reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @j_fishback
@j_fishback - James Fishback
I am not suicidal
@AFpost - AF Post
Israeli state media says Netanyahu should be “most concerned” about Florida gubernatorial candidate James Fishback, calling him a “threat” to US foreign aid to Israel. Follow @AFpost https://t.co/bCQ5EqBX5o
reSee.it AI Summary
I was berated by Randy Fine for 42 minutes about the Florida race, warned of “real problems” if I ran, and urged Byron Donalds not to face me. I told him Republicans lost this week because of people like him and Donalds. I accuse them of whining on TV and doing little in D.C., and say the real work is Trump’s; we want America First, not foreign wars. @RepFine @ByronDonalds
@j_fishback - James Fishback
Yesterday, Randy Fine called me and berated me for 42 minutes about the Florida governor’s race—telling me that if I entered, there would be “real problems” for me in the future. He said "it wouldn’t be nice to Byron Donalds" if I ran against him, as if we don’t have elections in our country. I told him: "Randy, if Byron is such a good candidate, he’ll trounce me, but the truth is, Republicans are the ones who got trounced this week—because of people like you and Byron Donalds." All these two clowns do is write strongly worded letters, go on CNN and Fox News to whine, and then return to their districts pretending they accomplished something. The only person actually working in Washington, D.C. right now is Donald J. Trump. If Elon Musk emailed Byron and Randy to ask, “What did you get done this week?” their answer would be: went on TV, whined on a podcast, and posted tweets. This is the problem with the do-nothing congressional Republicans. You’re not focused on delivering America First. We didn’t vote for foreign wars. We didn’t vote for bombing other countries. We voted for America First—period. End of story. @RepFine @ByronDonalds
Video Transcript AI Summary
Yesterday, Randy Fine called me. He berated me for forty two minutes about the Florida governor's race, telling me that if I entered that race, there would be real problems for me in the future, telling me that it wouldn't be nice to Byron Donalds if I ran against him as if we don't have elections in this country. Randy, if Byron is such a good candidate, he'll trounce me. But the truth is Republicans are the ones who got trounced this week. Republicans got trounced because of people like you and Byron Donald's.
People like you and Byron Donald's, all you get done is write strongly worded letters, go on CNN and Fox News and whine, and then come back to your districts and act like you got something done for Americans. It's an absolute joke. The only person who's working in Washington DC goes by the name of Donald j Trump. And the do nothing congressional Republicans, many of whom are good people, but the truth of the matter is that if Elon Musk emailed you guys and asked you what you got done this week, you would say absolutely nothing. Because you know what?
Going on TV, whining on podcasts, and writing tweets does not count. That does not count as getting something done for hardworking Americans. But you know the beautiful thing about all of this is that you guys endorse each other. You and Byron are thick as thieves, which is quite fitting actually. You guys endorse each other.
Byron, you endorsed Randy for his congressional reelection. So Byron, let me ask you. Do you endorse Randy Fine's comment on 07/22/2025 in which in response to children starving in Gaza, Randy said, quote, starve away. This is the problem. This is the problem with you congressional Republicans is you are not focused on delivering for America first.
We did not vote for foreign wars. We did not vote for bombing other countries. We did not vote for any of that. We voted for America first, period. End of story.
And what you guys have done has been a complete humiliation, a complete rejection of the historic landslide, the mandate that we as voters gave president Trump. Get back to DC, do your jobs, and actually deliver America first.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yesterday, Randy Fine called me. He berated me for forty two minutes about the Florida governor's race, telling me that if I entered that race, there would be real problems for me in the future, telling me that it wouldn't be nice to Byron Donalds if I ran against him as if we don't have elections in this country. Randy, if Byron is such a good candidate, he'll trounce me. But the truth is Republicans are the ones who got trounced this week. Republicans got trounced because of people like you and Byron Donald's.
People like you and Byron Donald's, all you get done is write strongly worded letters, go on CNN and Fox News and whine, and then come back to your districts and act like you got something done for Americans. It's an absolute joke. The only person who's working in Washington DC goes by the name of Donald j Trump. And the do nothing congressional Republicans, many of whom are good people, but the truth of the matter is that if Elon Musk emailed you guys and asked you what you got done this week, you would say absolutely nothing. Because you know what?
Going on TV, whining on podcasts, and writing tweets does not count. That does not count as getting something done for hardworking Americans. But you know the beautiful thing about all of this is that you guys endorse each other. You and Byron are thick as thieves, which is quite fitting actually. You guys endorse each other.
Byron, you endorsed Randy for his congressional reelection. So Byron, let me ask you. Do you endorse Randy Fine's comment on 07/22/2025 in which in response to children starving in Gaza, Randy said, quote, starve away. This is the problem. This is the problem with you congressional Republicans is you are not focused on delivering for America first.
We did not vote for foreign wars. We did not vote for bombing other countries. We did not vote for any of that. We voted for America first, period. End of story.
And what you guys have done has been a complete humiliation, a complete rejection of the historic landslide, the mandate that we as voters gave president Trump. Get back to DC, do your jobs, and actually deliver America first.
