Overall it's alright but it links to everything. It would help a lot if you guys can do a cx round against me. And help me become a stronger debater. I'm just a recent novice, just started debating. Please and thanks!
In a very unique Final Round of the Kentucky 2011 college tournament, undefeated Loyola EM allowed their opponents Georgetown AM to have all of the judges ballots in exchange for allowing some guests of theirs to speak to the community.
This evolved into an open forum discussion about the nature of contemporary policy debate and what types of roles debaters should have in the community and society at large.
All debaters should watch this critical discussion. The video is streaming on debatevision HERE.
I'm helping instruct a debate team for a local school in a few weeks. This is their first year offering a TP debate team [in years past, they've only offered LD.] I myself actually compete with a different league since I don't attend that specific school. Their debate coach however, asked me, my debate partner and another team to come and have an example debate just to show the kids the idea of TP debate.
Since I'm in a different league however, we have a different resolution and I don't know much about NFL's rez. I was wondering if anyone knew somewhere I could find a decent 1AC and neg brief to go with it, just to use as an example for that one round? If not, I'll throw together something to use myself. It's not too big of a deal, I'm just focusing on a different rez. So yeah, some suggestions would be great.
Well, I've been working on the research for this year's high school debate topic Resolved: the USFG should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth's mesosphere. Personally, I do not believe that this resolution will work well. First of all, there is no inherent barrier, because this isn't the era of the space race; we have a space program in place. It's called NASA. Granted, we are discontinuing parts of it because of funding. Well, where are we going to get the funding for this space plan? sure every debater can be creative and come up with various taxes like the brick tax or the toilet paper tax.. but doesn't that defeat the purpose? Aren't we tired of the FG pushing more taxes on us? and yet we are teaching our debate students that if we need funding just tax the populace!
"The hydroelectric plant is set into the current of the Rhine... The Rhine itself appears to be something at our command.. The word expresses here something more, and something more essential, than mere "stock." The word "standing-reserve" assumes the rank of an inclusive rubric... Whatever stands by in the sense of standing-reserve no longer stands over against us as an object... The words "setting--upon," "ordering," "standing-reserve," obtrude and accumulate in a dry, monotonous, and therefore oppressive way â€” this fact has its basis in what is now coming to utterance.â€ Martin Heidegger described in 1949 the idea of a â€œTechnological Mindsetâ€. This critique of the technik mindset gave way the modern day policy debate critique. Many current debaters cannot grasp the nuances of the Heidegger argument. This has lead to a hate of the Heidegger critique. It has been run so badly Bill Batterman, 3NR creater and Woodword Coach, has stated in his JudgeWiki, â€œI have engaged in meditation on your K, it reveals itself to me, and it still sucks. work harder.â€ To rectify this problem you must learn the kritik from the ground up. Stop being lazy and stupid. Learn it.
To begin with, you must understand Heidegger's idea of phenomenology. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy â€œphenomenologyâ€ is described as, â€œthe study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.â€ The idea of phenomenology was created by German philosopher Husserl. Husserl was a professor at the University of Freiburg where Heidegger was a good friend and a student. Here had a revolutionary idea. Husserl thought that the being of things, the essence and what they are, is defined and found by the phenomenon in this world. These phenomenon are everything we sense. Our sights, feelings, smells. Everything that is observed by us is a phenomenon. Husserl stated that these phenomenon, these observations by the viewer, allow us to find the things true being. Yet, after the end of WWI Heidegger began to doubt Husserl's view that there was a true â€œBeingâ€ (A god in the sense of a absolute truth.) Because of this doubt, Heidegger began to redefine the view of phenomenology on the world. He described that there was no true â€œBeingâ€ to things, and that everyone's â€œBeingâ€ is based off people's subjective perception of phenomenon. He proposed that our perception changed the essence of people.
