A plea to debaters by Mia Berman
A plea to debaters when dealing with revenge porn ACs by Mia Berman
Trigger Warning: This article discusses revenge porn
Like on any topic, there are arguments on the right to be forgotten topic that must be approached with caution. On this topic, one of those arguments center on how the right to be forgotten may relate to victims of revenge porn. A significant portion of the affirmative topic literature relates to the right of individuals to be able to remove revenge porn. These are important arguments that should be brought to light on this topic, however they must be both argued and answered carefully, especially considering the adversarial context under which they are made.
The Harvard Civil Liberties Law Review defines revenge porn as “public online posting of nude or sexually explicit pictures of a person, often with attached identifying information or derogatory comments[1]”. There exist several websites dedicated to the posting of revenge porn. If it is not immediately obvious why revenge porn is atrocious, think about the implications of finding nude images of yourself on the Internet. Any future employer could find them; a career in politics is automatically out the window. It is humiliating; the most private parts of you are put on display without your consent for anyone to find them. What is worse, it is often done by someone you once trusted. Additionally, once the images are released, the trauma does not stop there. If there is a name attached, victims could be harassed by anonymous individuals online or stalked.
Unfortunately, this is not rare among teenagers, and most likely not uncommon within the debate community. Nude skype sessions or sending revealing pictures and snapchats and have become a modern casualty of many relationships, and debationships are a pretty regular occurrence. According to one study, nearly 22% of teenage girls and 18% of teenage boys report sending revealing pictures.[2]
This topic might relate to many in our community, and as such, we must approach it delicately. Debaters must understand that their opponents or judges may have been involved in an instance of revenge porn, or fear they might, and as such, may not feel comfortable judging or debating these types of rounds. Personally, I have added a disclaimer to my paradigm, which I encourage judges to consider copying to your own paradigm to avoid unnecessary harm in round as a result of one person in the round being triggered.
What is “triggering?” Triggers are events that may remind someone of a traumatic experience or cause flashbacks and bring up strong negative emotions, often making one feel unsafe and upset. Recently, many feminist blogs, newspapers, and even college classes have been using “trigger warnings” which aim to alert individuals what is about to be discussed. In the context of articles, there has been some backlash about how useful these are, however, in the context of debate rounds, they are valuable.
Debaters do not choose the topics. We cannot expect a debater who may be triggered by a topic to quit the community, to not debate on that topic or to just tune out certain ACs. Putting a victim in an adversarial scenario in which they are forced to respond to something that is triggering is unfair and morally wrong. A debate round is no longer a fair, fun or educational endeavor when a participant feels threatened. If you are the one running these arguments, especially on a speech act/pre-fiat level, the only way they could ever be persuasive is if you ensure you are running them as a way to help victims, not to further and reinforce the original trauma. To prevent these situations, I propose using a trigger warning.
Here’s how it works. One debater simply asks the other debater and the judge whether or not they feel comfortable hearing a case related to revenge porn/domestic violence/etc. There have been some criticisms of trigger warnings, but it’s always better to ask. First, the act of asking may be triggering in of itself. If this unfortunate event occurs, opponents should offer time and space needed to recover before beginning the round. Still, a slight trigger before the round is preferable to the shock of finding out in-round when the case is read at 400 words per minute and you’re forced to respond. Another debate-specific problem is that opponents could abuse the goodwill of the individual running the potentially triggering case by claiming they will be triggered to avoid debating the case. For this, debaters individually must take it upon themselves to be honest and respectful to those in the community that have been through traumatic experiences and not abuse a system put in place to help them. Feigning trauma to avoid an argument is an atrocious thing to do, and I would honestly like to believe our community is better than that.
A related issue is how to respond to these cases without being offensive. Here are three good ways you can respectfully respond: 1) co-opting the aff benefits, 2) precluding the aff or 3) out-lefting or “going farther left.” Co-opting the benefits would include arguments about status quo laws can mitigate the harms of revenge porn. There are currently 13 states with these types of laws, and an additional 28 states have legislation pending[3]. The neg could also defend a counterplan such as right to be forgotten only in instances of revenge porn, not all instances like the aff. The preclusion strategy could mean theory or arguing that the debate space is not the right place for these types of discussions. In my opinion, however, this is the least persuasive route. The third option to out-left might be arguments about how the right to be forgotten is a weak remedy that fails to address the root cause and creates a ruse of solvency, hiding the issue of domestic abuse/revenge porn/abusive relationships without punishing the perpetrators. The aff saps potential for a more equal and safe society by passing a pithy law. Maybe an open and free Internet is necessary for women to have the space for 4th wave feminism/networked feminism/hashtag feminism. Alternatively, the neg could abolish the Internet itself as a patriarchal artifact. A final idea is to criticize these affs for being heteronormative, but that will depend on the specific aff.