@j_fishback - James Fishback
Randy Fine called me this morning to berate me for 42 minutes because “it wouldn’t be nice to Byron” if I ran against him for Florida Governor. Since @ByronDonalds endorses Randy, let me ask you, Byron: do you condemn Randy Fine’s comment to “starve away” children in Gaza? https://t.co/PMhgCObiJC
@j_fishback - James Fishback
Inflation just came in better than expected for a *fifth consecutive month.* What on earth is Jerome Powell doing keeping interest rates near 20-year highs? https://t.co/xsYpBm9JWC
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that Jerome Powell is keeping interest rates too high despite inflation being under control, potentially due to personal feelings about the president. Inflation is near a four-year low after five consecutive better-than-expected readings, yet interest rates remain near twenty-year highs, with mortgage rates near 7% and credit card rates above 20%. The proposed solution is for the Federal Reserve to livestream its meetings, similar to the SEC, FTC, and FCC, to provide public scrutiny of their deliberations. The speaker believes the public deserves to know what this "secret group of bankers" is doing, as they are setting the cost of money.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We just learned that the June inflation number came in better than expected now, the fifth consecutive reading that is lower than better than expected. What on earth is Jerome Powell doing keeping interest rates near twenty year highs, pushing credit card rates up there, mortgage rates up there as well when inflation is clearly under control? This is it's craziness, and it actually could be resolved very quickly. Some of us are genuinely concerned, the president included, that monetary policy is being unduly influenced by Jerome Powell more appropriately to late's personal feelings about the president and his policy agenda. The solution here is actually pretty simple.
The Federal Reserve can open its meetings up to a public livestream just like the SEC, the FTC, the FCC do. Let the public listen in on exactly how these Fed members are deliberating because, honestly, it doesn't make any sense. With inflation now near a four year low, after five consecutive better than expected, lower than expected readings, the Federal Reserve is deciding to keep interest rates near twenty year highs, mortgage rates near 7% as a consequence, and credit card rates well above 20 percentage points. Jerome Powell can do the right thing here, yes, by lowering rates, but also by opening his meetings up to public scrutiny. The public deserves to know what the secret group of bankers is doing behind the scenes, and it's impacting all of us because they ultimately are setting the cost of money.
reSee.it AI Summary
High school debate has lost its essence, with some encouraging the use of race, gender, and identity to win rather than relying on logic and evidence. To revive the true spirit of debate, alternative leagues should be established where students are judged solely on the merit of their arguments. This is the mission of @IncubateDebate, and I support others who share this goal. Let's make debate great again.
@j_fishback - James Fishback
“They have a white debater on their team, which inherently means they have more whiteness than us” argues a **nationally ranked high school debater.** These kids are encouraged by the “adults in the room” to use race/gender/identity to win, instead of logic, evidence, and reasoning. High school debate was transformational for me. It's sad that it has devolved into this anti-debate, anti-merit sham. Our only hope of reviving high school debate is to build alternative debate leagues where young Americans are judged on the merit of their argument and nothing else. That's what I've been doing with @IncubateDebate and I will always assist those doing the same in their community/state. Make Debate Great Again.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that the opposing team has more "whiteness" on their side, which they believe is detrimental to the representation of queer people. They propose voting for their pick to support the cause without the influence of whiteness. They dismiss the claim that they are taking over someone else's labor and argue that it is just a technicality of debate. They reject the accusation of trans exclusion and assert that discussing their sexuality on a livestream is uncomfortable for them. They criticize the opposing team for telling them how to advocate and link it to racism. They also condemn the use of black suffering as an example of advocacy by a white person. They claim that this argument was dropped and should be considered.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They have a white demeanor on their team, which inherently means they have more whiteness than us. We obviously know that JJ is not white. It's pretty obvious. Go down onto our pick. We give you 3 words why we subsume all of their protests and affirm their protests.
In a pick, what it means is you are furthering their cause just minus t whiteness. As Rebecca is a vehicle for this movement, we say that whiteness means really bad for representation in queer people, and it's a bad form of furthering protest. The best way to further the protest is to vote for our pick and to affirm it, but minus the white is they say that we're taking over JJ's labor. But first, this is a new response. If they read this response before.
We probably were read a cat pee about how you can't, like, use labor across identity lines. That's a really bad thing to do. Second, how pix work is you up front of their protest. We're not taking over their labor. It's just a new technicality of debate.
Then they say that it's trans exclusion. No. The couple responses that they dropped from Sanji won. Our constructive speech was about personal experiences about our identity. We are not comfortable discussing our sexuality on a livestream with a 130 people.
Second, we say that, like, them telling us how we should represent our advocacy feeds into our link about racism because a white person that someone on a white date should never be telling 2 women of color how they should be furthering their advocacy. That's an independent link you to our whiteness argument against drug. You can drop them right now. They say we should have read things about the about the hall of shame. It's an identity cave.
We are not trans debaters. We don't don't wanna do that. Also, they don't put anything about women of color or queer women of color in their case, which is they also link it to the exclusion. There's no independent offense off of this. Then at the bottom, all these stuff about the Louisville project.
