My VBT Case

[avi.arfin]

I don't understand why your method is particularly effective. There's a small amount of discourse [ie this thread], but I'm pretty sure nothing will actually result into changing the unfavorable gender bias. If you're going that route, however, then why not ask for a loss? That has shock value and is more likely to be heard/talked about by debaters, generating much more discourse.

I'm not attacking your "integrity and genuine belief in the cause" since you say you're sincere about it. But, I am saying that asking for a win isn't and shouldn't be a proper way.

You are very possibly right that nothing will change. I hope that is not the case, but it is possible, if not probable. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying to fix.
My thought process about the ballot was not an instantaneous solution. I thought about asking for the loss, the win, not referencing the ballot, and even asking for the double loss. The reason I ended up asking for the win (aside from the idea in case which I believe-that wins generate more discourse), is that I feared that if I kept losing, I would be debating bad debaters in front of bad judges who probably would not have had as much influence when they heard the case.
Honestly, I never asked for the win for myself. I asked for it for the position. If a judge thinks that voting me down is the best way to generate publicity, they are welcome to do that.

[avi.arfin]

I mean, I just don't believe that's true. It's the same methodology/strategy/thinking of most Kritiks, ie Cap K, Feminism K, etc. The alternatives usually say something along the lines of "vote for me, and the methodology of the Kritik will spread through discourse since a. you, the judge, approve it by giving me a win and b. people will talk about the Kritik.

People always run Ks at every tournament, but we don't see results of capitalism being taken down, do you?

First, I reject your premise that K's cannot have real world impacts. I certainly am much more wary of capitalism after having been exposed to it through debate. Also, think about gender neutralizing cards. I know a lot of debaters started doing that because they feared losing, but then learned something about the issue, and started doing it in real life.
Second, I think there is a significant difference here, in that it is something we can all do something about. We are all involved in the debate community, and can make real change in it.

[avi.arfin]

One potential problem I see with this, and I didn't notice any preempts to this in the 1AC posted, but there is very little recourse for the neg against these types of positions. Let me preface by saying I'm about as big of a K hack as you can get, and I love discursive/performative positions. The problem with your position is that since it doesn't locate itself within a resolution, the negative has only a few channels for rejoinder;

1, Argue against the thesis of the position, which is pretty hard to contest.
2, Argue that you are insincere in your motives or have some discursive contradiction in your performance (Which is a legit strat, but given the number of potential discursive positions in a world where we forgo the resolution, there is no way I can prep perfcons for every potential performance ever)
3, Argue an entirely different discursive position (The project, normativity, sexual lib) and attempt to weigh the discursive benefits of my advocacy against yours. At this point the debate becomes meaningless and we should just be out on the street protesting for our specific causes. This is where I think the Coverstone evidence about switch side debate has applicability; if debate just becomes a place to esoterically promote our individual causes, then we won't gain the critical mindset to improve or change our convictions if they're wrong. Thats the purpose of the resolution, to force us to debate for sides we may never have considered before.

This doesn't mean that every aff has to be 100% topical and use normal means; even tangentially topical affs allow more ground for substantive engagement by the negative. I personally would've run theory against this even though I hate running theory against more unorthodox positions because I'd love to substantively engage the aff, but you kind of put the neg in tough spot when running this. All in all, you are probably right about problems with gender diversity in debate, and this would've made for a killer article, but not for a debate case.

Also, the argument about subjectivity is logically problematic. Just because there may exist a trace of subjectivity in every decision we make with the ballot doesn't mean that we should just embrace subjectivity in its totality and throw out the resolution.

I think there really is recourse for my opponent, which is your number 3 (though it doesnt have to be distinct from my cause). The best round I had at VBT was against Lizzie. She talked about her experience with gender roles in debate and how they affected her debate career. I think a lot of judges would be really receptive to personal stories in response (she got both ballots and both judges gave her 30's).
As to why I did it in round, I think there are several benefits to the in round case that articles just don't get:
1. It forces people to pay attention. If people know they might hit the case, they are much more likely to really think about the issues.
2. I think what would happen if I posted online is that a lot of people would post their agreement, but those who might have different views would steer clear of the thread. By doing it in round, I ensure I have 2 people's attention who might not otherwise listen for 13 minutes.
3. Even if in round people are not receptive, I recieved multiple messasges from opponents after the round of people who had reflected on the case and decided it was something they believed in.

[avi.arfin]

Avi, my only question to you is why did you decide to make it about gender in debate instead of say, discussing the role of gender as it relates to economic sanctions? I think that what you did was really interesting but I am curious as to what made you decide it was important to move away from the topic instead of taking a position regarding the role of gender in regards to the topic.

I think classof2012 kinda hit a big part of it, which is that I feel we have a much bigger impact on our community than governmental sanctions policies.
The other problem with linking it to the resolution is this: there is too much ground to link turn the arguments and never end up discussing the framework of gender inequity or binary. Either that or it would be impossible for me to run it on both sides which would be problematic as well.

[avi.arfin]

Avi's case has successfully entered debate culture in Washington. I've even heard people referencing it specifically in rounds. Congrats on the success of your movement!

