Jump to content
Robert Bork

ResNull.org Up and Running: A Hub for Nullification and Change

Recommended Posts

Jesus, dude. Go back to freshmen english... I was gonna answer your stuff line-by-line, but this works just as well...

 

"Alright i'll just get my 2 cents in since everyone else has; i have been up for nullifying this resolution since it has been announced. To Everyone who says "stop whining and research it", why exactly should we do that? Is it because we are fixated on the notion that once the topic is picked that this is always final? Has anyone stopped to think, "what if the topic thats picked is something literally racist?" Not picking africa kind of was; i mean, would we just stop whining and research it? The problem with this approach is that all of us who are calling to nullify the rez think that the researching will be bs in the first place. There are very few people in the past 10 years who have advocated national service, and, yes, timely literature is a good thing. People say that this happens every year; people are whining. Yes people whine every year, but when was the last time there was this much outrage in the community, and when was the last time you remember a call for nullification of the topic. This is not the same whining that occurs every year; we are not screaming out because it's something which we don't believe will have good impacts, or because we think topicality is going to suck or some reason like that; we are "whining" because this topic provides little education and chance to broaden our knowledge of things that are happening around us. Our other option (-instead) provides, as has been stated, (-has) education on colonialization and problems that have occured in Africa due to those people who, ironically, would say, "Stop whining and deal with it." To all of those who also say, "there will be innovation," i am wondering what innovation are you talking about exactly. With the civil liberties topic you could definitely see people finding trickier aff's as the year went on, and that wasn't because they would find some random law review from 20 years ago; it was because the resolution was so timely, and you knew current events would effect the topic all the time. Yes, innovation may happen next year, but that doesn't mean its good education or makes it a better topic at all."

Actually, i decided to answer all your stuff anyway:

 

1. "To Everyone who says "stop whining and research it", why exactly should we do that?"

A. Researching topics that don't seem interesting or educating at first - especially a hand-picked debate resolution - often yeild double the education: It is educating to discover the importance of a relatively unknown topic, and it is educating to debate specific plans within the resolution.

 

B. This same jargon is tossed around every year; it always subsides.

 

C. You won't make a change. Even if i were for nullification, I recognize that, athough the debate community roxors, an official resolution change is highly unlikely.

 

2. "what if the topic thats picked is something literally racist?"

A. What do u mean racist? Is it lke otherizing and stigmatizing an entire race of people by grouping an entire continent of people together and mandating assistance only to them, defining problems based upon their solutions and legitemizing racist philanthropy? Yeah, it would suck if a resolution like that got picked.

 

B. cross-apply DeCoach's argument

 

C. Arguably, civil liberties was "rights oriented," WMD was "WMD oriented, National Service feeds into biopolitics, and not picking Outer Space neglected the importance of recent scientific discoveries. What i mean to say, is that there will be inherent flaws in every resolution, but the impacts of a racist or sexist or biopolitically oriented resolution are empirically denied and, to a great extent, don't hinder the education or advocacy of either the aff or neg side.

 

D. Prove it.

 

3. "all of us who are calling to nullify the rez think that the researching will be bs in the first place. There are very few people in the past 10 years who have advocated national service, and, yes, timely literature is a good thing."

 

A. again, there is no way to substantiate your claim. How many people need to advocate something before there is enough lit?

 

B. What is timely? The majority of the claims against Korematsu were from the 80's, yet that plan yeilded maybe the deepest, best debates of the year.

 

C. National service is more than just draft - at least according to my sweet aff topicality files. Are you refering to authors writing about the draft?

 

4. "yes people whine every year, but when was the last time there was this much outrage in the community, and when was the last time you remember a call for nullification of the topic. This is not the same whining that occurs every year"

 

A. Counter-interpretation: there are more whiners in the debate community this year.

 

B. Just because more people don't support resolution doesn't give credibility or reasoning to the case for nullification. People are stupid, and they flock like sheep.

 

5. "we are "whining" because this topic provides little education and chance to broaden our knowledge of things that are happening around us."

 

A. You cant get anymore real-world educational than domestic topics.

 

B. Obviously you have closed your mind to the educational ability for national service. Cross-apply my 1-A point.

 

6. "Our other option (-instead) provides, as has been stated, (-has) education on colonialization and problems that have occured in Africa due to those people who, ironically, would say, "Stop whining and deal with it.""

