| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,47 @@ |
|
1 |
+Debate is not a safe space – minoritized bodies are constantly told they are too loud or too angry or too emotional – we are constantly told to be happy, to stop complaining, to just do “real debate”. |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+Exclusive forms of argumentation have made debate technocratic and elitist – it desensitizes debaters to violence and racism, and teaches us to care more about nuclear war than solving the structural violence within our own community. Thus, the role of the judge is to vote for the best resistance strategy for the oppressed. |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+Fine 13 Todd; Founder of project Khalid and coaches the debate team at Washington Latin Public Charter School in Washington, D.C. and is Vice President of the High School D.C. Urban Debate League and writes for the huff post; “Qatar Conference on Scholastic Debate Examines Activity's Role in Empowerment”; Huffington Post; 3/10/13 @ 5:12 am; Accessed 2/17/15 @ 12:43 pm; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-fine/qatar-conference-on-schol_b_2429645.html |
|
6 |
+Meanwhile, the National … hopelessly irredeemable America. |
|
7 |
+ |
|
8 |
+AND, spaces like debate are oriented around bodies that inhabit them. A chair becomes molded around a body’s shape if that body constantly sits in it. When I sink into a chair, if I fit into the mold, I do not notice the points of tension between my body and the chair. |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+Bodies sink into chairs in the same way bodies sink into institutions – whiteness coheres spaces in certain shapes. Bodies that fit in the space’s orientation do not notice friction, while bodies that don’t fit experience tension. This is why debate tournaments are full of white guys in suits, because when people of color or women enter the cafeteria they are immediately marked as out of place. |
|
11 |
+ |
|
12 |
+Ahmed 07 Sara Ahmed "A Phenomenology of Whiteness" Goldsmiths College, University of London 2007 www.rainbow-season.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Feminist_Theory-2007-Ahmed-149-68.pdf |
|
13 |
+But how does … some and not others. |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+This creates friction – bodies are stopped and interrogated when they do not fit in the orientation of the space. Feminine speech in spaces of white supremacy becomes the incessant nag. This inequality makes debate impossible – unconscious and informal mechanisms of exclusion mean that participants aren’t on an even playing field. Even when minoritarian subjects do speak, they are not heard – addressing this social inequality is a prerequisite for further deliberation. |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+Fraser 90 Fraser 90 *Edited for ableist rhetoric Nancy, Prof of Political and Social Science at the New School, “Rethinking the Public Sphere,” Social Text 25/26, p.63-65 |
|
18 |
+Habermas's account of the … interaction within them. |
|
19 |
+ |
|
20 |
+AND, this affective orientation of institutions depletes the energy of marginalized bodies. Bodies that don’t fit in the orientation of the space are forced to go against the flow of the institution, which causes psychic exhaustion, forced every day to spend energy getting up in the morning to keep fighting. |
|
21 |
+ |
|
22 |
+Ahmed 13 Sara Ahmed "Feeling Depleted" November 17, 2013 Feminist Kill-Joy https://feministkilljoys.com/2013/11/17/feeling-depleted/ |
|
23 |
+I am currently preparing …being depleted with others. |
|
24 |
+ |
|
25 |
+This is a form of psychological violence – alienation and isolation within debate deplete the energy of minoritized bodies who are held up as symbols of diversity when they do well and experience microaggressions when they don’t. |
|
26 |
+ |
|
27 |
+Thus, we advocate the methodology of the feminist killjoy – a symbol of deviance that refuses the requirement to be happy or complicit within systems of oppression. Our affective analysis contests hegemonic structures of deliberation that marginalize the oppressed, and kills the joy of white comfortability |
|
28 |
+ |
|
29 |
+Ahmed 10 Sara Ahmed "Feminist Killjoys (And Other Willful Subjects)" The Scholar and Feminist Online The Barnard Center for Research on Women Summer 2010 |
|
30 |
+Killjoys To be unseated by …we will and we are. |
|
31 |
+ |
|
32 |
+A killjoy kills the joy of oppressive institutions and refuses the requirements of happiness that are forced upon them. This disorients the subconscious orientation of the institution – calling out sexism at debate tournaments kills the joy of the white male debaters; the Zapatista movement congregated around a Brown Metisza identity to kill the joy of white supremacy; it is an internal rejection of the paradigm of complicity in happiness – embracing an orientation outside of the institution. |
|
33 |
+ |
|
34 |
+Net Benefit is Collectivization – our method is an act of self love that opens up spaces of solidarity and connects minoritized bodies together. Our methodology supports bottom up movements that refuse humanizing politics. These spaces of solidarity can resolve psychological violence because we refuse the internal demands to be happy in spaces that oppress us |
|
35 |
+ |
|
36 |
+Ahmed 14 Sara Ahmed "Selfcare as Warfare" feministkilljoys https://feministkilljoys.com/2014/08/25/selfcare-as-warfare/ August 25 2014 |
|
37 |
+“Caring for myself …for your survival. Always. |
|
38 |
+ |
|
39 |
+Underview |
|
40 |
+1. Empirics prove – 5 side bias for the neg in elimination rounds. |
|
41 |
+Adler 15 Steven Adler "Are Judges Just Guessing? A Statistical Analysis of LD Elimination Round Panels" March 30, 2015 nsdupdate.com/2015/03/30/are-judges-just-guessing-a-statistical-analysis-of-ld-elimination-round-panels-by-steven-adler/ |
|
42 |
+I have gathered data … late elimination rounds: |
|
43 |
+Prefer empirics over analytics because they confirm what actually happens in debate – if analytics contradict with empirics, that means the analytic is wrong |
|
44 |
+2. Fairness is a call for neutrality which maintains the systems of oppression of the squo which perpetuates the unequal playing field that exists. Fairness is not objective and assuming it is ignores how one side started off a whole lot more stacked against. |
|
45 |
+Delgado 92 Richard Delgado Richard, “Shadowboxing: An Essay On Power,” In Cornell Law Review, May |
|
46 |
+We have cleverly built … our own acts. |
|
47 |
+And, we impact to exclusion on a much larger scale where particular categories of debaters can’t engage and are excluded from this discourse |