Resolved: In a democracy, the public’s right to know ought to be valued above the right to

Gorbin

I affirm.

Because of the constructed notions of anti-blackness in society, black people are judged a-priori. Regardless of our actions, the black body is placed in the position of the accused through the view of white people. The view of blackness as “guilty before charged” is the white gaze; through anti-black assumptions blackness becomes an object of suspicion for whiteness.

George Yancy, American philosopher who has been a professor of philosophy at Emory University, 2008,

https://mygaryislike.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/black-bodies-white-gazes.pdf, “Black Bodies, White Gazes: The Continuing Significance of Race”

The corporeal integrity of my Black body undergoes an onslaught as the white imaginary, which centuries of white hegemony have structured and shaped, ruminates over my dark flesh and vomits me out in a form not in accordance with how I see myself. From the context of my lived experience, I feel “external,” as it were, to my body, delivered and sealed in white lies. 6 The reality is that I find myself within a normative space, a historically structured and structuring space, through which I am “seen” and judged guilty a priori. I find myself in the North American context, where the discourses of race and racism possess a shared intelligibility. Not only do I actively negotiate my course of action within this space but it is also a space within which I am part of an interpretive stream, which has configured my identity and shaped my course of action. I am said to bear the pernicious mark of dark skin. My darkness is a signifier of negative values grounded within a racist social and historical matrix that predates my existential emergence. The meaning of my Blackness is not intrinsic to my natural pigment, but has become a value-laden “given,” an object presumed untouched and unmediated by various contingent discursive practices, history, time, and context. My Blackness functions as a stipulatory axiom from which conclusions can be drawn: “Blackness is evil, not to be trusted, and guilty as such.” This stipulatory axiom forms part of a white racist distal narrative that congeals narrative coherence and intelligibility, providing a framework according to which the Black body is rendered “meaningful.” Whites “see” the Black body through the medium of historically structured forms of “knowledge” that regard it as an object of suspicion. This understanding of the white gaze vis-à-vis tacit forms of “knowledge” has a family resemblance to Michel Foucault’s use of the term positive unconscious. 7 In other words, whiteness comes replete with its assumptions for what to expect of a Black body (or nonwhite body), how dangerous and unruly it is, how unlawful, criminal, and hypersexual it is. The discourse and comportment of whites are shaped through tacit racist scripts, calcified modes of being that enable them to sustain and perpetuate their whitely-being-in-the-world. 8

The white gaze strips the black body of subjecthood. When looking through the white gaze the black body is not a human but nothing more than an amalgamation of racial stereotypes. This is harmful because the white gaze takes away out free will and subjectivity – we can’t function as humans because we aren’t seen as them.

George Yancy (2), American philosopher who has been a professor of philosophy at Emory University, 2008,

https://mygaryislike.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/black-bodies-white-gazes.pdf, “Black Bodies, White Gazes: The Continuing Significance of Race”