No matter how you or your team plans on handling these cases, it is important to keep the debate space safe. A hostile debate space deprives the round of all meaning and all value. Do not victim blame, do not deny that this happens, do not say it doesn’t matter, and anything else that may be seen as offensive. If you don’t know if what you’re saying is offensive, don’t say it! Otherwise, consult a teammate, coach, or other trusted individual.
[1] http://harvardcrcl.org/law-and-revenge-porn/
[2] https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-sexting
[3] http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/state-revenge-porn-legislation.aspx
Mia Berman formerly debated for Hopkins High School in Minnesota. Currently, Mia is a freshman at Johns Hopkins University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy and minoring in Women, Gender and Sexuality studies and is coaching Loyola Blakefield.
1 Comment
Hello Mia,
You’ve certainly devoted some thought to this serious issue. I’m glad you care about people getting hurt.
Here are some ways in which people can get hurt in this regard:
(1) Folks abusing the power you propose to give them, by saying “Sorry, that triggers me” when it really doesn’t.
You say: “For this, debaters individually must take it upon themselves to be honest and respectful to those in the community that have been through traumatic experiences and not abuse a system put in place to help them. Feigning trauma to avoid an argument is an atrocious thing to do, and I would honestly like to believe our community is better than that.”
That leaves something to be desired as a safeguard. We have actual checks and balances everywhere for a reason. If we could just trust people not to in effect shut others up except for a good cause…it’d be a society we’d never recognize.
More broadly, it furthers the idea that we can give some people power over others with a parting shot: “Use it, don’t abuse it.” Human history — even recent history — does not support this idea.
(2) Sufferers being silenced. As you’ve rightly pointed out, one or more debaters may have been revenge-porned. Debate is an ideal opportunity for them to speak out about and come to terms with their experience, as well as to push hard for reforms they may (rightly or wrongly) feel necessary. Not to mention that kind of perspective, when you can get it, really helps the discussion.
When someone can say “Please don’t discuss this, it triggers me,” and in so doing silence a revenge-porn survivor who wants to speak out, she (or he) is hurt — as are the rest of us.
(Also, it reminds me of some prosecutors who, when faced with rape cases, offer the defendant a generous plea bargain so he’ll plead guilty and spare the victim a trial. Some victims might appreciate it…but many others don’t. They may want to start healing by speaking out and confronting their attackers. Not to mention a rape trial can be a good opportunity to attack myths like “What did she expect when she got in his car?”)
(3) And thus the rest of us are hurt, too. Silencing people because you feel hurt about what they may have to say is an old, old excuse for abuse. The point of debate (not to mention school itself — debate most often happens in middle schools, high schools and colleges for a reason) is to exercise your mind. And like with physical exercise, no pain no gain. (Indeed, if you don’t get triggered or offended by what you encounter in school, ask for your money back.)
It’s one thing if someone really feels he or she cannot discuss something, and thus walks out the door. It’s quite another when someone claims *his or her own* weakness as an excuse to stop *everyone else* from discussing it.
(4) Dictating which arguments and points of view are appropriate? Srsly?
Maybe it’s obvious *to you* that revenge porn is so terrible it should be banned. That’s kind of why we have debates in the first place: Different people find different (and sometimes opposite) things to be obvious.
Sure, heteronormativity (however it might relate here) might be a legitimate argument against something. Another legitimate argument is that heteronormativity itself is a good thing.
Not to mention another perfectly legitimate argument is that revenge porn, however distasteful and even traumatizing (like, say, the American Nazi Party proposing to march through a town full of Holocaust survivors, or the Westboro Baptist Church picketing solders’ funerals), may be Constitutionally protected free speech:
http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2015/04/2015-49-unlawful-disclosure-of-intimate-visual-material-in-texas/
Want to show how wrong these points of view are? Let’s debate!
(5) Oh yeah, speaking of the Holocaust: We’ve *always* had to debate upsetting and traumatizing issues.
You think someone who lost a husband, a sister or son at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 wouldn’t have sore spots on the topic of Islam’s place in the world today?
You think a Vietnamese boat person or Eastern Bloc refugee in the 1970s or 1980s wouldn’t have frightful memories about Communism or even socialism?
You think a Freedom Rider in the 1960s, who got his head busted and himself thrown in jail, narrowly escaped death and saw a friend die right next to him, wouldn’t have some serious sensitivities on subjects like civil disobedience, civil rights and states’ rights?
You think a World War II vet in 1946, who had just recently liberated Dachau, would not have been triggered by a debate about how Germany should be treated? Or a survivor of the Bataan Death March (or even a former “comfort woman”), about how Japan should be treated?
You think a nurse who had treated malnourished children during the Great Depression wouldn’t be emotionally invested in debates about the New Deal (not to mention arguments for a laissez-faire policy to “purge the rottenness out of the system”)?
If you don’t come to grips with precisely the questions that upset you most, you let them control you. And if you seriously try to force others not to come to grips with them just so *you* won’t even have to leave the room, you are trying to control *them*.