Jump to content
chiefs

Flamewars between Joe and others - concerning the legitimacy of killing all africans

How is this argument that we should nuke africa?  

98 members have voted

  1. 1. How is this argument that we should nuke africa?

    • legit- It's policy debate anything goes
      62
    • not- we should be helping and taking seriously
      11
    • racist- unfair to kill a whole continet of people
      25


Recommended Posts

I agree with you everywhere but here.

Badass.

 

This argument doesn't do shit to exclude black people from joining debate. When we read our death squads in the middle east aff are we necessarily excluding people from that region? Hell no, in fact we've debated people from that region (and a couple of them thought it was pretty sweet).

 

In addition, to the extent that you're trying to win that discourse in these rounds is what does the shit you claim then once again you have to win the argument that alot of the discursive implications that affs like this claim aren't legit.

 

Obviously there are answers to Zizek out there. But just saying your discourse is violent or excludes people is not going to be enough to beat any of their arguments.

 

Then of course they could be just not using Zizek, in which case, by all means kick the shit out of them.

To be honest, my reading depth on Zizek isn't great enough to argue this point; I'm obviously not assuming a Zizekian framework here. Also, while I've read the first section that you've posted earlier in the thread (outside of the thread) and have a more-or-less general idea of some of Zizek's arguments, I have not done a close reading of Zizek. Furthermore, I assume that reading Zizek on this point -- that is, interactions with the Other -- requires a really sophisticated understanding of Lacanian psychoanalysis. While I have a reasonable understanding of both authors, I don't have time to read either at the level that would allow me to coherently interact with Zizek's position on the matter. So, that said, if I have time in the next few weeks to engage in some close readings of Zizek, I'll take you up on this point.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the title of the thread, bud. It says "Flamewars." Stop editing my s**t.

 

i appreciate you informing as to waht the title of the thread was, but unfortunetly i already knew this; i was, after all, the reason this thread came into existence. However, the title is refering to what was going on at the time. The thread is concerning the legitamacy of killing all africans, the flamewars par refers to the fact that his posts, and others, which were deemed flame wars were undeleted and a thread was created for them in order to solve the problem that was occuring because of the deletion of said posts. So again i would ask, not only you, but everyone to refrain from flaming each other in this thread. I appreciate your concern however.

 

Also if you want me to stop editing posts, i would suggest reading my platform of moderation, its pretty insightful. Do not think that i;m singleing you out, i'm not - at least i'm not trying to and i will continue to keep my eyes open for inapropriate posts.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So let me get this straight: I lose an argument because you decided not to think your original position all the way through before posting it? Of course!

 

And hm... I see that you dropped my entire post... again.

No, not because I didn't "think it through." It's because you are reciting generic kritiks. I killed the link and uniqueness, and you never went back and re-established them. Without them, every one of your arguments is invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repeat: NOT everything should go in debate. Debate has lost its collective mind. That this case was proposed at all is simply proof of this fact.

 

I'm not blaming the kritik, though. Most of what's said in criticisms is actually reasonable and salient in a halfway decent discussion of a topic. Instead, I blame whoever it was who came up with the extinction impact. By creating this ridiculous impact, it opened the door for the insane series of tenuous slippery slopes that is the present-day debate argument. The attitude that any series of links is legitimate has to be excised from debate; it's a cancer that could end up destroying debate from the inside. When impacts are smaller, it becomes more difficult--and thus more interesting and educational--to come up with a strong case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, not because I didn't "think it through." It's because you are reciting generic kritiks. I killed the link and uniqueness, and you never went back and re-established them. Without them, every one of your arguments is invalid.

Okay. Your original 'no link' (to the best of my ability to discern it) is that you didn't think it through and shouldn't, therefore, be held accountable for your rhetoric because it was 'just a thought' or something like that. So, either, you thought it through and should be held to account and my argument applies, or, you didn't think it through, you look like an idiot and my argument still applies and you just say it doesn't.

 

Oh, and stop being so egocentric. My argument is applied to a lot more people than just you.

 

Also, what "generic" would I be running by claiming that killing an entire continent of people is problematic, shows that people are privileged, and probably hurts any attempt at debate to be inclusive? Yeah... I guess that's pretty non-specific. "Hurrrr, biopower links to everything cause power is everywhere and so is life so hurrrr biopower to nuke war judge." Yeah, definitely saying that.

 

You might just want to stop responding for the sake of preserving your own dignity.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Repeat: NOT everything should go in debate. Debate has lost its collective mind. That this case was proposed at all is simply proof of this fact.

 

I'm not blaming the kritik, though. Most of what's said in criticisms is actually reasonable and salient in a halfway decent discussion of a topic. Instead, I blame whoever it was who came up with the extinction impact. By creating this ridiculous impact, it opened the door for the insane series of tenuous slippery slopes that is the present-day debate argument. The attitude that any series of links is legitimate has to be excised from debate; it's a cancer that could end up destroying debate from the inside. When impacts are smaller, it becomes more difficult--and thus more interesting and educational--to come up with a strong case.

 

i think you hit the nail on the head. Though i'm fine with people running stuff like this, it really just makes them look silly; as a judge it irritates me because my paradigm allows for w/e they want to run, but its pretty ard to convince me that killing people is good. There are some arguments that are just, for lack of a better term, stupid.

 

with this, i'm closing this thread because it has served its purpose and its just creating an unfriendly atmosphere. I don't see any valid reason to keep it open; its clear Maxpower and Hellfish have ver opposing views and they're just dancing around in circles right now. You won't convince the other, your arguments are clearly presented and its time to pack it up and go home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...