It is a peculiar experience to have one’s body confiscated without physically being placed in chains. Well-dressed, I enter an elevator where a white woman waits to reach her floor. She “sees” my Black body, though not the same one I have seen reflected back to me from the mirror on any number of occasions. Buying into the myth that one’s dress says something about the person, one might think that the markers of my dress (suit and tie) should ease her tension. What is it that makes the markers of my dress inoperative? She sees a Black male body “supersaturated with meaning, as they [Black bodies] have been relentlessly subjected to [negative] characterization by newspapers, newscasters, popular film, television programming, public officials, policy pundits and other agents of representation.” 12 Her body language signifies, “Look, the Black!” On this score, though short of a performative locution, her body language functions as an insult. Over and above how my body is clothed, she “sees” a criminal, she sees me as a threat. Phenomenologically, she might be said to “see” a black, fleeting expanse, a peripherally glimpsed vague presence of something dark, forbidden, and dreadful. She does not see a dynamic subjectivity, but a sort, something eviscerated of individuality, flattened, and rendered vacuous of genuine human feelings. However, she is one of the “walking dead,” unaware of how the feeling of her white bodily upsurge and expansiveness is purchased at the expense of my Black body. Independently of any threatening action on my part, my Black body, my existence in Black, poses a threat. It is not necessary that I first perform a threatening action. The question of deeds is irrelevant. I need not do anything. After all, “the torturer is the black man, Satan is black, one talks of shadows, when one is dirty one is black—whether one is thinking of physical dirtiness or moral dirtiness.” 13 It is as if my Black body has always already committed a criminal deed. As a result, my being as being-for-itself, my freedom, is fundamentally called into question. Who I have become as partly constituted through the history of my own actions is apparently nugatory. My dark body occludes the presumption of innocence. It is as if one’s Blackness is a congenital defect, one that burdens the body with tremendous inherited guilt. On this reading, one might say that Blackness functions metaphorically as original sin. There is not anything as such that a Black body needs to do in order to be found blameworthy.

The white gaze thus perpetuates racial hierarchies as it reproduces white normativity. Black people are forced to re-evaluate their existence and question whether or not their black body is viewed as harmful to whiteness. This gaze “constructs” the blackness in a way that depicts them as monstrous.

George Yancy (3), American philosopher who has been a professor of philosophy at Emory University, 2008,

https://mygaryislike.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/black-bodies-white-gazes.pdf, “Black Bodies, White Gazes: The Continuing Significance of Race”

The movement from the familiar is what is also effected by the white woman’s gaze. My movements become and remain stilted. I dare not move suddenly. The apparent racial neutrality of the space within the elevator (when I am standing alone) has become an axiological plenum, one filled with white normativity. As Shannon Sullivan would say, I no longer inhabit the space of the elevator “as a corporeal entitlement to spatiality.”39 feel trapped. I no longer feel bodily expansiveness within the elevator, but corporeally constrained, limited. I now begin to calculate, paying almost neurotic attention to my body movements, making sure that this “Black object,” what now feels like an appendage, a weight, is not too close, not too tall, not too threatening. “Double layers of selfawareness must interrogate the likely meanings that will be attributed to every utterance, gesture, action one takes.”40 So, I genuflect, but only slightly, a movement that somewhat resembles an act of worship. I am reminded of how certain postures—“bowing and scraping”—were reenacted over generations, sometimes no doubt unconsciously. My lived-body comes back to me, as does the elevator in the example above, as something to be dealt with, as a challenge. The gaze of the woman disrupts my habituated bodily comportment and I am thrown into an uncomfortable awareness of my body. Where I am standing, the color of my skin and my posture are, in a moment, foregrounded and I am suddenly aware of how I am being perceived. Indeed, my lived-body begins to feel like something ontologically occurrent, something merely there in its facticity. Notice that she need not speak a word (speech-acts are not necessary) to render my Black body “captive.” She need not scream “Rape!” She need not call me “Nigger!” to my face. Indeed, although how she reacts to me is certainly not without its deeper moral implications, and must be called into question, it is not a necessary requirement that she hates me or is morally vicious in order for her to script my body in the negative way that she does. Her nonverbal movements construct me, creating their own socio-ontological effects on my body. Her negrophobia depicts me in a shockingly monstrous fashion. White America has bombarded me and other Black males with the “reality” of our dual hypersexualization: “you are a sexual trophy and a certain rapist.”41 Her gaze imposes upon me a certain form, albeit distorted.

Thus, I affirm. The right to know should be valued over the right to privacy as affirmation of the oppositional gaze – staring back at our oppressors is a gesture of defiance for the black body. We defend the right to know in the context of information about structures of anti-blackness within institutions as a method of the oppositional gaze – I retain the right to clarify in CX. When we look back, we reclaim our agency in the face of white supremacy and domination by interrogating the notions of the oppressor and destabilizing the structures of anti-blackness.