Now I shall explain my awesome paint drawing showing a visual representation of phenomenology. A is being shown as the sun. It is shining onto B which is our orange. This casts a shadow (F) onto the wall which is E. Then sitting in front of wall C is our little Heidegger (D). The shadow is our perceptions within the word. Heidegger is us. Walls C and E are the world. The object is any object in the world. Lastly, the sun is our senses allowing for perception. Now our sense, the sun, sense this the object, the orange. This produces our perception of the object, the shadow. This process of our perceptions take place ON and IN the world, the walls C and E. We sit in and on the world like lil' Heidegger and observe our perceptions with our mind. These perceptions make us see the being of the object, in this case an orange. It is our perceptions, the shadow, that allow this object to become an orange. If we saw the characteristics of a dog, we would believe the essence was a dog. But because we perceived this way it is this way. Yay for paint.
Now that we understand Heidegger's view on ontology, let us look at the kritik! Heidegger believed that the world today is seen in the â€œtechnological mindsetâ€. This mindset is when we begin to â€œorder things aboutâ€. When a hydroelectric damn was put into the Rhine river, it was no longer seen as a river. It was now just a power source waiting for us to use it. This makes the river become a â€œStanding Reserveâ€ waiting for human's to use it. It looses it's ontological status as an object because of it. It is no longer seen as an object or a river in any poetic or lived sense, but it's merely a resource for us to gather. Because humans began to become so attached to this mindset, they began to view everything in this light. Woods are now seen as waiting timber, mountains are seen as mineral deposits and even soldiers are seen as foot units and numbers to be calculated. Everyone begins to be seen as an object and we lose all of our relationships with other people. Zimmerman describes this in '94 as an â€œOntological Damnation.â€ This card sucks. Don't read it. But what Zimmerman is meaning by this is that we'll reach a point where no one has an ontological relationship with anyone else. This makes it so we shall never again come back to a point where we will have ontology. Once we reach the point where everyone has this mindset, no one will be able to go back because they no longer see the value of people other than objectifying them, and we will, as the human species, get back to a point where we have a form of ontology. â€œOntological Damnation... Hell on Earth... Masquerading in a material paradise.â€
In the context of a debate round, the kritik is simple. The Affirmative provides a plan which uses this technik mindset. As the negative you say this is bad. We should oppose this mindset so as we do not lose out ontological valuing of the Earth and People. It is the root cause of all their impacts and your impacts will out weight theirs (Go VtL).
I can not stress enough. You don't care about technology. It rules. It rocks. You love it. You want to have sex with it. You want to bring it to your house, make love to it and be there in the morning to cook it breakfast and drive it to work. You concede technology rocks, in the sort of way that you want to rock it all night long. You are kritiking the technological mindset, not technology. There is a large difference. The technological mindset is order things about and making things â€œstanding reservesâ€. Technology is not that. You kritik technik not technology. I can't stress this enough.
One last thing I can't stress enough. Read the fucking literature. It will better your understanding so much. It will make everything make sense. It will make the terms become clear and every nuanced argument gold. Read the cards, read the literature.
Hopefully now that you understand the basics of the Heidegger kritik you will be able to understand the picture at the top. For more fun and help go to:
For questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
One last thing, he was totally a Nazi.
Bill Batterman's lecture at GDS this summer on how debaters should use film to their advantage is really a must see. In it, he discusses methods for recording your rounds, what you should be doing with them, recording etiquette, how to analyze the film and other useful tips. A link to the video is pasted below.
Additionally, Batterman discusses why you might want to keep some content private. At DebateVision.com, you can upload your videos to the cloud and share them with only those people you wish (your coaches, teammates, etc.). To use this feature, simply log in, click "Upload" in the upper right corner, and when listing the video details, change the video from "Public" to "Private" in the bottom drop down menu. Once you've uploaded the video, audio or photos, you can access them from your profile and share the private link. I hope this helps!
Watch "Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011 - Film Study Lecture" on Debate Vision
Because Debate Vision is using 100% of revenue to fund debate scholarships, the need arose to have a committee by which scholarships could be awarded fairly and (hopefully) objectively. We reached out to some of the most qualified coaches, and the committee has been finalized. It includes the following members, to whom DV is greatly indebted:
Director of Debate, University of Sothern California
Under Stablesâ€™s leadership, USC has continued its streak of qualifying a team for the NDT every year since 1963. He is the incoming president of the Cross-Examination Debate Association (CEDA) and the executive secretary of the National Debate Tournament Committee (NDT). He is also the chair of CEDA's Topic Selection Committee. In 2011, Stables won both the CEDA Brownlee Award and the NDT George Ziegelmueller Award, becoming the first person to win both awards in the same year and just the third person to win both awards in a career.