Just out of curiosity Steven, what kinds of things are people saying in round?

[Steven Adler]

Avi's case has successfully entered debate culture in Washington. I've even heard people referencing it specifically in rounds. Congrats on the success of your movement!

Just out of curiosity Steven, what kinds of things are people saying in round?

A lot of it was in reference to the idea that debaters should promote some form of a moral theory and endorse some meaningful message, whereas realism / other pragmatic state-centered theories are selfish and degrade humans. I'm the one who initially brought up your running the position at VBT to other people (because Mercer Island was the only WA school at the tournament), but they were often the ones using the example as almost psuedo-discourse/micropolitics.

[fpielstick]

Avi's case has successfully entered debate culture in Washington. I've even heard people referencing it specifically in rounds. Congrats on the success of your movement!

Just out of curiosity Steven, what kinds of things are people saying in round?

that Avi looks HAWT in a dress!

[avi.arfin]

So I realized the link I previously posted is broken. Here is a new one:
http://www.fileupyours.com/view/275529/Change%20AC.docx

For those coming to Stanford:
I will be running the same case, except that I changed a bunch of the warrants for the ballot. If people want to "prep out" the case in terms of looking up the substantive issues so that the round can be a more productive discussion, I welcome that. If however you are only going to prep out the ballot story, I hope you will at least spend some of your time engaging in the substance.

[JimHuang]

i applaud your guts to run this case in a dress at VBT to convey your message! i hope that your effort doesn't go unnoticed! i wonder if i'll ever meet you next year...hmm--i hope so!

[Volk23]

First off, I'll begin by being by saying that I appreciate your strength in defending this position and actually wearing a dress while reading the case, which, I'll admit, is marginally the most badass thing I've ever heard a guy debater do. I don't doubt that you believe in what you do nor do I believe that you are, as your case states, "ingenuine."

But, unfortunately, your case is ludicrous in the context of high school debate.

A) Just because the tournament invite doesn't specify a topic doesn't mean that you ought not debate the sanctions topic. I don't see how that's true. The topics are voted by through a democratic process, so these topics aren't arbitrarily thrown upon the debaters. Whichever topic receives the most votes gets the spot for the month it gets votes for. You obviously are aware that the Jan/Feb topic is sanctions thus it's not as if the tournament was making you unaware of the topic. Thus the topics are not "oppressive" in any sense and to suggest that is not well warranted at all, and I'll get to your point about women being able to "handle" certain topic in a minute.

B) It's antithetical to education to run stuff like this. I don't see a well warranted position for the argument, "If there's no real world impact to what I say in this round, then it isn't educational." Frankly, that statement is a load of crap. Obviously little debaters do affects policy, and the activity isn't designed to do so (although it does have the potential to do so). Debate wasn't crafted to necessarily shape policy. Just because we talk about a policy or advocacy doesn't mean it has to be enacted or presented before Congress. Debate is an academic exercise designed to get people to discuss logical reasoning, public speaking, and awareness of current events. Topics are given because if everyone came and debated whatever they wanted to, then there would be no objective judgment of who "does the better debating." Without an objective analysis of who debates a certain topic the best, the entire sport becomes a postmodern hell and no one gets judged fairly. Per your advocacy, then, the "strong males" who dominate debate would then slowly but surely rise to the top. Topics are given to increase objectivity, giving all debaters, regardless of gender, equal ground. My problems with cases like yours isn't that what they advocate is bad, it's that the case shouldn't be presented in a round with specific parametrics already set up. If you have a problem with the topic, talk to the NFL. Do you honestly believe that the NFL is going to stop crafting foreign relations topics if you win a bunch of ballots? No, they won't. There are some debates that are meant to change things; high school debates are not. There is nothing wrong with debate as a purely academic exercise.

C) You're saying we should stop otherizing women and realize the equality between us two, but then say we should stop having international relations topics because women don't handle them well. So you want to just concede that men will always be better at the aforementioned topics and not give women the chance to debate them. Sounds awfully sexist to me.....

D) While more men than women do win debate tournaments at a base statistical level, I don't see how women are "otherized" and "suffer" in the debate community; that's blatantly untrue. The fact that more males win at X event does not mean that women are treated badly for men to get that result. A girl won the NCFL National Tournament two years in a row a couple years back, and went on to win the National tournament her senior year. The girl who won NFL Nationals last year was a girl, who beat out one of, if not the most, prominent male debaters in the country. The person with the most TOC bids this year (even though she already auto-qualled from last year) is a girl. If otherization was as rampant as you claim, I don't see how these very gifted debaters could do what they have done. I'm not a TOC debater and have not been a part of the "circuit" scene, but from what I've heard of many of the debaters on the scene, they were all good friends and kind toward each other, regardless of whether they were male or female. I've seen this on a non-circuit level as well.