Their racist rhetoric and using the black labor as a way to further their advocacy is inherently racist. Disrupt them. They say that JJ wrote the argument, but no. Rebecca is a baneful of the movement. You should never use a white person who's saying the Louis Vuitton using it as an example of their advocacy in order to further improve, but then using black suffering to advance at the tournament is just a bad thing to do.
Then they say that, oh, that that it's just an example. A white person just student use a black person suffering as an example of their advocacy that's inherently a racist thing to do, and it's too late to respond to this argument final focus, and it's the largest drop argument. There's also Drop argument that links it to racism about how they're telling us how to represent our advocacy.
reSee.it AI Summary
In debates, it's commendable when judges prevent students from derailing discussions on IMF benefits into irrelevant rants on gender/race. This issue is common, as seen in the 2021 National Tournament of Champions quarter final round. Good judges are tired of it.
@j_fishback - James Fishback
Good on him. He doesn't want students to hijack a debate on the benefits of the IMF and turn it into anoff-topic, unintelligible rant-session on gender/race. This happens all the time, and good judges are SICK of it. Just watch the quarter final round of the National **Tournament of Champions** (2021).
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses gender inequality and discrimination in the IMF and the debate community. The speakers highlight the lack of representation and the challenges faced by women of color and trans individuals. They argue for the need to disrupt the status quo and create a more inclusive and equitable space. The debate centers around the role of the ballot and which team best supports the goals of trans liberation and intersectional feminism. The judges acknowledge the importance of the arguments presented and commend both teams for their efforts in raising awareness and advocating for change.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Barrick 17, neoliberal institutes like the IMF use economic growth as a way to cover up gender inequality that also increases IMF programs. These documents are called positions and remain silent on the relevance of the gender wage to economic growth. Campbelltown, the 30 senior officials at the IMF, only 3 are women. The 10 managing directors, not one has ever been a woman. The 24% executive True women fee, 4% management team, not 1 is a woman.
Women are ignored or trivialized. Those of them who are at the IMF school, ignored it or not promoted to senior levels. The woman fighting for gender parity at the IMF are trivialized without giving any little board of action. As women of color, Sanjeet and I feel constantly sound to the base space the same way that women are silenced for the IMF through microaggression, sexualization, and being Hate about male counterpoints, never seen women of color, women of color, Tuesday files, and constantly being underestimated. We've questioned our place in this community.
This is our last circuit tournament, the largest to see that as our debate careers come to an end, we we're back to the last 4 years and recover numerous instances of oppression that we have felt, the sentiment based, to share by the massive database that is beyond results, hall of shame. Today, we'd like ways. Share a few. During my junior year, my 1st year experiencing competitive success, my voice was constantly made fun of by male debaters even on public platforms like the public forum Discord. I constantly find myself conscious of my voice in rounds, whether it's too squeaky, too nasally, whether judges will find it too annoying to pick us up.
We received numerous ballots from white male judges criticizing our demeanor and cross examination as too aggressive in rounds especially with other white males. This mindset that women of white color, feisty and worked up the microaggression that compounds over time, ultimately excluding us from the debate space. In an activity that's already dominated by male prep group, it's hard enough to find allies and support. We are alienated from these resources and relationships that make debate a valuable experience. Imagine our disgust when the only messages we get from male debaters gap are those that sexualize us.
We are tired of hearing from male debaters talking about us in sexual manners objectifying us behind our backs. Our 3rd elimination round is a partnership wave. This year, 2 male debaters scream over us and crossfire refer to our arguments as stupid when accidentally off mute and regularly laughed during their speeches. We lose the round on a 21. 2 of the judges acknowledge our opponent's exclusionary behavior, but don't view it as a reason to drop them.
Moments after the decision, we received the following text, quote, I was one of your judges in the last round, and I'm so sorry you had to endure that level Hyper masking aggressiveness in the 2 c x. Y'all should be advancing right now. Our oppression is constantly put as secondary to the round. I was too torn into the season, and I'm already reminded why I quit debate my junior year. Women Women of color face unique discrimination in public speaking places.
N y t twenty. Kamala Harris became the 1st woman of color to take the debate stage of the member of the major party's ticket. President Trump has spare shirts, totally unlikable in communist. They twice color coded this monster, this DCM humanizing language exhibits attitudes towards how women should behave, how people of color should behave, especially how women of color should behave. Ross 20, the week before she became the democratic vice president who nominated me 2 weeks after, about 25% of media coverage of Harris mentioned and sometimes skilled to labeling label overly sexist racist Trump.
61% is not racist or sexist, but still focus on the race and gender pairs. Yet just 5% of the stories during the same period in 2016 gap. Because of the race or gender, the 2 white men c e v vice presidency, marker 20, the woman of color must overcome both racism and sexism to succeed. 100 years after women gave the right to vote, women of color still Underrepresent the holds of power, rule of color, makeup, 1 fifth of the US population, far smaller share, major elected officials. Your ballot is key for two reasons.
One, keeping woman of color in the activity, advancing us to ensure that there's at least 1 woman of color, woman of color keeping the pool. We're the only one left to this brand and the only way to make to the stems round. For the past 2 years, there have been no gerbil teams and stems, let alone a well, the woman of color. A woman of color scheme has never won the TOC. This lack of representation leaves young women of color questioning if they If they belong in this activity, we could be the representation they deserve after we beat a team while not on the circuit for exhibiting white male toxic behavior.