Associate Director of Debate, University of Texas at Dallas
Formerly a coach at Kansas State University, Scott Herndon has been at The University of Texas at Dallas since 2002. In that time, UT Dallas has qualified for the NDT seven years in a row, received invitations to the Kentucky and the Dartmouth Round Robin competitions, reached the quarterfinals of the NDT in 2010 and the elimination debates of CEDA nationals for eight consecutive years. An experienced instructor and judge, he has been a debate camp instructor at the World Debate Institute, Baylor University, International Debate Education Association Conference and the University of Kansas. Herndon was recognized as the CEDA Southwest Region Critic of the Year in 2004 and 2009.
Debate Coach, Georgetown University.
Before joining Georgetown, Antonucci coached debate for Lexington High-School and for Northwestern University. He is responsible for designing and overseeing the Georgetown Debate Seminar's curriculum and is part of the 2011 faculty at both the Georgetown Debate Seminar and the Dartmouth Debate Institute. He has previously taught summer workshops at the University of Iowa, the University of North Texas, the Northwestern Zarefsky-themed Summer Camp, and DDI.
David Cram Helwich
Director of Debate, University of Minnesota
Since the re-birth of the Minnesota debate program in 2007, DCH has lead the Minnesota Debate Team to rankings in the Top 25 by both the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) and the National Debate Tournament (NDT), and to recognition as the Outstanding New Program by CEDA in its first year. In 2009, a Minnesota team competed in the NDT for the first time since 1983. Before joining the Minnesota faculty, DCH coached debate at Macalester College.
Director of Debate, The University of Texas at Austin
Rollins has served as the Director of Debate at UT since 1989 and the director of the University of Texas National Institute in Forensics (UTNIF) since 1994. He has directed the Longhorn Classic TOC qualifying tournament since 1997, and he has served in high leadership positions with both on the NDT committee and the CEDA National Committee. In 2002, Rollins was awarded the Pelham National Debate Coach of the Year Award (a lifetime achievement award), and in 2004, he founded the Austin Urban Debate League. His teams over the years have been consistently ranked in the Top 10 nationally. Before joining UT, Rollins coached at the University of North Texas and at Sothern Methodist University.
Thanks to one of our users, there is a great new lecture for this years Space topic on DebateVision.com You can check it out here:
Also, we are in the process of uploading videos from this year's NFL nationals. As always, we encourage you all to share your videos and audio recordings and pictures from debate rounds, camps, lectures and any other debate related content (documentaries, award ceremonies, classroom discussions, How-to's, novice explanations). If you don't have any, start recording!
Finally, as a reminder, all of DebateVision.com's revenue is being given back to the community in the form of debate scholarships. Please stay tuned to the site for information on how to apply for a scholarship this comming Spring.
Enjoy the rest of your summer everyone!
I am new to this website, and I am slowly learning the process of posting and blogging, so bear with me. My blog will be full of questions about evidence, the topic, tournaments, UIL, and other miscellaneous subjects. A myriad of discussion will occur here regarding these topics as well, and I hope this will be an easier, less crowded version of the forums-- which can be quite daunting due to the thousands of users posting! To start off my new blog, I'll reveal just a little information for all of you debaters out there-- I will be a junior in Texas this year, and both my partner and I have been debating since freshman year. My name is not really Sally Bowen, it is a combination of my partner's and my name. We are both girls. She does not have a cross-x account, and like I said, I recently created one amidst my summer boredom and passion for Cross Examination debate. We have been to state one time, but we did not do as well as we hoped-- so we are looking for help from all you other intelligent debators! I will be attending a camp this summer as well, so evidence exchange might be a great idea. Any other questions for me you can post as a comment, and I'll most likely answer. Be warned, while I strive to be a nice person (I am a Christian), I can be very sassy!