E) I don't get a link at all from when you talk about the supposed "otherization" in debate and the Kristoff and WuDunn card you read about female violence abroad. I get that you say stigmas we have in debate will carry into the real world, but your cards don't say that. The fact that you have two cards that seem to correlate doesn't mean that they do. Even if the cards do link somehow, I'd say the "debate community" (we debaters kinda make ourselves sound like a cult sometimes, don't we?) is so small compared to the other major social stigmas that cause sexisim towards females that its impact is irrelevant in comparison.

F) There should be differences in gender. Men and women are different. Men and women are different for legitimate reasons I think it is ridiculous to suggest that they should be the same. It is not ridiculous to suggest that they should be able to do the same things, but in your third act (which, by the way, is a way better way to say "contention" than "contention," major props) you state that we need to break down the gender barriers, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Men and women are designed differently and should be treated as such. I am not saying, however, that they cannot do the same things, which I advocate.

G) Sorry, but your Larson and Vreeland card is straight-up powertagged to the point of undermining the argument. That card talks about how men can interrupt women more without appearing like complete tools (which in a debate round seems less true to me; in my experience the female debaters have always been more aggressive in question-asking, but maybe I haven't debated much of what you have) and has nothing to do with the "structure" of debate. The Larson and Vreeland 2 card doesn't really impact the argument either; it merely states that this "provides a starting point for understanding" gender differences.

H) "The ballot asks you to determine who did the better debating, and if there are systemic advantages to a certain group of debaters, judges cannot determine who did the better debating by simply looking at a standard flow." Yes, you can. Look at arguments. Arguments are agender (probably not a word) and if you objectively look at argumentation (which in most cases is the standard for the winner in a debate round), you can judge by the flow.

I) Your Butler analyses are straight-up postmodern deconstructionism. The word "girl" or "female" in almost any context refers to the biological characteristics of a female, not some social stigma that comes with the word. I might say that's true for a word like "feminine," but not the aforementioned two words. Even if you grant that they are, I'd still say that no amount of performance can get rid of the qualities attached to females that have been seen as such for eons now. Moreover, as I stated earlier, women are unique from men. I doubt you'll meet many women who want to be exactly like guys in every single way.

J) To me there's a lot of patronization in your case. "Women should be hired as coaches and lab leaders whenever possible" sounds appealing, but is ultimately sexist. Those who coach or lead labs should be judged on how to do so based by merit, not by gender preference. Otherwise, you end up in the vicious self contradiction that plagues affirmative action policies: Wanting to stop racial preferences with racial preferences. Unfortunately, the law of non-contradiction is unbending. If a woman is a more competent coach/lab leader than a man, then she should be hired. No doubt. But if she wins the spot based solely on her gender, then you are not only patronizing her but being unfair to the male in the same way you claim we are unfair to females now.

K) One final point, and if you've seen the HBO documentary Resolved, then you'll be familiar with what this argument amounts to. Even if you are dressing in drag, you are still a man. If I vote for you, I vote for a man. You claim to want to change the system by making it more female friendly and accessible. If I vote for you, I vote for a man in a system of debate that supposedly favors men, thus entrenching the very system that you claim entrenches women. Thus your position totally collapses in on itself. Moreover, if I vote for you thinking that you're a woman based solely off of your drag, all you are doing is proving to me that men articulate the position of the need for more females in debate better than a woman could. I'm not saying that a man can't advocate for women's rights, but what I am saying is that your manner of doing it violates your own position.

I don't want you to think that I think you're an idiot or a sad sack of an excuse for a debater. Your case is well written and articulated and you clearly have more passion for this position than most people do for most of the positions they run. I say all of this stuff with respect to you as a human being and debater. However, I have an issue when I do hours upon hours of scholarly research for a specific topic and people come and run stuff like this; even if you predisclose before the tournament, that still forces me to do research that I shouldn't have to do and could even halt me from research that I should be doing. Completely antithetical to the point of an educational activity. If there is a problem in the system of debate, I wholeheartedly think that people with your passion and intellectual rigor should do something about it; however, not in the context of a debate round. Say, for example, that I am a Lutheran who visits a Catholic Bible study with a Catholic friend. I wouldn't go to that meaning and criticize the Catholics for their beliefs that I find to be absurd. That context is not appropriate for doing so. Moreover, many performance cases covering many different purported "issues" in debate have been run in high school and college, and the system remains roughly the same. So, even if you do read cards that say you will make an impact, the real world proves that wrong.

In debate, women can do the same things as men, many times even better. However, to run this position is antithetical to improving that situation. I, like many members of this forum, applaud you for your determination and rigor, but, for me, I find performance cases like this to be damaging, not helping, to debate.

[classof2012]

A) Just because the tournament invite doesn't specify a topic doesn't mean that you ought not debate the sanctions topic. I don't see how that's true. The topics are voted by through a democratic process, so these topics aren't arbitrarily thrown upon the debaters. Whichever topic receives the most votes gets the spot for the month it gets votes for. You obviously are aware that the Jan/Feb topic is sanctions thus it's not as if the tournament was making you unaware of the topic. Thus the topics are not "oppressive" in any sense and to suggest that is not well warranted at all, and I'll get to your point about women being able to "handle" certain topic in a minute.