We've received dozens of messages yesterday from Competitors across the circuit telling the student, take down the patriarchy and win the tournament to represent women of color debated. Affirm our space in this activity. 1 of our middle school girls, messages have to be around to tell us that She and her female partner were rooting for us to win. Winning this tournament shows young girls of color like them that they belong in fact to me and deserve success. 2, high High school's amazing microcosm of policy making.
We debate future issues and policies in a way that no other organized academic event does by not advancing women of color schemes. You are forcing the same power structures that are cut. Current political landscape exhibits, advancing women of color, the best, biggest high school debate tournament, and they disrupted change that will bring about change in this community.
Speaker 1: Thousands of demonstrators demand that New York City do more to help those suffering from AIDS. Resistance to perform of non cooperation demonstrators gap. To be dragged to paddy wagons, many shouting as they were carried away.
Speaker 2: Do you think you really accomplished a great deal? Yes. I think we do. What else can we do? Gap.
I've done everything. I've called everybody. I got appointments with everybody. I've gotta come to city of Holland, state my case. We're dying.
He is dying. Gap.
Speaker 3: I don't know that man's name, but I know a little of the hopelessness and the horrible sinking fear in his voice. Here's how I prepped for the TOC. Guy. I woke up a week before and learned that 28 instead of 27 states wanted to kill me.
Speaker 4: The clip I played is from the 1987 active protest in New York city. It was not the 1st and certainly not the last demonstration of its kind. It joins the tradition of trans and queer protests against institutions into reform communities that are violent and exclusive. We are here to join this tradition in our own small way. So welcome to the protest.
We are tired of how debate treats trans people. More than that, we are tired of the way that that treatment is normalized gap. And how it is treated as a necessary byproduct of having this good discourse. When a nationally ranked team is bold enough to read arguments and make trans people uncomfortable gap. In front of an 11 person panel and not be called out for it, something needs to change.
When a trans kid can go 3 years into being polluting, being misgendered was simply something he needed to take In order to win ballots, something needs to change. When almost every trans person quits debate or considers quitting several times a month, several times a week, several times a day, something needs gap to change. 1st is the framework. Status quo political discourse remains fixated on the notion of the child, a symbol of a future society we must protect. Gap.
In 12. Politicians universally frame their debates around the question of what policies are best for children, who keeps the child safest. Politics, however, supposedly radical is Simply the universal movement of submission to the idea of the future to preserve, maintain, and upgrade the structures of society and to proliferate them throughout time for the sake of the children. It is for this reason queerness finds stuff missing from all political discourse. Sound familiar?
It should. Still having abstract policy debates in gap. Exclusionary community as this constitutes something like reproductive futurism. They're obsessed with the continuation of a society for future generations gap. Well, ignoring violence that happens every day in spaces like this.
See, trans people know that scenario planning is planning for a future they don't have. They're too busy surviving in order to participate guys made in the game. Bait in 12, reproductive futurism, which demands that all social relationships be structured in order to allow for the possibility of a future, In terms of sacrifice of virtual a vital energy for the pure of shocking the idealized continuation of society. Queermas must figure as a gap. As being against the future itself.
In the name of the future, any repression can be justified. This round is going to be a debate about debate. The button you're clicking does nothing to the IMF itself. Your gap. Instead, it's whether to affirm our performance.
The role of the ballot is to vote for the team that constructs the best strategy for transliberation in debate. Essentially, you are deciding will you join the protest? Vincent 13. Debate in and of is in and of itself a protest. You must evaluate what a debater's performance does and justifies.
Those with Privilege and debate are never for to have their performance and task them. Any argument that are viewed as words on paper or alternative to occupy the debates until translators participate safely. Movements are only effective if they create material incentives for those in power to change by denying the community business as usual. Win here allows us to continue reading this argument In the term written policy, for instance, the Louisville project intended to increase black participation in debate was most successful when Ryan Walsh and Elijah Smith won Major championships in arguments like this. In nineteen, to open institutions up that have functioned as containers for you have to throw usage into crisis.
Protest requires becoming an inconvenience to make violence. Sometimes you have to create a scene to stop business as usual. Impossible to pass by. Occupation is a political protest. You counter the violence in the system by revealing violence.
We've tried politeness. We have tried blog posts and infographics and endless discussion, but the only way the debate community will change is if we hold their most sacred currency for ransom ballots. We will occupy the debate base and deny business as usual until there is change. There cannot be business as usual when everyday the people who coexist in this activity with you are being dehumanized and ground to dust. Gap.
Speaker 5: Rebecca, are you white? Yes. Okay. You got a
Speaker 0: question.
Speaker 4: Gap. Okay. So, what do you think the role of the ballot in this round is?
Speaker 5: The role of the ballot is to further the team that can best make debate a more equitable space.
Speaker 4: Gap. How are you disruptive to the debate space?
Speaker 5: Because we're reading a non top like, we also write a protest just like you all. It's also a non topical argument.