Now on to more serious matters...let's discuss this years topic dealing with space exploration! I feel like counter plans and Kritiks will be rampant this year, due to the multitude of cases possible, and therefore lack of on-case arguments. Topicality will also play a major role, especially due to the ambiguity of space exploration! What a far-out topic...I wonder how much the recent NASA developments will shape the debate? No more shuttles?! I also am curious about the new space companies trying to take over NASA-- could they be possible DAs or CP agents? What are your thoughts about these developments? As far as affirmative goes, I find the excitement pretty inspiring this year. It kind of depends how you interpret the words of the resolution-- with the correct definitions, and beast argumentation skills, you could write some pretty squirrly cases and get away with it. For example, what about a case that merely develops better telescopes that are stationed on earth, but provide better pictures and information beyond the Earth's mesosphere? I wouldn't be so keen to try something like that, but I wonder if a judge would buy it? If you found a great definition of exploration that said it was the study of something, I feel like you could get by with it incredibly well, especially with the economy in such a state of distress, Obama clearly not giving the space program prominence, let alone the funds they need, and the status quo which leans more against space exploration. However, cooler case ideas would be to physically explore space, though the space agreements and space laws definitely suck a lot of the fun out of it.
I'm sure that the DAs and impacts this year are going to be ridiculously crazy...the 2012 end of the world theory, alien invasions, space wars, etc. This topic will definitely be interesting, and what a cool year to be debating it in! I'm sure that the preparation this year will be vigorous, as there are so many different affirmative cases that could be developed, and lots of negative evidence to be written due to space being made up of "what ifs" and "unknowns." I think that a good, solid knowledge of space history would be beneficial for debating this year because the best debators are ones who can set their evidence aside and just talk to the judge-- as long as they know what they are saying and are correct in the knowledge, of course. I hate when people are like "this won't work because it's empirically denied." Really? Tell my why! I think that knowing previous episodes with space exploration and making timelines of important events will really help this year. Does anyone else have ideas about preparation for this years topic?
Okay, well I think I have babbled long enough about the plethora of questions the resolution poses, and I've probably managed to bore many, many people in the process. Anyways, if you have any thoughts about the topic, evidence to share, ideas, or want to refute any of mine, just leave me a comment Happy debating!
This is a blog for a project I have started. I have decided to read every paradigm on the judge philosophy wiki (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/). Many of the paradigms, from my experience, say very little that is constructive (honestly, most just say "I like debate, I vote on whatever, maybe I hate something, maybe I like something). Im not blogging about those paradigms. I am blogging about the paradigms that talk about factors in a decision which couldchange between judges, or biases that are used in judging. A couple of issues I want to read paradigms for include ev v. spin, cheap shots and offense/defense. I want to respond to these in the shoes of both a debater and a potential judge.
NOTE - if you read my blog, and I discussed your paradigm, it would be cool to email me about what I wrote and have a discussion about my blog with me. If you judge regularly and want to discuss anything here further, or would be willing to answer a few Q's, email me. email@example.com
About me - I just finished my 2nd year of HS debate for ingraham HS in Seattle, WA. I qualled for NFL's this year and I made it to finals of my state tournament.
Given that this is my first blog post I guess I should introduce myself. My name is Dana Christensen. I am currently the head coach of debate at Millard South HS. I am starting this blog to give myself an outlet to write about some of the debate related stuff we have done and to hopefully lend some insight into the how and why I teach debate the way I do. If you have had a chance to debate against us then you probably have a good idea of what we do...if you haven't then I am sure the first post will lend a lot of insight into our practices. The document that I am about to post was a transcript of some lecture notes that I wrote and turned into a very informal essay. In other words, if you can't deal with run-on sentences, over and incorrect use of the ellipsis, and other generally terrible grammar you should likely stop reading now. With that being said this is a lecture I give to students shortly after teaching them some of the very basics of debate. It is important for me to recruit and encourage students who have a particular willingness to break away from traditional modes of scholarship. This lecture is a pretty quick way of getting the types of students who will excel in our program very excited about the prospect of debate. I think it is also an important project in life for a teacher at some point to enable students to think dangerous/creative thoughts. Fortunately, debate affords them not only with the space to think about these ideas but provides them a space for the performance or the doing of the things they talk about. That is what I love about teaching debate...
