Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[12]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[13]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[12]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-27 23:23:08.91
	1	+2017-01-27 23:23:08.0

Caselist.CitesClass[13]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,10 @@
	1	+CP Text: All relevant aff actors shall not restrict constitutionally protected speech except in
	2	+-instances where speech involves triggering material.
	3	+-instances of hate speech happening in CEDA
	4	+This is competitive with your advocacy- you say that you defend all free speech in CEDA which means the perm is severance.
	5	+Hate speech incites violence through a distorted depiction of the Other
	6	+Halpern 95 Howard Halpern, president of the American Academy of Psychotherapists, “How Hate Speech Leads Readily to Violence,” New York Times, May 5, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/05/opinion/l-how-hate-speech-leads-readily-to-violence-477795.html
	7	+Social psychologists and demagogues have long known that if ordinary citizens are to be provoked to violent actions against individuals or groups of fellow citizens, it is necessary to sever the empathic bond with those to be attacked by painting them as different and despicable. We are unlikely to harm a friendly neighbor because she has strong views about equal rights for women, but if we call her a "femi-Nazi," she becomes "the other" ~-~- evil, dangerous, hated. We are unlikely to harm the couple down the block who are active on behalf of protecting endangered species, but if we call them "environmental whackos," they become "the other" ~-~- weirdos who must be vilified and suppressed as enemies to "normal" Americans. When our shared humanity with those with whom we disagree is stripped away, it becomes acceptable to blow them up. The answer is certainly not to censor such speech, but those who recognize this danger must challenge it wherever it exists, even in those with whom we politically agree.
	8	+Trigger Warning stop debate exclusion
	9	+Berman, Mia, 2014, A plea to debaters by Mia Berman, http://premierdebatetoday.com/2014/11/03/a-plea-to-debaters-by-mia-berman-2/
	10	+What is “triggering?” Triggers are events that may remind someone of a traumatic experience or cause flashbacks and bring up strong negative emotions, often making one feel unsafe and upset. Recently, many feminist blogs, newspapers, and even college classes have been useing “trigger warnings” which aim to alert individuals what is about to be discussed. In the context of articles, there has been some backlash about how useful these are, however, in the context of debate rounds, they are valuable.¶ Debaters do not choose the topics. We cannot expect a debater who may be triggered by a topic to quit the community, to not debate on that topic or to just tune out certain ACs. Putting a victim in an adversarial scenario in which they are forced to respond to something that is triggering is unfair and morally wrong. A debate round is no longer a fair, fun or educational endeavor when a participant feels threatened. If you are the one running these arguments, especially on a speech act/pre-fiat level, the only way they could ever be persuasive is if you ensure you are running them as a way to help victims, not to further and reinforce the original trauma. To prevent these situations, I propose using a trigger warning.¶ Here’s how it works. One debater simply asks the other debater and the judge whether or not they feel comfortable hearing a case related to revenge porn/domestic violence/etc. There have been some criticisms of trigger warnings, but it’s always better to ask. First, the act of asking may be triggering in of itself. If this unfortunate event occurs, opponents should offer time and space needed to recover before beginning the round. Still, a slight trigger before the round is preferable to the shock of finding out in-round when the case is read at 400 words per minute and you’re forced to respond. Another debate-specific problem is that opponents could abuse the goodwill of the individual running the potentially triggering case by claiming they will be triggered to avoid debating the case. For this, debaters individually must take it upon themselves to be honest and respectful to those in the community that have been through traumatic experiences and not abuse a system put in place to help them. Feigning trauma to avoid an argument is an atrocious thing to do, and I would honestly like to believe our community is better than that.¶

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-27 23:23:14.399

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+On Tabroom

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+On Tabroom

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Jan-Feb PIK

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Barkley Forum