Binghamton Speech & Debate

Submitted at May 13, 2014 01:01:23AM EST by James Stanescu

The decision is for the Proposition: Christian Chessman

Reason for Decision:

So, this is by far the most interesting debate I have seen in this format. I am tired, and sub'd in to judge, and I both kinda love and hate Joe for assigning me this debate. (I did laugh at the picture of the dolphin during the speed up part of the Opp's speech for a while).

(1) Is there, or is there not a patriarchy K? That's a tricky question. If the Opp wants me to believe there is, I suggest perhaps less use of cards, and more of an explanation at the link level. What I get is that in a linked document, there was a meme to a movie (that might or might not be sexist, it certainly isn't an anti-sexist film), that the meme contained gendered language, that the prop speaker made fun of the LOST DA, and that the prop had accused the opp of plagiarism and threatened actions outside of the round. First two points might have been the grounds for a decent in debate link, but are not ground of sexism that I believe means I should just drop the prop. The making fun of the LOST DA in and of itself is not sexist (because, also, it is a terrible DA). However, I can see the world where it could be made an argument for that as being behavior that creates negative effects for women in debate. Again, this is the sort of thing that needs to be brought up in round, and explained out.
The last bit is the personal bit about plagiarism. I don't really understand if it is sexist. It seems kinda jerky of the prop (though I am not really sure what the accusation is).

In general, I don't understand the link level strongly enough to ignore the basic norms of debate, and intervene. So no, there is not a patriarchy K in this debate.

(2) kritik of speed/spreading. New arguments in later speeches are often not abusive, they are just not effective because the final speaker can just make answers that are not respondable. Much of this happens with the spread K. This becomes doubly true, when the argument seems to be almost entirely satire or performative, instead of made in the round. Perhaps if the there was a brief speed up part, and the rest was read in round? That would be stronger. Even if the spread up part included a speed K in the document, that would be helpful. But considering speech documents were provided by the prop, and the exact reasons that spreading is abusive where never stated, I don't know what to do. Again, I feel there needs to be more from the opp to justify judge intervention. And without that intervention, the arguments from the prop are all sound.

Anyway, I gave everyone high speaks (or at least what I think are high speaks for this tournament), and I enjoyed the round. I am busy, so delays in responses from me might happen, but I am happy to respond to questions that are sent to me.