Bell Hooks 92

bell hooks, Black Looks: Race and Represent,ation, 1992, http://my.ilstu.edu/~jkshapi/Hooks.pdf, Acclaimed intellectual, feminist theorist, cultural critic, artist, and writer,

By courageously looking, we defiantly declared: "Not only will I stare. I want my look to change reality." Even in the worse circumstances of domination, the ability to manipulate one's gaze in the face of structures of domination that would contain it, opens up the possibility of agency. In much of his work, Michel Foucault insists on describing domination in terms of "relations of power" as part of an effort to challenge the assumption that "power is a system of domination which controls everything and whch leaves no room for freedom." Emphatically stating that in all relations of power "there is necessarily the possibility of resistance," he invites the critical thinker to search those margins, gaps, and locations on and through the body where agency can be found. Stuart Hall calls for recognition of our agency as black spectators in his essay "Cultural Identity and Cinematic Representation." Speaking against the construction of white representations of blackness as totalizing, Hall says of white presence:The error is not to conceptualize this /presence1 in terms of power, but to locate that power as wholly external to us-as extrinsic force, whose influence can be thrown off like the serpent sheds its slun." What Franz Fanon reminds us, in Black Skm, White Masks, is how power is inside as well as outside: "The movements, the attitudes, the glances of the Other fixed me there, in the sense in which a chemical solution is fixed by a dye. Iwas indignant; I demanded an explanation. Nothing happened. 1 burst apart. Now the fragments have been put together againby another self." This "look," from-so to speak-the place of the Other, fixes us, not only in its violence, hostility and aggression, but in the ambivalence of its desire.

The oppositional gaze takes form in a critiquing of structures of anti-blackness by coming face-to-face with them. The aff looks white supremacy in its face and calls out its methods of oppression thus destabilizes them.

George Yancy (4), American philosopher who has been a professor of philosophy at Emory University, 2008,

https://mygaryislike.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/black-bodies-white-gazes.pdf, “Black Bodies, White Gazes: The Continuing Significance of Race”

As an alternative approach, as I reach my floor and before exiting, I could view this as a transgressive moment in which I could impact her habitual mode of embodied racism through the process of triggering a sense of shame: “Miss, I assure you that I am not interested in your trashy possessions. I especially have no desire to humiliate you through the violence of rape, nor are my sexual desires outside my control.” Naming her fears, dispassionately bringing them into the open, I position my moral agentive subjectivity in such a way that she relationally comes to take up the position of a particular kind of subject, one who feels shame. In other words, this shame is “a constituted effect” produced through the effective positioning of myself as a moral actor within this dyad.46 Having effectively reversed the gaze, her head and eyes would drop. There would be a distinct look of shame that would cover her face and body posture. Without uttering another word, I would turn and exit the elevator. The hope is that this shame is only the beginning of a new narrative, a new way of delvi ng into and remaking her identity.

The oppositional gaze is a place of resistance for those dominated – together dominated bodies look back at the “face” of the oppressor and critique the methods by which they are oppressed. By gazing back and critiquing the strategies of the oppressor, black bodies cultivate awareness and create resistance strategies in their own communities. hooks gives an example of the oppositional gaze in media functioning as a method of critiquing and working against anti-black media structures.

bell hooks (2) 92

bell hooks, Black Looks: Race and Representation, 1992, http://my.ilstu.edu/~jkshapi/Hooks.pdf, Acclaimed intellectual, feminist theorist, cultural critic, artist, and writer,