Speaker 4: So what makes your argument a protest? Because it's non topical?
Speaker 5: Because yeah. And no. No. It's just the idea that we're Writing awareness about issues in debate rather than actuating the topic, which brings the disruption. And the judges are asked to vote based on this like wave.
New idea they're bringing up that isn't the topic. So that brings up the instruction. I would I would appreciate if you just clarify pronouns really quickly since she and I are both sheher.
Speaker 4: Okay. I use sheher pronouns as well.
Speaker 5: Okay. And JJ?
Speaker 4: I use sheher.
Speaker 5: Alright. I that's what I thought, but I just wanna make sure.
Speaker 0: Gap. We defend the entirety of their protest sans its sustenance of white privilege. We affirm the entirety of their protest including criticism of misgendering and anti queerness in debate except for its whiteness. You should judge this debate between 2 worlds. The World World DB represents protest gap and where Dalton represents the protest.
Our argument is not that Dalton does not belong in the protest, but rather that the way that they present themselves with the microphone of the movement necessarily aligns the movement along white privilege excluding non white people such as ourselves. Endorsing DV is net beneficial. Three warrants. Cuts first. Kimberly Crenshaw, oppression has always been intersectional.
The way that a woman of color experiences anti queerness has more barriers than the way that a white way. Person experiences anti queerness. Deconstructing the anti queerness in the content of a woman of color that is much more powerful. White people represent queerness in a bad way, gap. Specifically in public forum, the way that public forum has been designed is to reward white ways of speaking and acting.
The reason we have these whitewashed got sent. We dress a certain way and can't speak to our grandparents is because we had to make these sacrifices in order to survive in a white space. They have a concrete advantage because they can appear and can represent their protest in a white form. The way we present ourselves in this activity has become whitewashed. This is because of the history of the way white people have taken over spaces like debate.
You should reject Dalton from reasserting their whiteness and from acting like they can accommodate our perspective. It is nothing more than a liberal veil for racism. Second, we have our own experiences that deserve to be represented in finals. Competitors have put these same investments that people have invested in their appearance in finals in our appearance in finals. The case doc that I will send after my speech has concrete evidence governance of us and other women of color facing oppression and debates.
So many people messaged us after we've been we beat Bethesda yesterday. 2 white men with The largest big cut on the circuit telling us to take down the patriarchy and win the tournament to represent women of color in debate and affirm our space activity. This is a material instance of real problems in the community being solved. 3rd, cultural appropriation. A white person should not be having the words, projectile project in their mouth.
Elijah Smith and Ryan Walsh came from an entirely different intellectual context. Dalton is appropriating their cause. Black pain and black research should be none of Dalton's concern. No white person should be comparing their advocacy to the Louis Mill project, which was built on black suffering. Their experience of black people in as poll in policy debates It's something that only black people should defend.
Their racism is an independent reason to drop them, to set a precedent for debaters to not profit off of black suffering in a space that has inherently become whitewashed. But then they say the role of the ballot is to like, the role of the ballot is to like, progress race, trans inclusion, and debate. Our argument includes all of their protest. We affirm their entire protest. We say we are better leaders of gun protest because we don't put it across the lines of racism.
In so far as that's true, you are having unique net benefit by voting For us, you are also solving for their role of the ballot. If you think it is immoral to reserve whether 2 women of color should progress in this tournament or a trans debater should progress in this tournament. You should vote for the team you think is most best going to progress this argument, which is always going to be us.
Speaker 3: Gap. Only argument of witness. The first part is it ought to be intersectional. Our case is intersectional. Remember the part where I talked about my experiences and also I heard most of the case?
I am not a white debater. I'm Filipino, and I gap. Specifically about my experiences in like, I don't know how else we could have made it intersectional. It's literally me talking. I am saying those words.
I don't know what to tell you. There's also no link explained as to why this is, necessarily critique of argument. It just says in general, intersectionality is important which we agree with, and public forum is what what's what we also agree with. We're seeing the best way to deconstruct that is do things like, for instance, play music and clips during speeches and move away from that, which is what policy and l did LV did. Also, There's a 2nd disadvantage here, which is about them assuming what race we are.
They asked Rebecca to her race in, 1st cross, but then They read this line that says, quote, you should reject Dalton from reasserting their whiteness. If they made that criticism purely of Rebecca, it would have been different, but don't let them read arguments like that And assume things that people's identities that are false. A, they're showing all their diversity and inclusion arguments because it decreases intersectionality and b, it also independently is a disad. Like, I really should not have to spend time in speeches asserting that I am not white even if I have a lighter skin. Also, like, y'all probably should have known this from my, like, last name.
Gap. Let's go to their 2nd argument where they talk about, how they have their own personal experiences. I think that most of the representation arguments in this debate are actually probably not very productive, which we'll get to in a moment. But second, Laurie, we also have our own experiences. I am the only transubator I've ever met to get to eliminations of any, like, of any of the tournament of champions literally ever.
And I'm also, the only transfiger of color who's ever done that. I don't know what to tell you. I don't think that it's anyone's place to say, our experiences should be represented and yours are not. It's rather about our methodology. They say people message them thanking them for beating BCC.
