Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Last week
  2. Georgetown is the only one I could find that has theirs available
  3. do y'all know of any camps that have released their evidence yet . idek which camps have started
  4. Hi everybody, We're launching the Portland Urban Debate League this coming school year! We're looking for schools, coaches, judges, and volunteers for PUDL tournaments. If you're over 21, I'd like to invite you to our first meet-and-greet on June 30th at Lagunitas. Just message me for the details! And if you'd like to help out PUDL in any way next year, please message me. I am looking forward to meeting you. Feel free to forward this to anyone who you think might want to participate! Russell Secretary, PUDL
  5. Earlier
  6. There is no reason to change the status quo. The uniqueness and freedom of argumentation is what makes the activity of debate the "art" that it is. I, among many others, appreciate this, as you admit in your post. Why then, would we change it? The real problem is this: How do you propose this genuineness is enforced? Because enforcing genuineness - something which is determined by extremely subjective standards - would in itself be more harmful to debate than allowing this "non-genuineness" to continue, just as it always has.
  7. I'm glad to hear your opinion has developed, however I see a few problems with this new outlook as described in your post. 1) Your point seems to rest on a set of observations which you haven't described in detail or proven can be generalized. This may be a "problem" wherever you are, but I haven't seen an inordinate amount of abuse based on a lack of genuineness where I debated, and I debated in a circuit where Ks were often more common than policy arguments. 2) This sounds a lot like authenticity-testing. This is to say, you probably have in your mind some idea of what a "genuinely" marginalized or expressed identity would look like, the abuses you believe you have witness do not hold up to this standard. The trouble is other people have different experiences, different perspectives, etc., which all make it difficult to say that there is a single genuine mode of expressing marginality. "Genuineness" is really not a standard by which you should judge someone or the way they argue, in or out of debate rounds. Of course, sometimes there are clear abuses. If I - as someone who is basically comfortable with the label cisgender - were to say "I'm trans and I want to express my rage" for the duration of a single debate round only to assume all the privileges, behaviors, etc. I had before that round, that would be clearly problematic. I would be commodifying or misappropriating the label "transgender" in order to win a debate round. This would be bad, and I think you would agree. However, I've never seen anything like this firsthand, and the only time I've heard about it was in reference to a policy team who used a similar argument to get out of a single link. Here's another example: a team of two black men would wear dashikis at tournaments, even though they usually would just wear ordinary clothes in most other settings I saw them. That could be what you are referring to, but I wouldn't be able to tell based on your description. They'd be changing their clothes and might make an argument about it, but that wouldn't necessarily be wrong. 3) None of these problems are unique to Ks, K teams, minorities, or any other group. I already mentioned that a couple of white guys who read policy arguments temporarily jettisoned their gender to get out of a link. Furthermore, literally every segment of the debate community distorts literature. It's virtually impossible to make competitive arguments that clash with one another if you adhere strictly to the text and context of your cards. This applies to policy proposals, scenario-planning, critical theory, performance, and virtually every debate round. Lastly, "altering their appearances" is something plenty of debaters do; surely you've seen people put on suits or makeup for tournaments? The same principle would apply to the example I gave about dashikis. Look, overall I'm glad you've decided Ks aren't the problem. But it's next to impossible to comment on your post in a positive manner without specifics. All of the points I've listed are inference based your previous interactions with this forum. You seem to be attributing your grievances to people "abusing" Ks, and not to people "abusing" policy, and you seem to think this is because debate is "far left." It's not, and the appropriation of identity is not leftist in any case.; I've given you several leftist critiques of both what you have described and your position.
  8. Hi @JSamuel - In response to your last post on my second culture post ("I'm Sorry"), I am actually not maintaining my original standpoint. I am now in a different camp under the echo-chamber umbrella. I am no longer fighting Ks so much as what the debate space has become. It has gone too far. After my first thread which unexpectedly went viral, I did some soul searching. When David shut down my post, I started to wonder if my mission was possible. Then, I began to modify it. I have never doubted the importance of Ks. Part of the beauty of debate is that it is a safe-space for identity expression. I have witnessed that. I don't think I articulated this well enough in my first post. Debate has always been an activity that empowers. My modified mission is as follows: To inject the debate space with genuineness. - Let me explain: I believe that people have taken advantage of the empowering and accepting art that debate is. Because debate so clearly celebrates difference, I have witnessed many people pose (for lack of better words) in an effort to appear like they are part of a marginalized group. I don't want to go into specifics, but this included altering their appearances before tournaments and running Ks which corresponded with their temporarily altered appearance. This happens in many forms and at many schools. Needless to say, this harms the minorities that are actually using the debate space to express their identities. I think witnessing these made me resent Ks in general. I now see clearly. Ks aren't the problem. The problem is what some debaters are doing to manipulate the literature and the system. If there is some advantage to this or critical reason for it, please comment. I don't see it as of now. Thanks. Has debate gone so far left that the community has blinders on? Has anyone else noticed the issue outlined above?
  9. Sorry I forgot to turn notifications on for this, so I'm seeing this after a good while, but thanks for the advice. I guess bias does differ according to each judge, but I have to say that I wouldn't necessarily want to run one aff the whole year, so I guess it's a possibility. I think the idea of letting them read DAs and CPs on a K aff is an interesting take, I did think about that but I'm not 100% exactly what that looks like absent "We the People" We Meet arguments. I guess I'm just kind of afraid I'll be roasted by my coaches for reading a hard right aff because I kinda like policy more than Ks but it's really hard to win heg good when all your opponents run is Ks lol. Anyways, thanks again.
  10. You should look for interps that describe specific actions that are minimally required to be substantial in context of topic specific phrases. This can be numerical, but cards that describe specific portions of FMS or DCS(?) as significant, such as particular weapons systems, countries, international agreements, etc etc etc. This establishes a clearer baseline for a) what the best neg ground looks like/gives a clearer story for WHY your minimal action is necessary for core topic discussions and core ground, b) makes it easier to sidestep the overlimits debate by saying "we could do the aff so long as this action is also done" (which makes your TVA debate simple as well). You should otherwise set up your limits DA with cards that outline the number of countries we deal with, number of agreements we have with individual countries (giving one country as an example is fine, the point is showing that we have a variety of overlapping arms deals with each country), and number of items considered arms for arms sales. I want to specify that the best/most contextual "substantially" cards are actually specific topic phrase interps like "x agreement is the core of foreign military sales, necessary for a substantial reduction."
  11. Thanks for the response. 1. It's not that I want to be accommodating, it's just that my current "Substantially means 2%" interp card makes it to where literally zero affs meet my violation. I would run it, but I don't want to deal with the abuse arguments, such as "name 5 affs that meet" and such. 2. I have extremely specific violation cards that I've already found. But you're right, I won't be able to get any sort of specific interp until the camp files are released.
  12. 2 things: 1- You shouldn't strive to design T arguments on the negative to be accommodating to the aff. Your framing argument for T on the neg is competing interpretations. By definition your goal is to provide the most limited interpretation of a word or phrase in the resolution to provide the best predictable limits for a topic. An important thing to remember is that while yes, the aff will have some kind of aff education good argument, your impact on the negative is fairness. So even if the aff wins some risk of offense from an education-based standard, you can win that debate with impact framing/comparison between fairness and education. 2- substantially violations aren't usually persuasive unless you have topic-specific interp/violation cards. Otherwise the aff saying "this is arbitrary, here's a card saying substantially means x%" is pretty easy to listen to. So this will either be a matter of research for you or a waiting game to see what debate camps put out (though typically words that aren't topic specific just get copy/pasted backfile cards from college debaters/coaches doing camp assignments).
  13. You've killed this website and the community that came with it. You continue to be the worst.

