Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[12]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[10]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[12]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-22 21:14:05.592
	1	+2016-09-22 21:14:05.0

Caselist.CitesClass[10]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,23 @@
	1	+==1NC==
	2	+The prima face role of the ballot is to ensure safety in the debate space. Teehan '14:
	3	+**Teehan '14**, Ryan Teehan ~~NSD staffer and competitor from the Delbarton School~~ – NSD Update comment on the student protests at the TOC in 2014.
	4	+Honestly, I don't think that 99 of what has been said in this thread so far actually matters. It doesn't matter whether you think that these types of assumptions should be questioned. It doesn't matter what accepting this intuition could potentially do or not do. It doesn't matter if you see fit to make, incredibly trivializing and misplaced I might add, links between this and the Holocaust. All of the arguments that talk about how debate is a unique space for questioning assumptions make an assumption of safety. They say that this is a space where one is safe to question assumptions and try new perspectives. That is not true for everyone. When we allow arguments that question the wrongness of racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, lynching, etc., we make debate unsafe for certain people. The idea that debate is a safe space to question all assumptions is the definition of privilege, it begins with an idea of a debater that can question every assumption. People who face the actual effects of the aforementioned things cannot question those assumptions, and making debate a space built around the idea that they can is hostile. So, you really have a choice. Either 1) say that you do not want these people to debate so that you can let people question the wrongness of everything I listed before, 2) say that you care more about letting debaters question those things than making debate safe for everyone, or 3) make it so that saying things that make debate unsafe has actual repercussions. On "debate is not the real world". Only for people who can separate their existence in "the real world" from their existence in debate. That means privileged, white, heterosexual males like myself. I don't understand how you can make this sweeping claim when some people are clearly harmed by these arguments. At the end of the day, you have to figure out whether you care about debate being safe for everyone involved. I don't think anyone has contested that these arguments make debate unsafe for certain people. If you care at all about the people involved in debate then don't vote on these arguments. If you care about the safety and wellbeing of competitors, then don't vote on these arguments. If you don't, then I honestly don't understand why you give up your time to coach and/or judge. Th
	5	+This controls the internal link to fairness – debaters don't have equal access to the ballot if debaters run positions that they feel unsafe responding to.
	6	+
	7	+
	8	+====Next, the 1AC's use of Kantian philosophy is inherently homophobic –this isn't an ad hominem, rather it's the direct result of Kantian phil. Soble '03:====
	9	+**Soble '03**, Alan Soble, The Monist 86:1 (Jan. 2003), pp. 55-89. Kant and Sexual Perversion
	10	+Kant immediately continues by completing his sparse inventory of three objectionable, sexually unnatural, practices ~~Kant says~~ ~~quote begins here~~ "A second crimen carnis contra naturam is intercourse between sexus homogenii, in which the object of sexual impulse is a human being but there is homogeneity instead of heterogeneity of sex. . . . This practice too is contrary to the ends of humanity; for the end of humanity in respect of sexuality is to preserve the species without debasing the person; but in this instance the species is not being preserved (as it can be by a crimen carnis secundum naturam), but the person is set aside, the self is degraded below the level of the animals, and humanity is dishonoured. The third crimen carnis contra naturam occurs when the object of the desire is in fact of the opposite sex but is not human. Such is sodomy, or intercourse with animals. This, too, is contrary to the ends of humanity and against our natural instinct. It degrades mankind below the level of animals, for no animal turns in this way from its own species.75
	11	+This is not "Kant believed some other bad thing." The argument follows from
	12	+AND
	13	+so it constituted sacrificing your rational agency for the subordinate end of pleasure.
	14	+
	15	+
	16	+====This means the 1AC makes debate an unsafe space by preventing homosexuals from operating under the assumptions of the 1AC.====
	17	+**Soble 2**
	18	+What was it like to listen to the distinguished Kant lecture on sexual perversion,
	19	+AND
	20	+safe calling Kant's account of sexual perversion a clunker concocted by a kisöreg.
	21	+
	22	+
	23	+====Vote ____ to ensure safety in the debate space by deterring them from running this same position====

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-22 21:14:07.315

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+All

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+12

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Quads

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Gilmour Williams Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1 - Kant Homophobia K

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+All