People message us for thanking for beating BCC at the Durham round robin in front of 11 people, and they're at social distancing theory. In fact, When we read that example in case it's also about BCC, I think we can all agree perhaps they're a net negative. Let's go to their 3rd argument where they talk about cultural appropriation. Two responses. 1, Even if Rebecca read the cases, an argument that I wrote and she is reading, which I am not white, again another, but I don't know how many times I have to cross gap.
But second of all, our argument is never to say that we are the Louisville project. In fact, if you read the rhetoric of the case, which we're happy to send, the only 4 instance we give is saying that arguments that are advanced cuts. Later in are more successful. Our argument is not that it's the same at all. And and it's also third of all, there's probably a response that's like I think that this probably trivialize, like, culture appropriation and that saying the words, oh, the Louisville project was successful and we also want to be in late is not the same thing at all.
Let's go specifically to, On their case, there are 2 responses at the top. 1st, we agree with their. The intersectionality is important, which turns their case because we say they need to specifically name Things like trans misogyny, which are critical to combating overall misogyny. There are 2 implications of this. A, this turns all their arguments.
If you're not talking about how black trans women Had a life expectancy of 30 years in this country or not doing adequate feminism for everyone. But second of all, and more importantly, is omission is a link into their case. We say that when When you omit trans people from these movements, they become actively against trans people. For instance, the reason why a bunch of feminists, so called, I e, terfs, would tell me that I'm just a girl who forgot her place and I lost wage, or whatever. The n NWLC, right, these big efforts are aided by continue to self identified feminists who've been promoting and damaging Violent ideas by trans people for years in US international.
The vitriol has not affect them at all. They've more than generous than ever before. Discover unique experiences or feminism must be unapologetically unapologetically expensive. Second of all, there's a trans male exclusion dissent. When they talk about things like, oh, the female experience in debate is being mocked for your voice.
In every round, I have to modulate my voice. In every interaction in my life, I have to modulate my voice and my way of speaking and interaction. In fact, I've gotten so many ballots saying your voice is sure referred to me as miss or missus you. Guy. That also turns the case to reason I gave.
They say they should go through. One representation is irrelevant. It creates a suppression Olympics. We're not saying we should win because I'm trans. We're saying we should win for our method.
But second of all, There have been no trans because they say we're disruptive. We're also disruptive, so we're critiquing your rhetoric. The final argument we answer is on our case. They said we went under your your rule about because We also protect trans debaters. Not if you don't say trans, you have to say trans people or else it is actively weaponized against trans people, which is what happened with the Trump movement, with people like JK Rowling.
Your feminism must be trans inclusionary, which requires saying trans people.
Speaker 0: Sanjisha and I are 2 women of color who've constantly felt justice activity allowing us to move in this tournament means that, one, we offer the representation to female debaters who look up to us just reference the case talks. And second, it's called to the debate space to the microcosm of politics, which means that when you solve back for advancing, I'm gonna call you dismantle the stuff that we've talked about in case about how members like Common has been excluded from the space. Gap. They read you the 1st responses that we were exclusionary towards trans people. Three responses.
1st, no first, that's not actually true. In rebuttal, we embrace their entire advocacy. Our entire advocacy is built up of personal stories and neither me or Sanjita are trans, so we couldn't bring those into the constructed. That's why the minute they read it, we embraced it because we agree that feminism should be intersectional and that's the only kind of feminism we support. We reject any kind of terf feminism, but second, it shouldn't be our burden to bring up personal Personal experience about these things that we are uncomfortable discussing our sexuality or our deals with queerness that turns all the offense that they read about inclusion, but they're they're argument that they should be telling guy.
How do they protest feeds into our argument about whitewashing protest? There is no way that Dalton with 1 white speaker can ever tell a woman of color team gap. How to do their protest. It is fundamentally not okay for them to do. Then they talk about trans mode exclusion.
We agree that trans mode exclusion is a big issue, but the things that Jay Jay talks about experiencing. Also, link it to stuff we talk about. That's because the feminism that we're advancing also falls back for those issues by advancing a general deconstruction of the gender norms. That finally Did you It's just about rejection. Feminism is only about rejecting the patriarchy.
We don't embrace the kind of feminism that that person other people embrace. That's why we in the rebuttal, the first line justice rebuttals. We affirm the entire advocacy sans the whiteness. JD states a win for trans people. They win the TOC.
We agree it's a win for women of color. We win it as well. Yeah. Gap. Okay.
Go to the off. On the off, they read a few responses. 1st, you can group their response about how JJ is a Filipino debater, and the third Sponsored by how not all Dalton is white and the terms they read. That's not our argument. There are their team still has one more whiteness than we do.
And second, no matter what, even if JJ was the one who wrote the case, Rebecca is still a vehicle for this, case to move forward and for the protest to move forward which means that it's still rooted in whitewash layers of supremacy. Then they see it's not a critique of their argument. No. It's a critique of them. We argue that if it both worlds, if you feel wishy washy about voting for a woman of color team versus the trans team to advance in this care tournament.
You should be voting for the team that can best represent the advocacy. We represent it better because we did take out the white washing. Then they say that it's, gap, that yeah. They read a bunch of stuff out. They also saw back for BCC and TOC.