I don't understand. Because the topic was voted on (and not by the debaters themselves, mind you) it can't be oppressive? Democracies can be oppressive, see slavery.

B) It's antithetical to education to run stuff like this. I don't see a well warranted position for the argument, "If there's no real world impact to what I say in this round, then it isn't educational." Frankly, that statement is a load of crap. Obviously little debaters do affects policy, and the activity isn't designed to do so (although it does have the potential to do so). Debate wasn't crafted to necessarily shape policy. Just because we talk about a policy or advocacy doesn't mean it has to be enacted or presented before Congress. Debate is an academic exercise designed to get people to discuss logical reasoning, public speaking, and awareness of current events. Topics are given because if everyone came and debated whatever they wanted to, then there would be no objective judgment of who "does the better debating." Without an objective analysis of who debates a certain topic the best, the entire sport becomes a postmodern hell and no one gets judged fairly. Per your advocacy, then, the "strong males" who dominate debate would then slowly but surely rise to the top. Topics are given to increase objectivity, giving all debaters, regardless of gender, equal ground. My problems with cases like yours isn't that what they advocate is bad, it's that the case shouldn't be presented in a round with specific parametrics already set up. If you have a problem with the topic, talk to the NFL. Do you honestly believe that the NFL is going to stop crafting foreign relations topics if you win a bunch of ballots? No, they won't. There are some debates that are meant to change things; high school debates are not. There is nothing wrong with debate as a purely academic exercise.

The problem is underrepresentation of women in debate. The NFL doesn't have to change the topic wording for his case to have a positive effect on the debate community.

D) While more men than women do win debate tournaments at a base statistical level, I don't see how women are "otherized" and "suffer" in the debate community; that's blatantly untrue. The fact that more males win at X event does not mean that women are treated badly for men to get that result. A girl won the NCFL National Tournament two years in a row a couple years back, and went on to win the National tournament her senior year. The girl who won NFL Nationals last year was a girl, who beat out one of, if not the most, prominent male debaters in the country. The person with the most TOC bids this year (even though she already auto-qualled from last year) is a girl. If otherization was as rampant as you claim, I don't see how these very gifted debaters could do what they have done. I'm not a TOC debater and have not been a part of the "circuit" scene, but from what I've heard of many of the debaters on the scene, they were all good friends and kind toward each other, regardless of whether they were male or female. I've seen this on a non-circuit level as well.

Pointing out 2 examples doesn't exactly prove your point. How about you count the total number of girls with bids and compare it to the total number of guys, then say there's nothing wrong?

F) There should be differences in gender. Men and women are different. Men and women are different for legitimate reasons I think it is ridiculous to suggest that they should be the same. It is not ridiculous to suggest that they should be able to do the same things, but in your third act (which, by the way, is a way better way to say "contention" than "contention," major props) you state that we need to break down the gender barriers, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Men and women are designed differently and should be treated as such. I am not saying, however, that they cannot do the same things, which I advocate.

Maybe there are areas in which men and women should be treated differently. Debate isn't one of them. I don't think you can legitimately say 'Women are just worse at arguing' and embody that stereotype.

H) "The ballot asks you to determine who did the better debating, and if there are systemic advantages to a certain group of debaters, judges cannot determine who did the better debating by simply looking at a standard flow." Yes, you can. Look at arguments. Arguments are agender (probably not a word) and if you objectively look at argumentation (which in most cases is the standard for the winner in a debate round), you can judge by the flow.

If you read the case, other things factor in to who did the better 'debating' such as men being more prone to interrupt in CX.

J) To me there's a lot of patronization in your case. "Women should be hired as coaches and lab leaders whenever possible" sounds appealing, but is ultimately sexist. Those who coach or lead labs should be judged on how to do so based by merit, not by gender preference. Otherwise, you end up in the vicious self contradiction that plagues affirmative action policies: Wanting to stop racial preferences with racial preferences. Unfortunately, the law of non-contradiction is unbending. If a woman is a more competent coach/lab leader than a man, then she should be hired. No doubt. But if she wins the spot based solely on her gender, then you are not only patronizing her but being unfair to the male in the same way you claim we are unfair to females now.

It's essentially affirmative action, which is hotly debated (look at the PF topic) but not inherently flawed.

K) One final point, and if you've seen the HBO documentary Resolved, then you'll be familiar with what this argument amounts to. Even if you are dressing in drag, you are still a man. If I vote for you, I vote for a man. You claim to want to change the system by making it more female friendly and accessible. If I vote for you, I vote for a man in a system of debate that supposedly favors men, thus entrenching the very system that you claim entrenches women. Thus your position totally collapses in on itself. Moreover, if I vote for you thinking that you're a woman based solely off of your drag, all you are doing is proving to me that men articulate the position of the need for more females in debate better than a woman could. I'm not saying that a man can't advocate for women's rights, but what I am saying is that your manner of doing it violates your own position.

The point of the case is not to get judges to arbitrarily vote women up; it's to engage the problem of the underrepresentation of women in debate. If he were somehow increasing the gender difference, it would be contradictory. He isn't.

