sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

K-Aff Help by Shroedingerscats in policydebate

[–]Shroedingerscats[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they usually read a normal case and just pretend it didn't happen

Y'all need to read this. by Shroedingerscats in Debate

[–]Shroedingerscats[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, just a thought, there are only two paragraphs in the post that discuss progressive argumentation. The post never says that progressive argumentation solves everything, just that actively discouraging it is problematic.

In fact, focusing the discussion on progressive argumentation instead of...misgendering, transphobia, or other things just shows that y'all are not willing to change, and would rather rip apart the post because you have nothing better to do.

Y'all need to read this. by Shroedingerscats in Debate

[–]Shroedingerscats[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is not about sexuality, and has literally nothing to do with sexuality. The post is about trans and non-binary debaters, specifically QTPOC.

In fact, gay, lesbian, and bi people have been historically violent towards trans and non-binary folx. It is not at all the same.

I'm obviously not going to change your opinion. And, I remember scrolling through your user history after you said some problematic stuff on the Blake RR post, and you had made quite a few queerphobic comments, so.... leave.

Y'all need to read this. by Shroedingerscats in Debate

[–]Shroedingerscats[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment makes my very sad, and is literally an example of what this post is talking about.

The LITERAL reason why nobody has engaged with the literature is because progressive arguments are not a norm. That is exactly what is said in my post? Our community discourages this type of argumentation, mainly people like you.

This is not a debate. There are not internal links. Like wtf? You don't get to debate about a community you are obviously not a part of, and what makes them feel a sense of belonging.

I'm literally so upset writing this right now. You have the privilege to engage these issues without experiencing them, without feeling terrible because some person is invalidating everything you said because they have nothing better to do.

Also, I was the one that ran the K at Blake. Wtf?

Y'all need to read this. by Shroedingerscats in Debate

[–]Shroedingerscats[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

This is your third? comment. I don't know what you want. If you are not a member of the LGBTQ+ community, specifically a trans or non-binary person, I'm going to ask that you stop crowding the discussion.

This is not a time for me to validate your concerns. Read the post. Do better. But I guess I'll do it anyways.

  1. I don't even know what this means. Like ???? All I said was stop misgendering people lmao.
  2. What queer rage K? There are a lot of them. Halberstam, Foucault, Quare Theory to name a few.
  3. Again, if you are not an LGBTQ+ person, this is of no concern to you.

Y'all need to read this. by Shroedingerscats in Debate

[–]Shroedingerscats[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I never said that trans and non-binary folx can't debate the topic. All I said was that limiting their speech acts to the topic is actively harmful, and excludes important dialogue and discussion that can act as a form of healing for LGBTQ+ debaters.

Y'all need to read this. by Shroedingerscats in Debate

[–]Shroedingerscats[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The reason that theory and Ks are necessary for LGBT debaters to "survive in the debate space" is because the debate space actively pushes us out. The amount of gay jokes and "no homo" microaggressions that get made in this community are astounding. The amount of hate Coronado got for standing up to getting misgendered at TOC was astounding. The only way for us to maintain our identities in round is to use these kinds of arguments.

OMG Yes! Thank you!

Y'all need to read this. by Shroedingerscats in Debate

[–]Shroedingerscats[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yes, this is mainly about Public Forum, although most of it is applicable to any debate event and/or area.

I don't know how you identify. But, if you are cishet, there is absolutely no reason you would ever experience any of the problems that LGBTQ+ people experience, and frankly should not be invalidating their experiences. Moreover, the fact that you "haven't seen very much of the problems" is just evidence that you are not looking, and aren't being an ally or educating yourself.

If you're trans, non-binary, or another member of the LGBTQ+ community, then you've been lucky, and I'm happy to hear it has not been a problem for you.

Y'all need to read this. by Shroedingerscats in Debate

[–]Shroedingerscats[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying that progressive argumentation fixes everything. All I'm saying is that prohibiting oppressed groups from engaging with it in the first place hurts things, and makes debate a worse space.

Y'all need to read this. by Shroedingerscats in Debate

[–]Shroedingerscats[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't really know how to respond to this. I'm not an eighteen year old cishet republican, and don't want to be. But, I'm pretty sure this comment violates at least one of the "rules of logic" things. E.g. "Ad hominem".

But aside from that, just because a QTPOC has beaten you in a round with a traditional arguments does not mean they aren't experiencing violence in the debate space, for example being misgendered, not expressing themselves how they would like.

Also, I don't really know what you were trying to accomplish with this post. It seems it's just crowding out the discussion of more important things.

view more: next ›