Spaces of agency exist for black people, wherein we can both interrogate the gaze of the Other but also look back, and at one another, naming what we see. The "gaze" has been and is a site of resistance for colonized black people globally. Suborhnates in relations of power learn experientially that there is a critical gaze, one that "looks" to document, one that is oppositional. In resistance struggle, the power of the dominated to assert agency by claiming and cultivating "awareness" politicizes "looking" relations-one learns to look a certain way in order to resist. When most black people in the United States first had the opportunity to look at film and television, they did so fully aware that mass media was a system of knowledge and power reproducing and maintaining white supremacy. To stare at the television, or mainstream movies, to engage its images, was to engage its negation of black repre- sentation. It was the oppositional black gaze that responded to these looking relations by developing independent black cinema. Black viewers of mainstream cinema and television could chart the progress of political movements for racial equality via the construction of images, and did so. Within my family's southern black working-class home, located in a racially segregated neighborhood, watching television was one way to develop critical spectatorship. Unless you went to work in the white world, across the tracks, you learned to look at white people by staring at them on the screen. Black looks, as they were constituted in the context of social movements for racial uplift, were interrogating gazes. We laughed at television shows such as Our Gang and Amos 'n' Andy, at these white representations of blackness, but we also looked at them critically. Before racial integration, black viewers of movies and televi- sion experienced visual pleasure in a context in which looking was also about contestation and confrontation.

The affirmation of the right to know is a method of embracing the oppositional gaze– in the current state candidate’s actions go unseen because the government hides them. When we affirm we give people more information about the political and are able to call out its structures of anti-blackness.

Transparency International . “Access To Information.” Transparency International. Web. October 10, 2018. <https://www.transparency.org/topic/detail/accesstoinformation>.

Information is fundamental to make informed decisions. Information is also power Where it’s not freely accessible, corruption can thrive and basic rights might not be realised. People can hide corrupt acts behind a veil of secrecy. Those with privileged access to information can demand bribes from others also seeking it. People entitled to health or education may be denied these basic services due to lack of access to information about their rights. Governments can hide their actions by controlling or censoring the media. This prevents the facts being reported. The truth is gagged. When our right to know is denied, we can’t hold decision makers or institutions to account for their actions. Nor can we make informed choices when we vote. If information isn’t public, we can’t enjoy many of our rights, such as participating fully in political life. We might not even understand our rights in certain circumstances. When access to information is blocked, we can never know what’s really going on. The solution? Ensuring disclosure of – and access to – information can empower people and institutions to prevent and fight corruption. But it’s a two-way process. Governments must proactively release information about what they do. And we must utilise this information to make full use of our rights. We all have a valuable role to play. We need to make sure that national laws guarantee public access to information – and that such laws are implemented on a day-to-day basis. These laws are a key safeguard against corruption. They enable us to monitor what’s happening. This is vital in areas with specific corruption risks, including water, health and education. Over 90 countries have passed access to legislation in the last 15 years but implementation is patchy. Millions of people still don’t know about these laws or know how to use it to their advantage. Global anti-corruption treaties stress the value of access to information. So governments know what reforms they should have in place. And we can m0onitor their progress in enforcing those reforms. Then we can make sure our right to know is fulfilled. Go back to the problem.

Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best performatively and methodologically resists anti-black structures. The judge has the obligation vote for arguments that promote a discourse that embodies an anti-racist perspective. This should be your primary concern because any other benefit in the debate sphere can only be accessed by an equal space for dialogue. The AC is also a prerequisite to fairness claims.

Smith, History Maker and Best Assistant Debate Coach evaaaa 2013 Elijah; “A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate

It will be uncomfortable, it will be hard, and it will require continued effort but the necessary step in fixing this problem, like all problems, is the community as a whole admitting that such a problem with many “socially acceptable” choices exists in the first place. Like all systems of social control, the reality of racism in debate is constituted by the singular choices that institutions, coaches, and students make on a weekly basis. I have watched countless rounds where competitors attempt to win by rushing to abstractions to distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day. One of the students I coached, who has since graduated after leaving debate, had an adult judge write out a ballot that concluded by “hypothetically” defending my student being lynched at the tournament. Another. debate concluded with a young man defending that we can kill animals humanely, “just like we did that guy Troy Davis”. Community norms would have competitors do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse black debaters of breaking to escape hard conversations but as someone who understands that experience, the only constructive strategy is to acknowledge the reality of the oppressed, engage the discussion from the perspective of authors who are black and brown, and then find strategies to deal with the issues at hand. It hurts to see competitive seasons come and go and have high school students and judges spew the same hateful things you expect to hear at a Klan rally. A student should not, when presenting an advocacy that aligns them with the oppressed, have to justify why oppression is bad. Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with liberatory potential. Even if the form debate gives to a conversation is not the same you would use to discuss race in general conversation with Bayard Rustin or Fannie Lou Hamer, that is not a reason we have to strip that conversation of its connection to a reality

Debate doesn’t end when your 2AR ends; your flow reflects real conversations had between people. Our performances in this space reflect the way we act when we exit the round and our ballot is turned in. Thus, our educational praxis has an ethical obligation to be focused on using our discourse as a performance to access debate’s liberatory potential.

Vincent 13 (Christopher Debate Coach, former college NDT debater “Re-Conceptualizing Our Performances: Accountability In Lincoln Douglas Debate”http://victorybriefs.com/vbd/2013/10/re-conceptualizing-our-performances-accountability-in-lincoln-douglas-debate)

Charles Mills argues that “the moral concerns of African Americans have centered on the assertion of their personhood, a personhood that could generally be taken for granted by whites, so that blacks have had to see these theories from a location outside their purview.” For example, I witnessed a round at a tournament this season where a debater ran a utilitarianism disadvantage. His opponent argued that this discourse was racist because it ignores the way in which a utilitarian calculus has distorted communities of color by ignoring the wars and violence already occurring in those communities. In the next speech, the debater stood up, conceded it was racist, and argued that it was the reason he was not going for it and moved on, and still won the debate. This is problematic because it demonstrates exactly what Mill’s argument is. For the black debater this argument is a question of his or her personhood within the debate space and the white debater was not held accountable for the words that are said. Again for debaters of color, their performance is always attached to their body which is why it is important that the performance be viewed in relation to the speech act. Whites [Some] are allowed to take for granted the impact their words have on the bodies in the space. They take for granted this notion of personhood and ignore the concerns of those who do not matter divorced from the flow. It is never a question of “should we make arguments divorced from our ideologies,” it is a question of is it even possible. It is my argument that our performances, regardless of what justification we provide, are always a reflection of the ideologies we hold. Why should a black debater have to use a utilitarian calculus just to win a round, when that same discourse justifies violence in the community they go back home to? Our performances and our decisions in the round, reflect the beliefs that we hold when we go back to our communities. As a community we must re-conceptualize this distinction the performance by the body and of the body by re-evaluating the role of the speech and the speech act. It is no longer enough for judges to vote off of the flow anymore. Students of color are being held to a higher threshold to better articulate why racism is bad, which is the problem in a space that we deem to be educational. It is here where I shift my focus to a solution. Debaters must be held accountable for the words they say in the round. We should no longer evaluate the speech. Instead we must begin to evaluate the speech act itself. Debaters must be held accountable for more than winning the debate. They must be held accountable for the implications of that speech. As educators and adjudicators in the debate space we also have an ethical obligation to foster an atmosphere of education. It is not enough for judges to offer predispositions suggesting that they do not endorse racist, sexist, homophobic discourse, or justify why they do not hold that belief, and still offer a rational reason why they voted for it. Judges have become complacent in voting on the discourse, if the other debater does not provide a clear enough role of the ballot framing, or does not articulate well enough why the racist discourse should be rejected. Judges must be willing to foster a learning atmosphere by holding debaters accountable for what they say in the round. They must be willing to vote against a debater if they endorse racist discourse. They must be willing to disrupt the process of the flow for the purpose of embracing that teachable moment. The speech must be connected to the speech act. We must view the entire debate as a performance of the body, instead of the argument solely on the flow. Likewise, judges must be held accountable for what they vote for in the debate space. If a judge is comfortable enough to vote for discourse that is racist, sexist, or homophobic, they must also be prepared to defend their actions. We as a community do not live in a vacuum and do not live isolated from the larger society. That means that judges must defend their actions to the debaters, their coaches, and to the other judges in the room if it is a panel. Students of color should not have the burden of articulating why racist discourse must be rejected, but should have the assurance that the educator with the ballot will protect them in those moments. Until we re-conceptualize the speech and the speech act, and until judges are comfortable enough to vote down debaters for a performance that perpetuates violence in the debate space, debaters and coaches alike will remain complacent in their privilege. As educators we must begin to shift the paradigm and be comfortable doing this. As a community we should stop looking at ourselves as isolated in a vacuum and recognize that the discourse and knowledge we produce in debate has real implications for how we think when we leave this space. Our performances must be viewed as of the body instead of just by it. As long as we continue to operate in a world where our performances are merely by bodies, we will continue to foster a climate of hostility and violence towards students of color, and in turn destroy the transformative potential this community could have