P.S.- I should prolly give some love to Daniel Coffeen whose lecture on "Immortality" at Berkley was a huge inspiration for this piece.
Enough of the rambling...here is a cult classic from the Millard South wormhole:
How to Grow Your Freak Legsâ€¦
*Warning* This lecture may contain an answer to a riddle about the meaning of lifeâ€¦and then again it may be full of s***â€¦
Forget everything you have ever been taught. From this point forward you will become your own teacher. Only trust yourself. This means that you should not even trust me. I am a liarâ€¦I may be the best liar you will ever meet. My skill with falsehoods is the only reason I will ever give you which suggests you should even listen to me. Listenâ€¦but do not learn. To learn is to reckon what is unknown with that which you already know. This is the most basic manner in which all information kills our freak legs. We amputate them every time we reckon what we learn with what we know. This is the fundamental aspect of your new attitude toward the worldâ€¦the newest piece of information you are given cannot merely fit into old schemas, every new thing has to be given a new standing. The next thing must have the potential to annihilate everything else. It must be given the chance to fundamentally change everything. I have come to understand this as â€œfuture art.â€ The first time I heard about this I felt like a semi-truck ran over my head. This was because I really committed myself to be destroyed by it. In the lecture that this information sprang forth from there were certain authors/thinkers/directors/artists that were specified as practitioners of future art. What I have come to know is that all information has the potential to be future art if it is liberated from the desire to assign itself its own immortality. All information is truly capable of overturning youâ€¦in the wake of this destruction you are free to re-create yourself in the image of the formless. Strip off your frock coatâ€¦it will only limit you. You are not a philosopher or a mathematician. Do not mistake a call for you to develop freak legs with a call to become a slave to philosophy or any other project of knowing the world. Nietzsche, Heidegger and Bataille are all excellent starting points, but not because the project of western thought has confirmed their greatness. You should never confront Nietzsche in the hollow spaces of metaphysics but instead smell his breath in the stir of dust from an old book. Donâ€™t limit Heidegger to the sterile laboratory but find him instead in natureâ€¦the last beam of light before the curtain of darkness blasts the known in the cover of mystery. Never Bataille the philosopher but Bataille the librarian strung out on the edge of madness clinging to his filth and the next novel you will read. The importance of this cannot be over-stated the author is not veneratedâ€¦the author is DEAD. There is nothing sacred. You are in communication with the things you read, you shape the text as much as it shapes you. Do not allow yourself to be limited to what is assumed but instead use the texts you read as a resourceâ€¦as a means to becoming formless.
You can literally BE anything. Identity/truth/language/art are all set free by their destruction. This is what it means to seek knowledge. Not going out to find the authentic article, but rather to realize that there is no object that can afford you a smug moment of clarity unless you forget the potential for anything to be destroyed by the next. In this way freak legs donâ€™t come from the finding of an object, but grow in the moment of retreat. They spring forth when everything else is dyingâ€¦these legs are the only things you have at the moment of your rebirth. They are the hands that you will use to grope into the darkness and touch for the first time some unknown beauty. They are the mode of transport that leads you into an unknown future. They are also the wombâ€¦they create and give birthâ€¦they are what is left of you when you are completely absentâ€¦they are what allow you to give life to yourself. They are also nothing in that they will hang lifeless until the next destructionâ€¦hide them in your socksâ€¦the world will not enjoy your new legs, they will ask you to hurry them away to some awful place like a Siamese parasite twin hell bent on clinging to life despite an unfathomable grotesqueness. Shame is weakness. Enough of the ramblingâ€¦we should begin with the Hammer:
"What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and; anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins."
