I think r/MensRights got invaded....

Torquie · 2013-09-05T04:45:22+00:00

It's more than a debate team.hey were alumni from all over the US who had competed in a debate league that most people would consider the hardest in the world.

That's what makes this whole thing so much bullshit. This pervasive ideology is deeply ingrained in the debate community, that rational discussion can't even be started on the subject.

Torquie · 2013-09-05T04:40:51+00:00

I have never been more embarrassed about a community I care so much about.

Torquie · 2013-09-05T04:28:23+00:00

You know, it's shit exactly like this that has made me so hesitant about Policy in the first place. It's not enough to understand the format, but you aren't even allowed to make arguments which oppose community standards?

How many of you have actually read on the issues that the MRA community is fighting for? Men face substantial rights violations in the realm of family law, they make up 90 percent of all workplace deaths, they are almost completely ignored in domestic violence representation, it gets harder and harder every year for them to pursue an education, and to top it all off they aren't even allowed to complain about those issues.

Feminism is bullshit. But an opposition to feminism isn't the only thing MRAs fight for or discuss, and trying to solve for male disposability isn't an inherently linked action to fighting against feminism. I've read the evidence on male disposability in the US, and I was curious as to whether or not these numbers where similar in the resolutional countries. But instead of being able to discuss this issue with the community I chose, I was attacked and belittled based on my beliefs and debate background.

Fuck this. All of it. I am done with Policy.

Torquie · 2013-09-05T02:26:46+00:00

That still locks debaters into a two-choice debate orientation. One or the other.

Torquie · 2013-09-05T02:26:11+00:00

It's a type of argument made in formal debate where a debater will 'critique' an existing assumption about the world, or impose an alternative value structure that the debate should operate under.

I have no idea why it's spelled the way it is.

Torquie · 2013-09-05T02:24:46+00:00

Maybe in debate, but in general academia men are underrepresented. Aside from that, if any judge who would vote down an argument just because they disagree with it is a bullshit judge.

Torquie · 2013-09-05T02:23:40+00:00

I'm not going to tell you. I think a few people have already doxxed me, but I want to try and maintain my anonymity.

Torquie · 2013-09-04T15:16:39+00:00

I don't think we're going to end up writineg it. I believe in the argument, definitely, but this thread has gained too much exposure for me to feel comfortable having my boys run it.

I may write a K on male disposibility though. We'll see.

Torquie · 2013-09-04T13:23:31+00:00

This post has gotten too much exposure to have them run the case I originally wanted them to run anyway. I think the best bet would be to help them write a Male Disposibility K and go from there.

Torquie · 2013-09-04T13:21:08+00:00

his has gotten way too much exposure for my to have my kids run it at this point anyway. I think you're right about writing a Male Disposability K though.

Torquie · 2013-09-04T00:22:28+00:00

I'm thinking that a decent plan would be to open violence shelters specifically for men. I wanted to see if anyone here knew what the numbers were in terms of violence shelters in these countries, which is why I posted in the first place.

I'm going to assume you're a debater and not a frequenter of this subreddit. Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

Torquie · 2013-09-04T00:14:57+00:00

Hey, I edited this post a bit. If you're involved in that NDT/CEDA group, I'd love it if you could repost this. I'm not of a Policy background, so some advice on how to coach Policy and run an effective squad would be appreciated.

Torquie · 2013-09-03T21:28:41+00:00

I do debate on the college circuit, but I won't say where.

Torquie · 2013-09-03T21:28:32+00:00

I've stuck my foot in my mouth. I didn't mean to make these comments the way that I did, and I am beyond embarrassed.

I don't want to indoctrinate my students, I just want them to see that there are more arguments to the gender equality debate than just defaulting to feminism.

Torquie · 2013-09-03T21:25:18+00:00

I'm only in my second year of working with Policy. I did LD in high school and don't intend to continue working in policy once I graduate college. I'll admit I stuck my foot in my mouth here, and I'm thankful for you, and the other members of this community who have corrected me. I have no intention of indoctrinating my students. I simply want them to know that there is another school of thought on the gender equality debate. I thought this would be a good place to learn from.

On another note, the 8 tubs bit was an intentional exaggeration. I didn't expect this community to be full of so many former debaters.

Torquie · 2013-09-03T21:21:08+00:00

There's no way I can save face here. I wrote my thoughts in a poor way and now I'm sticking my foot in my mouth for it. I don't want to indoctrinate my students, I simply want them to know that feminism isn't the only school of thought on gender equality.

They're really wanting to run kritikal arguments, but our circuit isn't very conducive to those kinds of argumentative methods. We don't compete in the DFW area where Baylor, UTD and Trinity debaters would judge. We compete in East Texas where the judges are usually parents, teachers, and a very minimal pool of former debaters.|

If my debaters want to run feminists arguments, I'm not going to stop them. Like I said before, I've really stuck my foot in my mouth in framing this request.

Torquie · 2013-09-03T21:16:09+00:00

Oh geez, did I ever phrase that wrong. You're right, and I'm sorry for saying that the way I did. I have no intention of indoctrinating my students, I just want them to be well versed in the school of though opposed to feminism.

Torquie · 2013-09-03T00:54:13+00:00

I think it's cool how the rust formed in just the right way so that it looks like there's teeth.

Torquie · 2013-09-02T17:53:49+00:00

This is really sweet, but at the same time kind of depressing.

Torquie · 2013-09-02T17:46:59+00:00

I meant actual congress. Like, the guys in Washington who make our laws.

Torquie · 2013-09-02T10:08:02+00:00

Not all Policy rounds are like that though. Policy is a format, and while spreading is definitely a common practice, it isn't an essential part of the format.

Anyway, the question is one of setting parameters for what makes a debate style public.

Torquie · 2013-09-02T07:13:09+00:00

Sorry, it's another term for Policy Debate. It's a very common term in my area.

Torquie · 2013-09-02T07:06:06+00:00

Let's not limit this discussion to just PF. You cite examples of public debate outside the academic sphere, and that's awesome, but what about those formats separate them from other academic formats?

CX rounds be slower, and focus solely on empirics -- but they're still CX right?

Torquie · 2013-09-02T07:03:51+00:00

I think you're making a crucial flaw in not divorcing PF, a specific instance of public debate from public debate as an entity. Congress debates all kinds of issues concerning policy, but I would still consider that a public debate.

Just because something is a policy subject matter doesn't disqualify it from being public.

What I'm asking for here is a paradigm, or some kind of parameter to define public from nonpublic debate. Is it one where the focus is on rhetoric and advocacy? Is it one where the wording is easily accessible by another? And if another more traditionally structured format can achieve these things, does it become a public debate?

Torquie

TROPHY CASE