[Volk23]

On A:

I don't understand. Because the topic was voted on (and not by the debaters themselves, mind you) it can't be oppressive? Democracies can be oppressive, see slavery.

My argument here is that claiming that topics are designed to abuse a certain group of people is baseless. Yes, democracies can be oppressive, but that’s not what my point here is. My argument is that just because a topic may adversely affect a certain population of people does not mean that it is designed to do so.

On B:

The problem is underrepresentation of women in debate. The NFL doesn't have to change the topic wording for his case to have a positive effect on the debate community.

If debate no longer becomes an educational activity, then it loses all of its value; at that point, who is underrepresented won’t matter. Moreover, if we tolerate cases like this one being run at tournaments that are miles off-topic, then debate will become a postmodern hell in which anyone can come and say their opinion about anything. Even if their opinions are valid, well-nuanced, and have real-world impact, nothing would matter because it would be basically the equivalent of two ships passing in the night. Debate would become totally subjective and, at that point, per Avi’s cards, the males who are “naturally dominant” at debate would win, causing more underrepresentation.

On D:

Pointing out 2 examples doesn't exactly prove your point. How about you count the total number of girls with bids and compare it to the total number of guys, then say there's nothing wrong?

Again, just because there are more men winning does not mean that they are winning unfairly. You cannot merely say, “there are more men winning, thus the system naturally favors men,” that’s a logical fallacy. Moreover, these three examples are significant because if this system really does systematically favor men, then these “slips through the cracks” (which they aren’t; the three debaters in the examples I provided are incredibly talented) wouldn’t happen.

On F:

Maybe there are areas in which men and women should be treated differently. Debate isn't one of them. I don't think you can legitimately say 'Women are just worse at arguing' and embody that stereotype.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I never once say that women are worse at debate; in fact, in my experience, the strongest personalities on average I have debated have been women. I’m saying that even if women and men are given an equal chance at something, men and women still have different approaches to activities that will make them differ, thus “trying to make them the same” makes little sense. Moreover, if you look to my C point, Avi’s case does what you just said; he claims we ought to change topics with international relations as the theme because women don’t handle them as well (at least per his evidence) and thus we should just concede that men will always be better at international relations topics and not give women a chance.

On H:

If you read the case, other things factor in to who did the better 'debating' such as men being more prone to interrupt in CX.

My position is that it is not “impossible to determine” a winner just by looking at a standard flow; if judges objectively look at arguments, which possess no gender, then an objective winner can be determined. Moreover, most qualified judges don’t vote on who interrupts more in cross-x. Interruption doesn’t mean one is a strong debater; I’ve seen a lot of people interrupt when a question that they thought would be a killer one actually has been turned on them. Moreover, debate without a cross-examination period could end up being muddled if people run confusing cases or need more clarification; at that point, the “stronger males” in Avi’s case could totally misrepresent what their female opponents have said. Cross-ex gives debaters a chance to make the round clear.

On J:

It's essentially affirmative action, which is hotly debated (look at the PF topic) but not inherently flawed.

Yes, it is inherently flawed. You are attempting to solve a gender preference issues by preferring them by their gender. The statement is a self-refutation. At the very most, you’re not really overcoming any barriers of gender discrimination insofar as you aren’t really pushing past the discrimination but just choosing them merely on their gender. Doing this would, as you say, “arbitrarily vote women up.” You don't solve for discrimination by merely choosing them. Discrimination is more about who is in or who is out; it's also about systematic beliefs. If you don't destroy the beliefs, then choosing them to lead based solely on gender won't do anything.

On K:

The point of the case is not to get judges to arbitrarily vote women up; it's to engage the problem of the underrepresentation of women in debate. If he were somehow increasing the gender difference, it would be contradictory. He isn't.

I’m not saying he increases the gender difference; I’m saying his case is a self-refutation insofar as he is a man (drag can’t change that) in a system that supposedly favors men; he claims that this system is bad and we ought to change it, yet he uses that same system to prove his advocacy true. He’s engaging the problem of underrepresentation in debate with the same system he claims causes underrepresentation. Thus, if I vote for him, I’m voting for the same system that causes all of the problems he refers to. If I vote for him, I perpetuate the same vicious cycle that causes all of the problems that he just told me about in his AC. This is another reason why performance debates about changing debate should happen outside of a round with a specific parametric set; otherwise, you end up contradicting yourself.

[classof2012]

On A:

I don't understand. Because the topic was voted on (and not by the debaters themselves, mind you) it can't be oppressive? Democracies can be oppressive, see slavery.

My argument here is that claiming that topics are designed to abuse a certain group of people is baseless. Yes, democracies can be oppressive, but that’s not what my point here is. My argument is that just because a topic may adversely affect a certain population of people does not mean that it is designed to do so.

Whether the topic is 'designed' to be biased or not doesn't change the fact that it is.

On B:

The problem is underrepresentation of women in debate. The NFL doesn't have to change the topic wording for his case to have a positive effect on the debate community.