That's fine. Go to the cultural appropriation. JJ says he wrote the argument that's not sponsored. Then they say, the they're just arguing that the arguments that advance are more successful and that we're trivializing culture appropriation. No.
They're saying that the reason that the that the Louisville project advancing was a good thing and them advancing would have the similar benefits of the Louisville project advancing. That's cultural appropriation because the Louisville project was born out of a black that suffering a white person should never even have the words Louisville project in their mouth to win a debate tournament. That's the independent reason to drop And it's not true blood in cultural appropriation because the black suffering that bore out the liberal Louisville project is something that is very sacred. It was black communities in the ways, communities not okay for them to do.
Speaker 4: The role of the god in this round is conceded from my opponents, which comes from Ahmed, which means that the best way gap. The role of the ballot in this round is the to vote for the team that whose performance leveraged trans people the best. This is completely dropped by my opponents, which means that this is the role in the ballot of this round. Guy. With that, the Omid evidence explains that the only way to do that is to disrupt status quo and disrupt business as usual.
With that, we're winning the round on the 2 cons the 2 turns on their case. Gap. 1st, the Crenshaw evidence explains that all, discussion of feminists must be feminism, must be intersectional feminism, which means that so it doesn't get co opted by movements like trans exclusionary, radical feminist, or the MWLC evidence explained. And then if you're not actively calling out curves and you're not actually doing anything because your movement will literally just get co opted. They give you 2 responses.
1st, they just say, oh, we're citing personal narratives and, b, we shouldn't be have gap. Ourselves first. They say other people literally from the hall of shame, they're reading buzzers on that exact website. There are trans narratives that they could've read if they wanted to or they could've Literally just put in a line or something talking about trans people, then they just say that, oh, but we'll also talk about trans people. We did it as soon as they read it in case.
But, no, our argument is if they're not doing it on their own, that means that their case, a, has a problem, and, b, in future rounds, if they wanna go on and continue to read this round, they'll never talk about white trans people because
Speaker 0: they won't have an
Speaker 4: opponent to do it because, look, Jade is the only trans, person, I think, that's in this tournament. And then they say that, guy. Oh, then the 2nd place that you can vote for is they won't. Oh, yeah. Then they say we don't like terfs.
It doesn't matter if you don't like terfs. The MWLC evidence explains that, guy. Like, unless you actively are talking out against them, they'll just cool off your movement. Then on the 2nd disadvantage that JJ reads which says that, guy. This their type of feminism is trans male exclusionary.
Every single round, he has to go through many of the same things that they talk about, but they don't include him in it, because, he's not a woman. Guy. Then they just say, oh, we have the same link. We're also talking about this. No.
They literally never talk about the trans experience, which means that they don't have the same link. Guy. Then on their rules about representation, they dropped a Juju's response which explained that just talking about representation leads to an oppression Olympics, which means that You're trying to find be more and more oppressed, which counteracts all forms of advocacy and also makes it less intersectional. Then on this argument about, white privilege that they talk to you about, They just said, that our argument is, like, a symbol of white privilege. Judy and they they see that, like, I'm reading the argument.
JJ wrote the argument. The only way for him to be able to read this in round is for me to be able to do it. It is it's for me it's like for him to be able to read this rap this gap. Speech on his partners if I read it out loud. I'm just trying to support my partner.
This is an independent reason to drop us. Then they talk about the Louisville project. Gap. It's literally we've just given it as example. We never say that we equate it.
It's just an example of highlighting their success, talking about how revolutionary they were, and saying that that other leaders can strive to be like them. We never once say that our argument, is like the same thing. Gap. They say that our whiteness assumes, like, assumes race. Oh, yeah.
Then they say that, like, by guy. Dalton's whiteness, they're assuming our race or assuming JJ's race. They see, and that's an independent reason to drop them, because he's not white, and they shouldn't call him white guy. If he's not, and they shouldn't assume that kind of stuff. So that's also just an independent reason to drop the debater.
What about our argument, other is it just that I read it guy. That makes it like a like a symbol of white privilege?
Speaker 5: Not it's not yeah. So the issue is just that when we affirm the entirety of your advocacy Never rebuttal. That means both of us are affirming the same thing. The difference that we make and the net benefit of us affirm like of us embracing this versus you embracing the protest is the fact gap. We're both women of color and we argue that Rebecca being white, being a vessel for his argument to progress in future rounds where everything turns your offense because embrace a white washed version of protests.
That's the first one.
Speaker 0: The second one is specifically about the illegal project of how a white person should not be using, Even as an example, black suffering as an example
Speaker 5: of their advocacy and how they're They first read
Speaker 0: a dish out about how we Shouldn't assume that JJ's white or call him white. We never called JJ White. We said Dalton's whiteness. They have a white debate around their team, which inherently means they have more whiteness than us. We obviously know that JJ is not white.
It's Pretty obvious. Go down onto our pick. We give you 3 words why we subsume all of their protests and affirm their protests. In a pick, what it means is you are furthering their cause just minus gun. Whiteness, as Rebecca is a vehicle for this movement, we say that whiteness means really bad for the representation in queer people, and it's a bad form of furthering This protest, the best way to further the protest is to vote for a pick and to affirm it, but minus the white as they say that we're taking over JJ's labor.
