Jump to content
NoValue2Lyfe

Is anyone else offended by Disads?

Recommended Posts

I find that disads truly and deeply offened me. I think that there are, like, so many other important issues to discuss and that we need to like focus on fighting like real oppression and discurive violence that takes place every day and debate. Why is someone so closed minded that they cant talk about real problems taht we face evweryday. I think its biopolitical and offensive when poeple read DAs espec against my narrative aff... its really personal 4 me.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, assuming a debate round actually has any meaning (which I'm not sure is at all true), you could view them as educational. If you really believe in you affirmative, then think of disadvantages as real-world barriers that you'll need to overcome, or as legitimate objections that you'll have to consider. If the disad is just crap, I think you can call the neg out on that.

 

Or, on the other hand: Dude, what do you want the neg to do? Just hang out? Concede the round after the 1AC? It almost sounds like you don't want to debate as much as you want a pulpit to speak from. If you don't want people to run disadvantages against you, what other types of arguments would be less offensive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I view debate as a game. I think if you're trying to cause mass social change, a local debate round is not the way to go. And don't go off on me about hating K's, I run them every round. Ps. You bite your own biopower arg, what views do you attempt to quell when you declare disads illegitimate? What persons do you seek to displace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously you never run Kritiks and you hate them.

I think if you're trying to cause mass social change, a local debate round is not the way to go."
You clearly are just limiting me out of debate and i can never win if you say that change isnt possible dont be so nihilist and give hope a chance.

 

Telling me I bite biopower? ya rite... telling me that a forum isnt a good place to cause local change IS BIOWPOWER

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, on the other hand: Dude, what do you want the neg to do? Just hang out? Concede the round after the 1AC? It almost sounds like you don't want to debate as much as you want a pulpit to speak from. If you don't want people to run disadvantages against you, what other types of arguments would be less offensive?

 

The neg can do wutever isnt offensive just like run args that engage me and we can talka bout micropolitics and suffering or something. just like runnign das just limits out real world change and discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some DAs have real world impacts, and its always good to know your current events like with politics DAs. Also, how do u find them offensive, that doesnt make sense, if you think its a bad argument then you should easily beat them.. I think some DAs are good arguments and that you generalize when you say DAs suck as a whole. Also, the problem with Biopower is foucault never actually defines what is and isnt biopower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am somewhat offended by disads, but not because they are annoying or stupid. Rather, I don't like the fact that they are fundamentally slippery-slope arguments, and thus (informal) fallacies, logically speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply just dislike disads because--as hard as they try--they often aren't real world and I personally feel that critical arguments have more educational value. But that can be debated.

 

If you're reading a narrative affirmative for actual social change, then I think you need to reexamine what policy debate is. I feel (and I'm sure a good majority of other debaters would agree with me) that the two primary purposes of debate are education and competition. I honestly don't believe that you standing up in the 1AC and reading your narrative is going to lead to a solution to your problem.

 

And then why hate disads? If you're insanely serious about your narrative aff, then take the legit disads as problems with your plan that either need to be avoided or fixed.

 

I would like to know what you read on the negative. Do you just not deliver a 1NC, like what you seem to be urging other teams to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some DAs are bad sure, but if you think about it, almost every single argument in debate is a Disad, a K is a Disad to the affirmative, a reason y u shouldnt do the affirmative, along with offensive case turns and other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The neg can do wutever isnt offensive just like run args that engage me and we can talka bout micropolitics and suffering or something. just like runnign das just limits out real world change and discussions.

 

In other words, the negative is supposed to read your mind, figure how what isn't offensive and engages you, and then try to form that into...something that clashes with your case? Sorry, but "talking about micropolitics and suffering or something" suggests (again) that you're not interested in actual debate as much as a public forum to discuss your grievances.

 

Furthermore, what are they supposed to say about micropolitics? It seems to me that even a very basic solvency argument ("your movement won't solve" or something), you'd be offended.

 

I find it interesting that you ignored my other point (which Willie Stark brought up again), that disadvantages to your narrative are still arguments against voting for the affirmative. Either they're bad arguments (meaning easily beaten), or they're good arguments (meaning something that, if you really believe in your narrative, you need to be able to overcome). Either way, being offended isn't going to get you anywhere.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the problem with personal narratives. You essentially want the negative to engage you on your terms...which means they must question the validity of your narrative. That will always be offensive. If they do it directly, it ends up with "I'm a victim of racism" "Racism good". And that fact that they engage in traditional style debating isn't meant to be offensive, its a different way to play the game. If you are going to bring personal facets of yourself into the game, expect to suffer the pitfalls of a sport that is design to deconstruct whatever you put before it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is your narrative a reason for you to win the debate round? If the other team conceeds your narrative can they win anyway if they present one of their own, or if they are willing to engage your narrative and talk about it, not nessessarily from an argumentative point of view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some DAs are bad sure, but if you think about it, almost every single argument in debate is a Disad, a K is a Disad to the affirmative, a reason y u shouldnt do the affirmative, along with offensive case turns and other things.