  14. Quick distinction in mod v admin powers. Mods can only manage content on the front end of the website (within whatever allowed permissions). Stuff like forum creation is all admin control panel stuff. David can't hand out those powers without also enabling a user to be able to basically control the entire site. That said, topic came out around the new year and he's been active since. For the sake of this topic's request, @David should be tagged.
  15. Exactly; David (who owns the site) is the only one who still has mod powers. He is the one who can change the immigration topic to the arms sales topic. He has been inactive for almost a year now. Hence the need to create a topic within a fourm for the arms sales topic.
  16. I've been scouring the internet, searching for topicality evidence that says, "Substantially means 1%." I'm trying to make a non-abusive Substantially T for the arms sales resolution. If anyone has this interpretation card, I'd be willing to trade. I have an entire Dropbox full of evidence.
  17. David,

    We appreciate the job you've done in years past, but life goes on, and your activity on the forums has decreased.  Appointing some new moderators would allow you to maintain control without having to do any of the work yourself.  If you choose moderators who genuinely care about the activity of debate, Cross-X could thrive yet again.

    If you're not interested in selecting new moderators, then please consider selling the website.  Cross-ex has been a great resource for debaters, and I, along with the rest of this community, don't want it to die.

    With respect,

    Samuel Oakes

  18. As far as I can tell, I don't have permission to create forums - I only have permission to create topics within the forums.
  19. The only mod on this site has been inactive for almost a year now. You can create one...
  20. As stated in my previous post, I don't know if I will be able to attend camp this year, but am still optimistic about the situation. Does anyone know when the last day to sign up for UTNIF Skills session 2 is? I would like to attend camp with my partner and am hopeful that my parents will change their mind about camp soon. Also, does anyone know of any other small schools who would like to prep before the season starts?? I'm a rising senior at a relatively small school and would love to prep with other small schools!
  21. I'm not sure how everything on this site is run, but could we get a moderator to delete the "Immigration" forum and create an "Arms Sales" forum? This would be appropriate, seeing as how the new debate resolution for the 2019-2020 season is focused on arms sales.
  22. JSamuel

    I'm sorry.

    From the perspective of an outside observer, it looks like you are in the wrong. If you really want to apologize, then apologize without pointing fingers and maintaining your original standpoint. What you did is what someone would do who doesn't want to apologize at all. It seems like you started the entire "K vs Policy" cock fight. You may think you're trying to help people find common ground, but they already had common ground until you started this whole thing. So you have no inherency, if you know what I mean.
  23. OwenK

    I'm sorry.

    I think that could happen. I am down to trying to help!
  24. OwenK

    Spark - Fully Loaded

    it is! thats why I want this one free so I can compare and get the best of both worlds
  25. Really? Well, in that case, I'm down. EDIT: If anyone wants to debate me - anyone at all - just send me your aff (or tell me to send you my aff). I have a bunch of new stuff I'm wanting to try out.
  26. No. I understand the urge to pick at scabs, but you need to resist it. There is no reason to think this thread would be different than the previous one. I agree some people were rude to you when they should not have been, but you're being unreasonable. You've moved into rudeness yourself. You haven't put anything of substance into this new thread. That is a bad way to start a dialogue. To clarify, this is not a request that you post something you believe has substance that we might have a productive conversation. It's an assertion that while this conversation might need to happen, your behavior doesn't indicate you're capable of making it happen. That would require someone exceptional, and although I think we need such a person, you are not them.
  27. Verbatim counts the highlighted words and tags only I believe
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...