 

A. you are just listing possible advantages to a plan under the african resolution. I could do the same for National service. This doesn't prove a thing.

 

B. I can garauntee that i didn't cause "colonization and problems."

 

C. Lol. I just read your post again.

 

" To all of those who also say, "there will be innovation," i am wondering what innovation are you talking about exactly. With the civil liberties topic you could definitely see people finding trickier aff's as the year went on, and that wasn't because they would find some random law review from 20 years ago; it was because the resolution was so timely, and you knew current events would effect the topic all the time"

 

A. How can we tell you what the innovation may be prior to its invention? It ceases to be innovation.

 

B. Empirically denied. Affs always find innovation... every year. YOU have the burden of proof to prove that this year will be different.

 

C. Cross apply my answer to your #3.

 

D. You concede this point already: "Yes, innovation may happen next year"

 

Overall, i think you're arguments are a HUGE target for the anti-nullification case. It would be better off for your entire cause to allow people who are better at articulating your positition (ie: Robert Bork). Hop off the bandwagon for a second.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't bother wading through that mess of formatting to find your argument, but one point of clarification: We're not trying to change the resolution for this year; we're trying to change the way resolutions are chosen in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you had bothered to read my argumentS, then you would have realzed that i was just pissed off and decided to answer everything that ManditoryMet said. I wasn't makeing a constructive against nullification, just a refutational post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright first off i apologize for the fact i don't go through my forum posts on cross-x.com and check for all the grammatical errors i make. I am sorry for someone who is forced to go through that and fix it for me, thanks for doing that service for me, i really need that help. Next off, why exactly do you think we can't change the resolution? Because it's never been done before, thats not really a reason at all. National service hands down is the least timely rez ever. You come back with the awesome example of Korematsu, have you actually heard a good korematsu aff this year? Probably not, because every good Korematsu aff reads evi that talks about how the Bush administrations detention tactics mirror that of korematsu or how he is actually pushing to start reusing Korematsu. And the whole prove it argument you make for why not picking Africa kind of hints towards racism, no one has yet to make a good argument as to what education national service gives that outweighed that on africa, or why the timeliness of africa is bad, i kno everyone is telling us to stop whining and deal with it, but nonetheless i just want a side by side comparison, if that is possible....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"why exactly do you think we can't change the resolution? Because it's never been done before, thats not really a reason at all."

A. Yes it is. To my knowledge, there has never been a nullification. Prove to me that, this year, the authorities will be more open to nullification arguments.

 

B. Empirically denied. We had to suffer through the Ocean topic and Mental Health, two topics with no speicific timely significance for their choosing.

 

"National service hands down is the least timely rez ever. You come back with the awesome example of Korematsu, have you actually heard a good korematsu aff this year? Probably not, because every good Korematsu aff reads evi that talks about how the Bush administrations detention tactics mirror that of korematsu or how he is actually pushing to start reusing Korematsu."

 

A. Fine. There are timely writings on korematsu, but there are similar writings on national service. Because i really don't feeling proving you wrong with authors, the timelineess argment is a wash-out, unless somebody wants to chime in on my behalf.

 

B. Cross-apply my 1B point. Untimely topics aren't always bad and obviously don't legitemize nullification.

 

"And the whole prove it argument you make for why not picking Africa kind of hints towards racism, no one has yet to make a good argument as to what education national service gives that outweighed that on africa, or why the timeliness of africa is bad"

 

A. Do you realy want me to do an impact analisys regarding africa topic advantages vs. National Service topic advantages? That would be stupid because someone's opinion of which harms warrant more discussion doesn't determine whether we should nullify the current resolution.

 

B. Look not to the other resolution's possible harms, but the abillity for affs to run cases on this resolution.

 

C. Education does outweigh, theoretically. Read my last post's 1A argument, and answer it.

 

"i just want a side by side comparison, if that is possible...."

A. So make one, and post it.

 

B. why do we, the negatives, have to provide you with your SHITS? We don't; if aff doesn't prove significance, SQ wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have time to go through all this, but I agree with Ryan. Once we saw the final five topics, Kyle and I swore that we'd quit if national service won. While I don't think we're going to stay true to our promise, we've joked quite a bit about kritiking the topic all year on the aff, since there's no other way to win (I wonder how much of a joke it's becoming). I'm not sure how much this wording revision could help, but hopefully it will make it better. Still though, Ryan's right - this topic takes the cake.