What is Neitzsche getting at here? Truth is merely metaphor and metonymy or exchange of meaning. The beautiful thing here is what is stated behind this claim. The point is that we do not have access to the essential objects in the world. We can never adequately define any element of reality anything but poetically. For instance a table. What is a table? Four legs and a top. What if I sit on the table? Does it become a chair? Or a Stool? What if a gun wielding mad-person came into the room and I threw my desk onto its side and hid behind it, would it become a shield or a bunker? What if I used it to take a nap, is it then a bed? The truth of the matter is that a table is likely all of these things and it is only in the exchange of language that we make the table mean what we want it to. The table is never value neutral. Words are always already arguments about the status at the object in relation to you. The table vis-Ã -vis Christensen (which we will problematize later), never the object in its essence. This is only related to the discussion of a table. Assume for a second that we deal with some really loaded term like insanity/madness/sexuality/terrorist. The explosion of meaning onto reality is literally infinite. The thing we perceive is only an illusion of an instant of stasis in a myriad fluidity. Truth, capital T truth, is the kind of knowledge that has forgotten that it is an illusion. It takes as universal all of the relationships that it forges with the world. This is the literal death of the poetic relationship to the world. Everything is reduced to the singularity of the metaphor itself. A leaf is simply a leafâ€¦not each unique leaf ever. You go into nature and do not appreciate everything in its individuality but only in relation to the singularityâ€¦a forest reduced to a leafâ€¦from multiplicity to desolation. The horror of this thinking comes in relation to those loaded applications of truth. The insane man or terrorist are silenced. In this way truth defines the grounds for discursive engagementâ€¦destroy truth and the insane can speak. This seems like it might be important given that you have your freak legs stuck into your socks as we speak. Nietzsche thus does not run from the poetic relationship to the world in search of something more authentic, but instead embraces the fact that everything is already mediated by language and is thus already poeticâ€¦the world is artistic and complex. So complex that indeed the first time you take this information to heart and enter a forest you might be so overcome by the leaves you will be destroyedâ€¦you will collapse into a pool of sap and of course freak legs. The world is returned to vitality and you must be re-madeâ€¦
Take care this is not a way to denigrate anything except those things that take it upon themselves to institute a sense of immortality. Nothing is wrong with science or religion except for the fact that they speak about the world in a way that denies the multiplicity of the world. There is nothing wrong with science or religion as long as the consequence of taking up the mantle of either is that you insulate yourself from your destructionâ€¦if you cut off your freak legs. Beware the dawning of the lab coat and mask if it only insulates you from contacting the worldâ€¦the same can be said for the collar. The doctor and the priest are merely another kind of artist...
Decide who you want to beâ€¦
This is the next level of the freakiness. IF you are capable of choosing who you are is there ever anything that was or is essentially you? Your identity is the one thing that many philosophers consider the only thing that we have access to. I think therefore I am. This is pretty much b***s***. What is the I if at every moment it is capable of being reduced to nothing, if it at every turn is capable of becoming radically alien to what it was before. Identity like truth is a negotiation. This means that our identity is not a stable and closed concept but one that is open to the world and other people. We can understand this most adequately from the reading of Batailleâ€™s Sacred Conspiracy. In this text we are confronted with a headless man. What is most relevant about the headless man is not necessarily the lack of a head (which is relevant and we will discuss later) but the existence of a wound. The wound is the opening of the identity onto the world. From this wound the world is able to get into us. This is not perception but the literal breakdown of the distinction between the subject and the world (this is referred to as the subject object dichotomy.) We thus become a constructor of the world around us and it comes to constitute the very elements that make us who we are. We can see that this at work from our previous discussion. We certainly are capable of radically altering the way we look at the world surrounding us. Furthermore, that environment has the capacity to change us. This is the wound, the notion of the incomplete human. There is never anything that can close this wound. The thing that attempts to close this wound is the head or authority. There will be those who tell you that you are insane. That identity is an elemental kernel. This is the will to sameness that once again seeks to strip the world of its vitality. Do not believe those who tell you that you cannot adapt and changeâ€¦this attitude is fundamentally life denying. Burroughs speaks to the danger of an immortality that cannot remain flexible in his work Immortality: â€œImmortality is prolonged future, and the future of any artifact lies in the direction of increased flexibility capacity for change and ultimately mutation. Immortality may be seen as a by-product of function, "to shine in use." Mutation involves changes that are literally unimaginable from the perspective of the future mutant. Coldblooded, nondreaming creatures living in the comparatively weightless medium of water could not conceive of breathing air, dreaming, and experiencing the force of gravity as a basic fact of life. There will be new fears like the fear of falling, new pleasures, and new necessities. There are distinct advantages to living in a supportive medium like water. Mutation is not a matter of logical choices.