If debate no longer becomes an educational activity, then it loses all of its value; at that point, who is underrepresented won’t matter. Moreover, if we tolerate cases like this one being run at tournaments that are miles off-topic, then debate will become a postmodern hell in which anyone can come and say their opinion about anything. Even if their opinions are valid, well-nuanced, and have real-world impact, nothing would matter because it would be basically the equivalent of two ships passing in the night. Debate would become totally subjective and, at that point, per Avi’s cards, the males who are “naturally dominant” at debate would win, causing more underrepresentation.

I don't think that VBT or Stanford lost all educational value because Avi didn't talk about sanctions enough. I'd say being made aware of biases in our own debate community is more important than being made aware that the WTO will lose its effectiveness without sanctions.

On D:

Pointing out 2 examples doesn't exactly prove your point. How about you count the total number of girls with bids and compare it to the total number of guys, then say there's nothing wrong?

Again, just because there are more men winning does not mean that they are winning unfairly. You cannot merely say, “there are more men winning, thus the system naturally favors men,” that’s a logical fallacy. Moreover, these three examples are significant because if this system really does systematically favor men, then these “slips through the cracks” (which they aren’t; the three debaters in the examples I provided are incredibly talented) wouldn’t happen.

You also can't say that men AREN'T winning more often. If there isn't anything unfair going on, that would mean that men are naturally superior at debating. I don't think we can make that assumption.

On H:

If you read the case, other things factor in to who did the better 'debating' such as men being more prone to interrupt in CX.

My position is that it is not “impossible to determine” a winner just by looking at a standard flow; if judges objectively look at arguments, which possess no gender, then an objective winner can be determined. Moreover, most qualified judges don’t vote on who interrupts more in cross-x. Interruption doesn’t mean one is a strong debater; I’ve seen a lot of people interrupt when a question that they thought would be a killer one actually has been turned on them. Moreover, debate without a cross-examination period could end up being muddled if people run confusing cases or need more clarification; at that point, the “stronger males” in Avi’s case could totally misrepresent what their female opponents have said. Cross-ex gives debaters a chance to make the round clear.

My point is not that good judges will vote for the person who does better in cross-ex. I don't think that's what Avi is suggesting at all. Rather, doing better in cross-ex means more effectively putting arguments on the flow.

On J:

It's essentially affirmative action, which is hotly debated (look at the PF topic) but not inherently flawed.

Yes, it is inherently flawed. You are attempting to solve a gender preference issues by preferring them by their gender. The statement is a self-refutation. At the very most, you’re not really overcoming any barriers of gender discrimination insofar as you aren’t really pushing past the discrimination but just choosing them merely on their gender. Doing this would, as you say, “arbitrarily vote women up.” You don't solve for discrimination by merely choosing them. Discrimination is more about who is in or who is out; it's also about systematic beliefs. If you don't destroy the beliefs, then choosing them to lead based solely on gender won't do anything.

The point of the case is not to get judges to arbitrarily vote women up; it's to engage the problem of the underrepresentation of women in debate. If he were somehow increasing the gender difference, it would be contradictory. He isn't.

I’m not saying he increases the gender difference; I’m saying his case is a self-refutation insofar as he is a man (drag can’t change that) in a system that supposedly favors men; he claims that this system is bad and we ought to change it, yet he uses that same system to prove his advocacy true. He’s engaging the problem of underrepresentation in debate with the same system he claims causes underrepresentation. Thus, if I vote for him, I’m voting for the same system that causes all of the problems he refers to. If I vote for him, I perpetuate the same vicious cycle that causes all of the problems that he just told me about in his AC. This is another reason why performance debates about changing debate should happen outside of a round with a specific parametric set; otherwise, you end up contradicting yourself.

Obviously the role of the ballot isn't to vote for women; the case would be unwinnable. The purpose is to increase discourse, and you can't deny that it is succeeding in that regard since we're in a discussion about the issue right now as a result of Avi's case.

[Volk23]

But, per Avi's advocacy, just "talking" about things is bad. We need to see action in the real world. If that's true, then just perpetuating a cycle of discourse after discourse isn't going to do jack. There's no real world impact. Moreover, regardless if this is just about discourse, he still can't contradict himself, otherwise his advocacy, no matter how sincere he actually is, appears insincere. All he's showing me (speaking as a judge) is that the same system that perpetuates this cycle of underrepresentation of females is the same one that can be effectively used to prove that point. Thus that system of debate isn't really bad, then. It's a self-contradiction.

Moreover, on D, I don't see how the choice is "A: Either the system is unfair" or "B: Men are naturally better debaters." I'd say that's a false dichotomy. Perhaps more guys are interested in debate than girls and thus they have more numbers in the debate community. That doesn't mean the system favours them; it just means that more guys join voluntarily, which has nothing to do with favoritism. I'm not saying men aren't winning more often; when I first stated my arguments, I said it was true at a base statistical level that men do win more than women on average. However, if this system is based upon legitimate systematic favoritism, then girls like the examples I mention wouldn't have been able to do well at all. I really doubt, moreover, that even if letting those talented debaters win what they did was a mere ploy to make it look like girls have a chance in debate (which is ludicrous, of course) or that anyone after the fact was like, "Well, they really didn't win; we just let them." I really doubt that guy debaters (or any debaters) doubt the legitimacy of female successes on the debate circuit by virtue of them being female.