Challenging institutional racism is a prior ethical question— it makes violence structurally inevitable and foundationally negates morality. Challenging institutional racism is a pre-requisite to any ethical analysis or policy action.

MEMMI 2K Albert Memmi 2k, Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ U of Paris, Naiteire, Racism, Translated by Steve Martinot, p. 163-165

The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved. Yet, for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism; one must not even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people, which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. it is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which man is not himself an outsider relative to someone else?. Racism illustrates, in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animosity to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduit only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order, for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism, because racism signifies the exclusion of the other, and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is ‘the truly capital sin. It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsels respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. Bur no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall.” says the Bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming one again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal—indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice, a just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.

TTKDB

@Gorbin

"Because of the constructed notions of anti-blackness in society, black people are judged a-priori. Regardless of our actions, the black body is placed in the position of the accused through the view of white people. The view of blackness as “guilty before charged” is the white gaze; through anti-black assumptions blackness becomes an object of suspicion for whiteness."

From what published book online or at a bookstore can I read, that your shared verbiage is being derived from?

"Regardless of our actions, the black body is placed in the position of the accused through the view of white people?"

(Who originally expessed this quotation?)

"Anti blackness?"

"The black body?"

"Black people are judged apriori?"

The definition:

"a pri·o·ri

/ˌā prīˈôrī/

adjective

1.
relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.
"a priori assumptions about human nature?'

We do live in peace, but we live a peace dictated to by the million plus crimes that occur each year without fail because the offenders regardless of race commit their various crimes, and change the lives of the individuals that they either hurt, maimed, or killed.

When lives are lost to crime, families are changed forever.
And society is changed forever regardless of race.

Race on race crimes, non race on race crimes.

Domestic violence and abuse, from an offender towards their boyfriend/ girlfriend or wife or husband.

Murder/ suicides.

Going to a hospital and via gun violence, four people die because of a domestic situation.

Four people being executed in a basement in Philly.

(Assualts and battery, carjackings, robberies, abductions, hit and runs, drive by shooting, gun violence in general, sexual assualt, and bullying.)

Society could live in peace, but some individually live their lives indulging in a mindset, that interferes with the very essence of what a peaceful society could be about. But the above mentioned crimes that occur regardless of race, is why society is plagued by the offenders, because the crimes, I am guessing takes a precedent in the offenders life, and a peaceful society, it would appear comes second?

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Israeli missile hits Iran, U.S. officials confirm

In this Debate

Resolved: In a democracy, the public’s right to know ought to be valued above the right to

Debate Information

Debra AI Prediction

Debate Type: Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Voting Format: Moderate Voting

Opponent: TTKDB

Time Per Round: 24 Hours Per Round

Voting Period: 24 Hours

Forfeited

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch