me freely. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Thomas
> 
> KU Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> debate at ou.edu wrote:
> Does this offend you?
> 
> So here is the problem. Our attempt to discuss these issues has now 
> alienated several of the womyn debaters in our region from my team. 
> This is such a complicated dilemma. Many womyn (admittantly) claim 
> that they have to change who they are to be successful in the 
> activity. When we are making our argument, it becomes offensive to 
> those whom were successful because they feel we are attacking them 
> personally because of the way in which the process has evolved. 
> How do we make our position more appealing? It seems that in our 
> strive to talk about inclusion, we have only strengethed other 
> divsions between underrepresented groups of people. This becomes a 
> more significant dilemma when we do strike sheets. Actually, doing 
> strike sheets hurts considering the ideolgical divide of debate.
> 
> Then the double loop in the nexus. Many of the womyn whom we seem 
> to have alienated prefer traditional policy styles of debate and 
> thus are not only offended by our argument, but also disagree with 
> our style of argument. 
> 
> As I judged a semi-final round this weekend, Britt from UTD asked 
> me how he could have convinced me realism is good.
> I am still thinking on this. I am still thinking on is "ideology 
> prevailing over argument in most debates." Not only in my 
> decisions, but in many other peoples decisions. I definately think 
> this is not fair to the debaters, no matter who does it.
> 
> This topic definately has a double divide, the critical/policy 
> divide (false dichotomy in my mind) and the ideological 
> differentation. Which is I think is a more prevailing and 
> controlling mechanism.
> 
> These stories were based upon 4 rounds of debating at UNI, the 
> affirmative was written by two of my first year students who is in 
> their first semester of policy debate.
> 
> I also wanted to post this to prevent asserted notions of top down 
> approaches at OU. Our debaters think for themselves, they are not 
> "tools for our open team and coach".
> 
> Peace,
> 
> Jackie
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Debate Like a Gyrl Affirmative
> 
> How debate makes me feel!
> 
> My story about debating this topic.
> 
> I??m new to debate, as is my partner. We joined because this topic 
> was a forum to discuss what we care about. In this case, it was the 
> One child policy, China??s blatant human rights abuse against women 
> and children. We said that forced abortions should be stopped. 
> Here??s what we heard;
> 1. We were only telling a ??sob story??, only trying to sully the 
> judge??s rational thinking with our silly emotional notions of pain 
> and suffering.
> 2. Nuclear war always outweighs forced abortions??the devastation 
> is greater. Tell that to a woman in China.
> 3. That we could never talk about women??s rights in this forum 
> because we aren??t willing to work in a fiat world and assign an 
> arbitrary tariff as the price for a woman??s reproductive rights
> 4. We were told not to debate feminism with a women??s studies 
> major??as if his scholarship invalidated our voices.
> 5. We were told 3 times in one tournament that if we were going to 
> debate feminism, we had to do it ??balls to the wall?? well here it 
> goes??
> Why does debate work the way it does? Why should I as a debater 
> have to affirm a belief I don??t agree with as a person in order to 
> win a round? Why do we elevate some abstract form of ??education?? 
> achieved in a narrow framework of make believe policymakers 
> forecasting a light shower of Uranium in the next week if our judge 
> doesn??t vote for them? What happened to the way we feel?
> 
> THE PLAN TEXT: WE AFFIRM THAT THE RESOLUTION THE USFG SHOULD 
> SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE DIPLOMATIC AND ECONOMIC PRESSURE ON THE PRC 
> IN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: HUMAN RIGHTS, TAIWAN, 
> NONPROLIFERATION, THE ECONOMY IS A GENDER BIASED TOPIC. WE SHOULD 
> EVALUATE THE WAY IN WHICH WE DEBATE, AND REFORM DEBATE TO MAKE IT 
> MORE ACCEPTING TO FEMININE VOICES.
> 
> We refuse to play the game of debate??we believe that the words 
> said in this round count outside of it. We will contend that the 
> need for an examination of the gender bias within our community is 
> required to make space for the voices that are excluded. Our 
> speeches are a necessary starting point to help open up the spaces 
> for people who want to debate like gyrls. That??s right! Debate 
> like a gyrl! And we are proud of it. This topic forces masculine 
> values in several ways; first, the idea that we can ??pressure?? 
> china like a subordinate feminine being. Second, we must use 
> diplomatic and economic pressure forcing a more masculine pursuit 
> of the plan. Third, because we must endorse the state and thus the 
> militarism endorsed by the state. Fourth, because ?? of the topic 
> areas are about nuclear weapons, ?? is about the economy and the 
> idea of economic competition. This leaves only ?? of the topic to 
> be held concerning people and their suffering, and those who decide 
> to talk about these
> things must compete with the other ?? of the topic advertising 
> nuclear war and economic collapse; what??s a little concrete human 
> suffering in the face of prospective death and starvation? Even the 
> term human rights is cloaked in gender biases.
> 
> We??re here to say that we only want the ballot for one reason; to 
> make sure this argument is read in other rounds, to make sure that 
> incoming debaters see it and see that they too can debate like 
> gyrls, that they can reject the masculine topic and talk about what 
> matters??the human beings affected in the post-fiat world. We??ll 
> be policymakers when our opponents stop scenario building.
> 
> Our argument is not that sexism is bad, so we win. It is that we 
> need resistance against the gender bias in debate, against the 
> surprisingly correlative absence of female judges and female 
> debaters, and against the obvious absence of humanity in rounds. If 
> you believe us, then you should want us to win. If you don??t 
> believe us, maybe you should reevaluate why you love to debate.
> 
> If we looked in a case list and pre-round disclosure and your 
> arguments were soaked in the war talk of the defense intellectual 
> community, if you??ve affirmed the topic without critiquing it, if 
> you??ve restrained your own emotions, or have asked others to 
> restrain theirs, our argument applies to you.
> 
> Now, Carol Cohn the Sr. Research Scholar at the center for 
> psychological studies in the nuclear age 1993 will tell us what 
> gendered discourse means and how it has affecter her. She??ll tell 
> us about the people who are responsible for the scenarios and 
> ??research that is utilized to create our topics and serve as 
> ??evidence?? to the debate community.
> 
> [Read Cohn 1??red team story]
> 
> Andrew and I are here today because we are the red team; we have 
> been singled out as the ??wimps?? in previous rounds and no one 
> else should have to feel the way we did. The discourse we use as 
> policymakers preemptively brands debaters concerned with what??s 
> right over what??s dominant as wimps; even if people don??t see 
> this discourse as obvious, it exists. Not seeing it only worsens 
> the problem. Cohn furthers her story;
> 
> [Read Cohn 2????rationality??]
> 
> We want to create room for the debaters who want to talk about the 
> individual, to change the entire weighing mechanisms our debates 
> are based upon. How does one ??outweigh?? pain and suffering? How 
> do we quantify pain? With body counts? What is torture then? Why 
> have rights, beyond the right to life in that paradigm? Why must we 
> be topical if there is an issue of greater importance? To further 
> debate? Why further a debate that is outmoded and out of touch with 
> what is important in the world? Why do we value education so highly 
> in a realm where we are only educated about masculine ideas? Cohn 
> tells us why these questions aren??t being asked.
> 
> [Read Cohn 3????thought censor??]
> 
> 
> It??s clear, though, that these questions need to be asked in order 
> to win a round. Cohn finishes her story, and tells us why.
> 
> [Read Cohn 4????what gets left out????]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>        	
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
>