 

PS I am far from convinced that the dismissal of Africa wasn't racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"why exactly do you think we can't change the resolution? Because it's never been done before, thats not really a reason at all."

A. Yes it is. To my knowledge, there has never been a nullification. Prove to me that, this year, the authorities will be more open to nullification arguments.

 

B. Empirically denied. We had to suffer through the Ocean topic and Mental Health, two topics with no speicific timely significance for their choosing.

 

"National service hands down is the least timely rez ever. You come back with the awesome example of Korematsu, have you actually heard a good korematsu aff this year? Probably not, because every good Korematsu aff reads evi that talks about how the Bush administrations detention tactics mirror that of korematsu or how he is actually pushing to start reusing Korematsu."

 

A. Fine. There are timely writings on korematsu, but there are similar writings on national service. Because i really don't feeling proving you wrong with authors, the timelineess argment is a wash-out, unless somebody wants to chime in on my behalf.

 

B. Cross-apply my 1B point. Untimely topics aren't always bad and obviously don't legitemize nullification.

 

"And the whole prove it argument you make for why not picking Africa kind of hints towards racism, no one has yet to make a good argument as to what education national service gives that outweighed that on africa, or why the timeliness of africa is bad"

 

A. Do you realy want me to do an impact analisys regarding africa topic advantages vs. National Service topic advantages? That would be stupid because someone's opinion of which harms warrant more discussion doesn't determine whether we should nullify the current resolution.

 

B. Look not to the other resolution's possible harms, but the abillity for affs to run cases on this resolution.

 

C. Education does outweigh, theoretically. Read my last post's 1A argument, and answer it.

 

"i just want a side by side comparison, if that is possible...."

A. So make one, and post it.

 

B. why do we, the negatives, have to provide you with your SHITS? We don't; if aff doesn't prove significance, SQ wins.

 

Alright this will probably be my last post on this thread because it really doesn't seem like your trying to make any valid points besides being a sweet debater and subpointing your arguments. Also i'm not in the mood of saying things like aff proves significance or cross apply arguments on cross-x.com, cuz frankly it just seems worthless. All i am trying to say is national service has little, to no, good/recent research base, i've still yet to see anyone defend this point, people just try to scapegoat with either thats not bad, which is ridiculous, or so does civil liberties, which is as far from the truth as possible. National service provides little innovation, yes some innovation will come about, but nothing compared to any topics recently. The topic will be run dry quite quickly, unless literature starts getting written soon, which if it does, that will ultimately mean we have entered into a full blown war or something catastrophic has happened like every major landmark/national forest have been destroyed and we as citizens have to rise up and rebuild them. Also, as jaimie said above no one has proved that not picking africa wasn't racist, people try to say we don't need side by side comparisons, how ridiculous is that. When picking two resolutions are we supposed to look at both in a vacuum? No that makes little to no sense. When compared to each other there is a clear winner, but some other external factors seemed to have stopped that....

 

Just a side note, i might need to turn this into a paper so if the person who grammatically corrected my last one could do it again, please by all means do....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough... I'm having debate withdrawl syndrome, sry.

 

"i might need to turn this into a paper so if the person who grammatically corrected my last one could do it again, please by all means do...."

Sarcasm? What paper would you be writing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder why all these posts about the national service topic being stupid are so stupid.

 

I think debaters should buck up and debate w/e rez is chosen. The honest truth is that none of this will make any difference whatsoever - you don't need to nullify a resolution in a debate round to change the system.

 

Just for clarification. You all are fucking retarded if you want to nullify the resolution. Resolution Nullification is for the negative team. If you really are not a good enough debater to win and support the resolution then you should not be in debate. Just fucking debate, and instead of using your "rez nul" bullshit on aff wait til a neg round and prove why this resolution is so shitty. If the rez is really that bad then you can spend one day writing your block and win every neg round, then just get your aff worked out. You are fools.

 

Um. . . how bout not?

 

It shouldn't be debated at all.