On CX, the round will become unclear if CX is rid of and give these male debaters more of an advantage insofar as they can now have a good chance of misrepresenting female opponent's arguments.

Moreover, I wasn't saying Avi's case alone is the cause of loss of value in debate, nor do I believe that those tournaments were completely obliterated due to this advocacy. My issue is that if this is accepted as perfectly OK and commonplace, then debate will turn into a postmodern hell. Moreover, even if you grant that being aware of biases is more important than the issue of the WTO and sanctions, my argument isn't that being aware of certain biases is bad; my issue is that performance cases hinder good, enriching educational debate when applied in the context of the round. I would commend someone who organized a rally, petition, or a meeting with the NFL or the TOC committee about this issue, because that is the proper avenue of doing it. Not within a debate round with set parametrics.

Finalement, just because a topic has unintended effects upon a population does not mean that the topic is at fault. Perhaps the debaters themselves did not do the proper research or things of the like.

[avi.arfin]

I want to thank everyone who has been supportive both here and in person. I'm really amazed with how the case has done both in terms of how much discussion has been generated and how many ballots were won. Jordan-I don't know if you check this thread, but I really enjoyed our round, and wish I could have the same quality of round with more people.

I am going to attempt to respond to the slew of posts people have made in several places. I believe most of people's responses are either in this forum, the forum Dave McGinnis started, and on the Stanford VBD thread. I am going to attempt to combine all three, and so respond by argument, not how they are originally signposted. If I miss one or there is somewhere else people have talked about the case, let me know. I'm sorry if this gets long, but I want to do all of the arguments justice.

First, to clarify a few things in general:
I did wear a dress when running this case at VBT, and I'm glad I did so, as I think it got a lot of attention. At Stanford however, I debated in a suit because since people were already discussing the case I wanted to shift the focus from the shock value to the substance. That's not to say that I don't still believe in subverting gender norms. I do. However, I recognize that its not easy to deal with and I want other points in the case to get attention too.
The case is slightly different than it was at VBT. The substance is the same, but the voters are somewhat different.
I do not believe anyone else was running my position. I know several people ran topical cases with gender impacts (whether that was due to me or not, I don't know).
Several people have asked about running my position. By all means feel free to take anything from the second or third sections. I'd really prefer if you wrote your own ballot story though. Feel free to use some of my ideas, but don't just take it word for word. Please do make sure you are sincere when you are running a position like mine-only do it if you feel comfortable going 0-7 and still running the case.

"Just because the tournament invite doesn't specify a topic doesn't mean that you ought not debate the sanctions topic"
I don't have a problem with the sanctions topic specifically or for that matter with topical debate in general. I have spent 2.5 years debating topically, and I obviously recognize the value of the activity. My point is that there is such a great problem in the community that we need to discuss it and the benefits of such a discussion outweigh the benefits of a normal round. The tournament invite argument also wasn't in the Stanford version of the case.

"You destroy education".
I'm not sure why we have to have a topical debate to have a substantive debate. I've learned a ton in running this position, and I'm pretty sure most opponents and judges I've had would say the same. In terms of rhetorical and argumentative skill, I think my position still encourages these. Also, I'm not arguing that we should never debate the topic, but rather that we should take some time to deal with these issues.

"You destroy objectivity".
FIrst, I'm not sure that rounds are as objective as we'd like them to think they are. I really do think that the flow is not a great solution to subjectivity in round. Also, objectivity is not the end all be all some people claim. The terminal impact as I see it of objectivity is to allow all debaters to participate equally in the activity, but if my case is right, that doesn't happen anyway.

"Debate rounds are the wrong forum"
I've responded to this earlier in the thread, but I will do so again. First, I really do feel that we all pay more attention to positions that are winning. This case got much more attention when I bid than when I went 3-4 at VBT. A great example is using 'she' as the gender neutral pronoun. Most debaters started doing it because they feared losing, but then kept on doing it once they had learned about the issue. Second, even if people aren't willing to listen at the time, it still has a positive impact. For instance, though a debater was not very receptive to the position in round and even made fun of it, she sent me a facebook message the night I hit her telling me that she had really reflected on the issues and started believing in my cause. Third, I don't think there is a better forum. The alternative would presumably be something like a thread here, but without the strategic disadvantages backing that up, I doubt that would get much attention, especially from people who don't already agree. Think about the failure of all the threads trying to change how speaker points are done.

"Moving away from IR topics is sexist"
Maybe. I never claim to have the answers-just a few suggestions to start the conversation. Got better ideas?

"While more men than women do win debate tournaments at a base statistical level, I don't see how women are "otherized" and "suffer" in the debate community; that's blatantly untrue."
First, I'm not sure where you got the words "otherize" or "suffer". They are not in my case. Second, I agree that that alone is not evidence of a problem. But if you take the time to read the articles in the case, or even just the cards, I think you'll see that there is a problem.