But first, this is a new response. If they They read this response before. We probably were read a cat pee about how you can't, like, use labor across identity lines. That's a really bad thing to do. Gap.
Help PICS work as you affirm their protest. We're not taking over their labor. It's just a technicality of debate. Then they say that it's trans exclusion. No.
A couple responses that they dropped from Sanji. 1, our constructive speech was about a personal experiences about our identity. We are not comfortable discussing our sexuality on a live stream with a gap. 30 people. Second, we say that, like, them telling us how we should represent our advocacy feeds into our link about racism because a white person Someone of white kids should never be telling 2 women of color how they should be furthering their advocacy.
That's an independent link you to our whiteness argument that gets dropped. You Drop them right now. They think we should have read things about the about the hall of shame. It's an identity case. We are not trans debaters.
We don't don't wanna do that. Also, they don't put anything about women of color or queer of color in their case, which means that they also link it to the exclusion. There's no independent offense off of this. Then at the bottom, all these stuff about the Louisville project, cuts. Their racist rhetoric and using the black labor as they way to further their advocacy is inherently racist.
Independent reasons drop them. They say gun. JJ wrote the argument, but no. Rebecca is a baneful of the movement. You should never use a white person who's saying the Louis Vuitton and using it as an example of their advocacy in order to further a movement.
Then Using black suffering to advance of the tournament is just a bad thing to do. Then they say that, oh, that that it's just an example. A white person just shouldn't Use a black person suffering as an example of their advocacy that's inherently a racist thing to do and it's too late to respond to this argument final focus and it's the largest drop argument. There's also Another dropped argument that links it to racism about how they're telling us how to represent our advocacy.
Speaker 3: Game over when they can see the rolled about. The only impact they're going for is they subsume us, but they do it better. But we if we went a net this add to the discourse that they use in their original constructive life we've been doing cut. The whole round that they cannot say they subsea more disadvantage if they're giving turf rhetoric and giving a place for their movement to be co opted by turf. So if we win, If their movement could be co opted by terms because it was not transinclusionary, then we'd win debate.
It turns all their paper arguments because we say they don't get access to our impact in the 1st place. Go to their case. Gap. Argument is simple. If you don't explicitly say that trans people are harmed by all the things that you are talking about.
Like, for instance, every time we talk about using your voice or, for instance, having to modulate your voice or the trans women's experiences in debate when the only 2 trans women people I know have already quit debate. Then, then, that y'all give space to church gap. Consider the NWLC evidence which means our feminism needs to be expansive. Girls will come in and co opt it and use it against weapons, as weapons against people like me saying that you are a lost woman and a lost girl, and you ought to come back. Then they give 3 responses.
The first one is extended through it. They say it's about their identity. No. We say they quote other people, gap. Like, for instance, the whole of shame, their own website, it has a lot of trans experiences.
I've submitted trans experiences. The second thing they say is that, that don't tell us how protest. 2 things. 1, they're also telling us how to protest. I don't know what they're talking about.
2, trans people should be allowed to call y'all out on working with that are working within terp ideology without being called racist. I am literally the one who is calling you out. I was the one who made the argument first. Finally, we get this new response which you said, we don't say anything about women of color. No.
We specifically do, first of all, mention the experience of trans feminine people, and we talk specifically about my experiences as a trans male of color within debate. Also, that's new. You shouldn't evaluate it. If we win that argument, 2 things. 1, that means they don't get access to this pick because the only independent impact they're going for in a pick is that they subsume all our offense but do it better.
But if they we've proven their terfs, they don't get honest to it. And 2, is they've also conceded the role of the ballot in the Ahmed evidence which says that specifically you're voting for the the debaters that best performatively liberates for. So they're really the project argument doesn't link into that explicitly. They don't extend an explicit link. You don't vote for them.
They find responsive sentences. They move approach to evidence. They drop Rebecca's gap. It is not an example of their suffering. It's not an example of their success.
She says it would only be culture appropriation if we were equating the 2. We are barely just saying here's the example of someone who has done well. Doesn't link at all as clearly as the turf stuff. That is the number one thing in the round. We want them to assume our protest by saying that they agree when they're furthering the most dangerous movement to trans people.
Speaker 6: Have you guys been running the same, cases for this entire tournament?
Speaker 5: No. We just wrote this, gap. Like, 10 minutes ago.
Speaker 6: Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. Same for you, Dalton?
Speaker 4: No. We've read this in a bunch of rounds.
Speaker 6: Both of you guys presented really arguments, and you guys made me think about the event more than I had and in different ways than I had, which is always a good thing.
Speaker 7: And now I just wanna say, like, huge respect to both teams for reading these arguments.
Speaker 0: Gap. Should, like, be proud of yourselves for the work that you're doing.
Speaker 7: I think the role of the ballot, and at that point, I'm evaluating, like, which team best supports, like, wave gap.
Speaker 6: Continue on, keep doing what you're doing, keep trying to do the work of liberation because it's important and you guys can and will make change.