 

While I am 100% for changing the way voting happens and for calling/ranting/assasinating/voyeuring/etc. random NHS members to get things changed, I think it's a complete mistake to take rez nullification into debate rounds, at least those hosted by a tournament hosting the topic in question. If you want to do this, debate how good the Africa topic is in a self-sponsored tournament. It's a recipe for disaster to bring this into tournaments outside of this, mostly because of reasons I've posted earlier, and the simple fact that debating it within a debate round won't make a shread of difference in ANYTHING - all it will do is either 1) Make you lose a round, or 2) Confuse some first or second or even third year team who will honestly believe they're in the wrong room.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for some random clarification, there have been resolutions nullified in the past, my coach told me about florida nulling a resolution dealing with cuba, or cuba immigration, because their judging pool was substancially cuban, or baised against that community, so there have been res nulled.

 

and also, to yusuf, what posts in particular should people cut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all of the unfounded and stupid bullshit about how certain resolutions suck. granted, there are some good arguments, but when you can cut forty different high school debaters that are moronic you have a pretty good argument for their inability to choose a resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this whole thing interesting, for one the syntax and diction of your rhetoric reek of revolution, interesitng style. It feels much like Fight Club, righteous, yet fake. I won't say you are a bunch a whiny assholes, because obviously you feel strongly about ur point. But what will end up happening is that a bunch of debaters will waste your careers doing something that will not have an effect, i like the idea, i like the effort, but i think it is misplaced. One, you are hurting your fellow debaters by asking for them to be rejected in a round because they are not debating what you want to debate, at that point you are elitist as the authorities you hate. Two, if you do not ask for a rejection then you will lose only hurting yourselves and your movement will not garner much support and your coaches will most likely penalize you in some way. Three, though it would seem this is gaining support, because the vast majority of the debate community is still on the side of the debating the rez, your movement would not have much validity in creating change because your whole point centers around support from your fellow debaters. Your whole revolution is regressive only if u run it in rounds, now, if you were to do something more constructive liek taking polls, arranging support online, making petitions, etc. then you would be doing something that i and i think a lot of people would support. But at the point that you are running it in rounds you are only moving to beat your opponent, your fellow debater, the person you are so called "empowering" through your movement. That's like me killing a black person in the name of ending racism, it is the opposite of your beliefs and crushes the legitmacy of your movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find this whole thing interesting, for one the syntax and diction of your rhetoric reek of revolution, interesitng style. It feels much like Fight Club, righteous, yet fake. I won't say you are a bunch a whiny assholes, because obviously you feel strongly about ur point. But what will end up happening is that a bunch of debaters will waste your careers doing something that will not have an effect, i like the idea, i like the effort, but i think it is misplaced. One, you are hurting your fellow debaters by asking for them to be rejected in a round because they are not debating what you want to debate, at that point you are elitist as the authorities you hate. Two, if you do not ask for a rejection then you will lose only hurting yourselves and your movement will not garner much support and your coaches will most likely penalize you in some way. Three, though it would seem this is gaining support, because the vast majority of the debate community is still on the side of the debating the rez, your movement would not have much validity in creating change because your whole point centers around support from your fellow debaters. Your whole revolution is regressive only if u run it in rounds, now, if you were to do something more constructive liek taking polls, arranging support online, making petitions, etc. then you would be doing something that i and i think a lot of people would support. But at the point that you are running it in rounds you are only moving to beat your opponent, your fellow debater, the person you are so called "empowering" through your movement. That's like me killing a black person in the name of ending racism, it is the opposite of your beliefs and crushes the legitmacy of your movement.

I think you're giving this whole "rez nullification" thing too much credit.

 

It isn't a "movement" - it's a bunch of high schoolers whining because they couldn't print an article about poor black people in Africa and say they should win because they could exploit their terrible lives more than the other team.

 

Instead of debating a topic that could actually affect many of the people on this site, many would rather exploit the harms of Africans and then get a nice, shiny medal for it.

 

I think the whole thing's ridiculous, but eh - let them do what they want. Their bandwith. I just think that tournaments that use the national service resolution at least deserve the respect of their sovereign decision to not have this argued in round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gosh this sucks

 

you could even cut people's inability to understand the argument as a response

 

Is this a reference to me and if it is what am i not understanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

general statement

 

the argument isn't that the resolution is bad, it's that the process by which the resolution is chosen is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
general statement

 

the argument isn't that the resolution is bad, it's that the process by which the resolution is chosen is bad.

i understand that, but my point above was that if their movement is to empower debaters in the debate community with a voice it seems counter productive to run this against the very students that u are trying to empower and taking away their voice to debate waht they want.