"X debater has done really well and she is a girl"
Great! Unfortunately, the fact that such an anecdote seems like such a big deal is more evidence of the problem. Obviously, there are girls who do very well, and are much better debaters than me. That doesn't mean there isnt a problem.

"You don't solve the harms in Kristoff/WuDunn".
No I don't. I don't claim to. I just want to point out how broad this issue is.

"Gender binary exists for good reason".
There are certainly good arguments for it, but I think there are also good arguments against it. My argument is similar to "seperate cannot be equal". Just as racial discrimination does not make sense when confronted with somebody who is racially mixed, similarly gender discrimination does not make sense when confronted with someone who does not conform to gender norms. This is of course to say nothing of the violence perpetrated against queers of all types, who have a hard time fitting into the current system. Did you know that 50% of harrassment against transgendered people in bathrooms is committed by cops?

"Larson and Vreeland is powertagged"
Read the article. It's not.

"You can't get rid of gender binary"
I by myself cannot. But it's gotta start somewhere. One might have said the same 40 years ago about being race blind. While we certainly aren't there yet, we are surely much farther along today.

"Don't hire judges/coaches/lab leaders based on gender"
I'm not saying that we should never hire guys. The idea is that when deciding between two relatively equal candidates, we should consider hiring a female coach to be a bonus. I know there are more female judges that are competent than are often put on outrounds panels. For instance, I only count 3 female judges in doubles at Stanford-there were definitely more competent judges there.

"If you really cared, you'd concede the ballot"
A lot of this is answered with the wrong forum stuff, but there is an additional point I want to make. I originally wrote the case with a version that had me conceding. However, I really do believe that it is important for the case to win. Both so that people will talk about it and so that I end up in good rounds with influential judges and opponents as opposed to 0-6 opponents and judges who aren't big in the community.

"If you really cared, you'd concede to girls"
I did seriously consider this, but decided not to. First, that's almost more insulting if I say that you can't win by yourself so I should just let you win. Second, the case is not about equality, but rather equity. Girls should not just win an equal number of rounds, but rather have an equal opportunity to win each round.

"You don't let my research count"
Sorry. You still get a bunch of rounds to debate that stuff. I think though that the issues are important enough to merit moving away from the topic temporarily.

"It's not universalizable"
Obviously, there are benefits to debating the topic. That means that the position will only win if the issue is big enough to overcome benefits an opponent is bringing up to topical debate. That acts as, in my mind, a sufficient check so that the case is only run when it needs to be.

"The other person can just say x bad"
True, they can perhaps bring up a bigger issue. That doesnt mean that voting for it is a good thing. The ballot should go to whoever has a position that is more worthy of reproduction. I think my case usually does deserve to be reproduced. I'm not sure why just saying genocide bad does.

"The other person can talk about x issue in debate"
They should. So long as it is a sufficient problem in debate, we should be having that discussion too. Remember though that benefits to normal debate check back doing this too much.

"You should coach females"
I'd like to think that most of the females on my team would agree that I am pretty helpful to them.

"Discourse will evolve around the position rather than the issues"
Maybe to some degree, but anyone who wants to really engage the case will have to at least to some degree think about these issues. Also, I think this is a really solvable problem. While the discussion we are currently having about my case is valuable, more people should post their ideas for how we can improve the debate community. I have a few ideas in act 3, but I know there are more ideas out there.


Whew-I know thats a lot, but that's my 2 cents.

[jrob]

Avi,

Would you concede the round if someone was willing to have a genuine and public discussion outside of the debate round where they were not bound by time, nor the incentive of the win?

[avi.arfin]

I'm not sure why conceding the round would help facilitate that discussion. I would be more than glad to have that discussion, but I don't see how that's mutually exclusive with me getting the ballot.
That said, I did agree to split ballots with Maddie at the VBT RR.

[jrob]

Wouldn't it be mutually exclusive if the only way that they agreed to have that discussion was if you conceded?

[ASeber]

Avi,
As someone who you know would be in support of a position like this, I have a legitimate concern and question. I have yet to debate you the three times you've run this (vbt/rr/stanford) but I obviously gave it some thought. Why should I have to lose a ballot to this position, especially if I genuinely support it. I.e., you essentially put some debaters in this very uncomfortable binding position where they have to debate "against" you. I mean, the last time you debated me I ran micropolitics voters for a case about indigenous people, remember? While the case was topical, it still puts the other debater and the judge in an uncomfortable position. I remember all of your arguments were about why the judge shouldn't vote on discourse/micropolitics, because to respond substantively makes it very easy to come off as offensive, similar to your position.

So I guess my only question is why should I have to drop a ballot against this case? It's not that i have a problem with you picking up ballots, but the other debater dropping ballots.

[Fresca]

Avi, I don't have a firm opinion on this case but I do have a question. Why is the evidence you cite that's specifically about debate (I don't remember card names, but the stuff that talks about how there are more male coaches and how males interrupt females more in debate) about college policy debate in the 1980's? Wouldn't it be better to have evidence that is more recent, actually about high school, and actually about LD? And how can you say that the trends of college policy twenty years ago are the same as LD trends today?