 

no but das like exclude voices of the oppressed and make debate more opressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the "policy arguments" that so many assholes view as more "real world" are nothing of that nature. Debate is a game. Increasing funding for the Peace Corps does not lead to a collapse in the global market. As long as we debate things that will never happen, we might as well have some interesting kritikal arguments.

 

Oh and the use of the word "need" in your post proliferates discursive violence and expands the notion of inferiority among poor countries, justifying genocide and causing mass dehuminization. Lol, jk ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its biopolitical and offensive when poeple read DAs espec against my narrative aff... its really personal 4 me.

 

Biopower is key to democracy promotion. And hegemony.

 

Those two things are good.

 

Ergo, running disads against your aff is good.

 

PWND.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am somewhat offended by disads, but not because they are annoying or stupid. Rather, I don't like the fact that they are fundamentally slippery-slope arguments, and thus (informal) fallacies, logically speaking.
Exactly. The contemporary DA is slippery slope reasoning of the worst sort, and that's assuming you buy the link, which is almost always an assertion to begin with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're down for talking about the K, I'm just curious why you personally believe you should win rounds based on your performances? Why do your narratives mean you should win? In a world in which people don't oppress you, for example if they were to just talk about your narratives, not even nessessarily argue against it, just talk about it with you, why should you win rounds? Also I'm curious what you do on the negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no but das like exclude voices of the oppressed and make debate more opressive.

 

 

umm how, if you actually vision a world in which plan passes and ur K impacts will be "Solved For" and you lead to a bad impact that kills everyone how is it opressive, also how do u even stop oppressing people by speaking in a debate round, if oyu actualy advocated stopping this vague oppression, you would do something about it and be an activist instead of other things.. And you still havent answered that if DAs are bad, then just beat them....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aff uses a narrative to win the debate round, the game that you entered willingly to WIN. The neg does the same with a disad. Don't preach that negs are evil for trying to win, since the minute you wait until the timers start to even begin discussing your cause, you prove that all you're after is the ballot for your own personal gain.

 

The argument that debate isn't the best forum for your aff is true. There's nothing biopolitical in asking you to prove that what you're after isn't really a shiny trophy; the only reason you wait until the round starts to begin the conversation is to beat the other team. The fact that you chose debate as your forum basically calls your BS about "sparking change"; especially when you'll most likely use your advocacy to avoid having to answer any arguments like T, DA, and most on-case and K arguments. There is no reason X team going 5-0 is key to breaking down mindsets and ending suffering. No one says that you can't preach the cause in a policy round- just be decent enough to quit using the suffering of people as leverage under the guise of change. At least disads are self-aware that they're bullshit.

 

Of course, I fully realize that many teams actually do try and cause change with their in-round advocacy, but I have yet to see one in person that I thought legitimately cared more about the message than an undefeated record and a bid.

 

 

EDIT: Reading an assload of posts that were made while I typed this one was funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming they pass a plan.
And assuming Bush didn't veto it and get over-ridden by the newly-Democrat congress... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm....this thread has gotten longer in one day...

 

I don't mind disads (or advantages, which are fundamentally disads to the status quo) that actually have a chance of happening. However, this usually requires either a reduction of impact or incredible evidence.

 

The first kind would be "Plan spends so much money that the USFG would not be able to handle everything else without becoming insolvent or sacrificing important programs."

 

The second kind would be a disad that found a scholar who said that plan or something like it would destabilize the government of Pakistan and cause a nuclear war between Pakistan and India. (Despite all the hoopla about North Korea and Iran, the only realistic situation for nuclear war in the near future is India-Pakistan. While a bilateral nuclear war may not sound that bad, remember that India has fully one-sixth of the world's population within its borders, and that Pakistan has a population of over 168 million--the sixth-largest nation in the world by population. Of all remotely realistic impacts, IndoPak is definately the worst. Fortunately for the world, it only barely meets the definition of "remotely realistic.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find that disads truly and deeply offened me. I think that there are, like, so many other important issues to discuss and that we need to like focus on fighting like real oppression and discurive violence that takes place every day and debate. Why is someone so closed minded that they cant talk about real problems taht we face evweryday. I think its biopolitical and offensive when poeple read DAs espec against my narrative aff... its really personal 4 me.

 

Correct spelling and language usage is really important to me. I run Topicality all the time on grammar. I feel that debate should be focused around speaking correctly and wording everything in the best manner possible.

 

Do you see why Disadvantages are important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...