â€ Burroughs here speaks to the very basic elements of future artâ€¦he gives to us the will to mutateâ€¦and not in some cursory way, but indeed to become alien to ourselves. The risk of falling is deathâ€¦this mutation is a mirror of the fall. The startling paradox in this case is that from death springs a more eternal form of life. A life lived not in the stability of identity, but instead oriented to a completely unknowable future. Bataille, in line with Burroughs radicalizes the notion of mutation; he replaces the head of authority with that of various animals. This does several things. First, it places humanity in the order of beasts which is intriguing, but furthermore, it replaces our subjectivity with that of another. We can speak and see and hear with another personâ€™s head. Burroughs again echoes this thought when he states: â€œface it we are other people and other people are us.â€ When I debated I spoke with my brothers words. When my debaters speak they often use my language. When I think about education I use my parentsâ€™ brains. This is beautiful and awful. If you cannot escape this trap the outcome is that you never grow and change. You will always be the sum of a number of other parts (some of super-natural-mysterious origin), but if you harness this power you can speak with the voice of legion, reason with the mind of the multitude, and listen with all the ears of the world. This is perhaps the most powerful thought we have discussedâ€¦but only if you choose it and only if you are ready to let all of those ideas die when confronted with the next amazing bit of our beautiful world.
This is enough of a discussion on the elements that will take you on your path. I will no longer be the only one to indicate to you the ideas that will unmake youâ€¦curiosity must stoke a fire in your belly. You must go out and find the next piece of future art. This is not an easy chore and one that will certainly take some courage. But these are the things that make life most worth living. They are also the things that make debate worth doing. You have a chance everyday to learn and speak and listen to more information than any other people your age. This is the greatest blessing you can have. You all get a chance to be in the world more freely than any other people of your generation. This is a big responsibility and not to be taken lightly. Your ideas are the ones that will literally shape the world for those who are incapable of finding the kind of freedom you will find. You will fill the air and the earth with it. The herd will follow and you will scarcely cast a backward glance because they will merely slow you down. You are all the strong, the dynamic, the vibrant, and finally the most alive. You will need some help to carry this burdenâ€¦tucked into your socks are your freak legsâ€¦they will help carry you to the places you seekâ€¦
Debate Vision.com reached a milestone earlier this week as we surpassed 10,000 video views. Thank you to everyone who has been using the site, especially those who have been uploading their own videos. We encourage everyone to create a member account and comment on the videos you are watching (also, only our registered members will be eligable for debate scholarships in the Spring of next year).
I also wanted to note that, thanks to our users, a couple of documentaries (which some of you may have previously seen elsewhere) have been added to the site documenting both the 2004 NDT and the 2004 Dartmouth Debate Institute and tournament. I know I enjoyed watching them both and hope you will too. If anyone else out there has similar videos, please share them!
Third, we have been working hard to establish a scholarship committee made up of some of the most fantastically qualified debate coaches from around the country, and the response has been astounding. We will let everyone know more about this as it develops.
Finally, we could use your help in growing. If you or your school have debate videos that you have previously uploaded on youtube or vimeo, we encourage you to also put them on DebateVision. Doing so will centralize everyone's search for debate rounds and lectures, and also, why wouldn't you share your videos on a site that is dedicated to supporting the debate community?
this is a compilation of some of the different Freire files currently out there plus my home cut stuff.
big thanks to all those who helped me get my hands on these cards.
These are some generic k's i have picked up and altered a bit along the way this year to help other teams find the "safe alternative to running generic framework arguments"
enjoy the free file
What is performance debate?
Just a little over a year ago I was called a "project debater", then since the summer of this season I've been called a performance debater? The questions that I have is what makes a performance debater different from a regular debater, and what makes a regular debater not a performance debater? Isn't all debate a performance?