 

Quote from resnull "One debater cannot simply “decide” that the topic should be replaced and make it so, but instead has to convince more that it is a good idea."

 

How can u make allies in asking for the students you want to be allied with to be rejected for their opinion of debating the resolution. Trying to convince someone can not really be done in a competitive setting if the people u are trying to convince are the people that u want to lose in the process. And don't feed me the bull shit that they are not going to demand a victory in rounds because that is not true, at the point that u are competing and rejecting their ideals that has empirically led to backlash in the form that because u asked me to lose because of my opinion i will create a 100 page file against u and will never try to work with u.

 

There is a unique difference between this and Louisville and other type of arguments because louisville is critiquing not only what is wrong with the community but also what is wrong with the individual debaters and does not wish to gain their support in a movement but looks to constantly, as ede warner said, create enough critique and agitate the debaters enough to create change in style. This resnull, on the other hand, is trying to allign themselves with the very people they are critiquing.

 

here is a hint: don't do it in a debate round, do it outside of debate rounds. Critiquing someone is no way to get them to be on your side, u do through peaceful discussion, not competitive debate rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
general statement
.

 

but that doesn't respond to the argument. it doesn't really matter if they want to debate the resolution or not, it's a question of who they want choosing the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

 

but that doesn't respond to the argument. it doesn't really matter if they want to debate the resolution or not, it's a question of who they want choosing the resolution.

But people don't want constructive change. People want something to whine about in round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ummm... i understand their position, but that is something that u don't argue against someone in a debate round. U don't say to me I am goign to debate africa because i don't agree with the way that the topic was made and essentially ask for me to be rejected because i wanted to debate the resolution and then expect me to change my opinion and join your movement. The way u get support is not through competition, it is through discussion, debate is not discussion, it is competitition, it is wanting to win. So what I am saying is that there whole approach is dumb, not that their movement is necessarily wrong, because u can't gain the support through asking for me to lose, if they frame the round in a way to reject those who want to debate the resolution and they lose (or if they win), they will not join your movement, they will merely make a file against this as many teams are beginning to and still debate the resolution in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ummm... i understand their position, but that is something that u don't argue against someone in a debate round. U don't say to me I am goign to debate africa because i don't agree with the way that the topic was made and essentially ask for me to be rejected because i wanted to debate the resolution and then expect me to change my opinion and join your movement. The way u get support is not through competition, it is through discussion, debate is not discussion, it is competitition, it is wanting to win. So what I am saying is that there whole approach is dumb, not that their movement is necessarily wrong, because u can't gain the support through asking for me to lose, if they frame the round in a way to reject those who want to debate the resolution and they lose (or if they win), they will not join your movement, they will merely make a file against this as many teams are beginning to and still debate the resolution in the future.

Basically.

 

As I posted earlier a thousand times probably, I'm 100% for what they're saying, just as long as it stays out of debate rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, debate should be as meaningless as possible

 

heaven forbid someone ask us to not jerk off that's all i'm about

 

people who are just whining will lose rounds, like every other kritik debater who debates kritiks because they're "rebellious" or "cool"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, debate should be as meaningless as possible

 

heaven forbid someone ask us to not jerk off that's all i'm about

 

people who are just whining will lose rounds, like every other kritik debater who debates kritiks because they're "rebellious" or "cool"

I'm not saying that such an argument in-round wouldn't be strategic - I'm just asking for a shred of logic that running the position will actually --> change.

 

So now the judge realizes that they didn't get to learn anything about the topic not because of a K or generic DA, but rather because of a position that says another topic should have been picked.

 

It's the fact that every K ran in debate hasn't solve racism and biopower already that is proof that this position won't have any affect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you get me wrong, refer back to my former post to talk about the differences between this aff and other kritiky affs that try to cause a movement that solves for inequalities in the debate community. Louisville looks to agitate debaters until they change the stylistic norms that perpetuate racism in debate, while res null looks to reject debaters in their use of the voted on topic in hopes that they will convince me, while telling me i should lose, that i should join their movement. notice the difference? Their ideas are intelligent, though i will admit have holes, but their approach is not very good if they are trying to create change, it seems more like a way to win debates. If they are trying to gain support, support can only be gained in discussion, not competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...