Over the summer Ryan Wash from Emporia State told us during a lecture at the Nebraska Debate Institute that a Performance debater is no different than a regular old K debater, it was just a name that was given to debaters like him. It would seem that their are two justifications within the community that I've noticed for being called a "Performance Debater": The first of which would be the K debater who goes all out, I'm talking 1 off style K debaters who can go a whole year without having to cut a single politics update, and is willing to act a fool in a debate round/speech. The second justification I've seen is for K debaters who like to sing, rap, play music, talk about structural violence, identity or whiteness... who would carry themselves in a different manner or act different from other debate teams. Should we perhaps call into question what the reasoning for this process of naming is? For example, is it possible for someone to run whiteness, or structural violence arguments, maybe even go one off for a whole year and not be called a performance debater? I have yet to see so...
I think that a part of discovering the meaning of a performance debater is lies within discovering what it means to perform. What is to say that the act of reading fast and speaking in jargon isn't a performance? Or could it be that a Performance means presenting things in a way that isn't status quo, maybe that means putting yourself out there in a way that is different, the willingness to sing, dance, rap, stomp and clap your hands and present arguments in a way that is germane to yourself rather than the rest of the world. From this we have a sort of double standard, you could see the title as two things, either the title is given to glorify a given debater for the way they present arguments, or it can be used to tokenize debaters for the type of argument they chose to represent themselves with.
So at the end of this post I still have no clue what it really means to be a performance debater, but perhaps we should critically view the title and question the reasons behind it whether that justification be a positive or negative reason behind bestowing that title upon a given debater, team, or squad.
So I'm not sure if it's just me, but the fact that the sidebar-thing shows all recent blog posts seems a little weird. Hopefully this feature will be more utilized and will grow, and should that happen the showing of all recent posts could get very confusing very quickly. Perhaps it would make more sense to show recently active blogs? Or the feature could be done away with entirely and that way you would just see all of the blogs, but the most recently active ones could be on the top like how the forums are organized. Things done by the mods or heads of cross-x could be stickied to the top just like in threads. That could make the blogs more manageable and more intuitive.
Also, I see some real potential for the blogs to grow with the more community-centered redesign. Cross-x has always been a community, but with the addition of Facebook-like options on personal profiles and a more overt placement of the blog option, I think the blogs could really take off. I know that I personally don't like visiting a ton of different websites, as I would prefer to have most of my things that I like to do or check in the same place. The convenience of the blog feature could be a driving factor to make people use it more, and it could grow into another way that the community of cross-x could be manifest within the site itself without needing external sites to follow, such as tumblr or blogspot.
Am I the only one seeing real potential for this under-used feature of cross-x? What do you think would be a good way to organize blogs? What do you think the blog feature should be used for? I'm interested in what you're thinking about this, I know I only just recently figured out that this exists thanks to the cross-x remodel.
Not exactly dubstep, but that's how the performers labeled it. Anyway:
France is doin' it right. (Skip to about 30 seconds. I think the girl with the red hat is the best dancer, but the rest are really good too.)
"These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest." - MLK Jr.
That is against the rules for me to post here because it violates the (really, really stupid default) terms I agreed to when creating a blog on this site. Those terms include (emphasis added):
Hello Debate Community:
This month, DebateVision.com was launched and the response has been overwhelming. In 3 weeks, over 40 debate round videos have been posted with nearly 7000 views. The site allows its users to upload videos from debate rounds (even full length rounds) and allows all users to comment on videos and pictures. We especially want to thank the Cross-X administrators for allowing us to get the word out in the Cross-X forums.
This weekend, we are filming several of the rounds from the TOC and we plan to post them every night of the tournament. The site already has videos from the late elimination rounds of the 2011 NDT as well as videos from other college and high-school tournaments. We additionally anticipate posting videos from the 2011 NFL Nationals and from some debate camps over the summer.
The site is completely non-profit; in fact, we operate at a loss by design as we cover all of the costs of operating the site out-of-pocket. Absolutely every penny we can sqeeze out of the site will be given right back to the community in the form of scholarships for college and debate camps. Please help us grow! Also, we appreciate any feedback that would help the site become a better resource for debaters. We will continue to keep the community updated on new developments through this new Cross-X Blog.