Jump to content
K_of_Diamonds

Performace debate, qu'est-ce que c'est?

Recommended Posts

I honestly can't believe that you responded with this.

 

Firstly, debate's a competition... the point of performance is to win rounds... if it's winning rounds, guess what? It's kinda shown to be justified as a good strategy...

 

Also, acceptability raises with success, because debate is all about winning.

 

Furthermore, Synergy is wrong - performance normally comes from somebody who has personally experienced exclusion of some type, i.e. Fullerton, Louisville, etc.

I understand where you're coming from, Derek, but if I start stealing my opponent's evidence and make it to quarters, is it okay?

 

I'm truly sorry I have to make that comparison, but I'm only trying to point out the ridiculousness of the poster's statement. A 'strategy' is not automatically legitimate just because nobody says you can't do it and it wins you rounds.

 

(Also, there's nothing in the _rules_ about stealing evidence...yadda, yadda.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Synergy.. It saddens me that from someone who posts on Cross-X all day long and probably lives and breathes debate... you still act so naive and un-open to the actuality of what happens in a debate round.

If you walk into a debate round, debate for an hour and a half, and have bio terrorism as an impact in your 1ac - the judge votes neg and everyone leaves the round and they start it all over again. But once everyone leaves nothing happens that you claimed would happen if you lost. Everything you said in the debate was never actually going to happen no matter what the judge decided, and all the reasons that you tell the judge to vote for you like "my bio-terrorism adv. outweighs "X impact" because it is faster, kills more, and is more likely to happen" but those are all lies. MAYBE the impacts would happen in the real world of policy making if the plan was actually implemented... but then again most impact scenarios that kids throw around in debate wouldn't even happen in the real world. ---- So what the fuck are we doing? we tell the judge to vote for us to stop nuclear war... and if the judge does vote to stop nuke war... the judge didn't do shit. The ballot was used as a tool to stop something that was never going to happen anyway - so why the fuck did we waste our time, our weekends at touraments, or hours cutting and updating arguments... to stop problems in the world that you DONT ACTUALLY STOP?

The only viable answer I can think of that Debate is only a game.. Which I think is a fine answer and if you want to view debate as a game then thats fine with me.

BUT - why not view debate as a space for actual change? I mean if you think about it you are given about 30 minutes of every debate to talk about whatever you want... and at least 3 other people and your partener are going to be listening and giving you their full attention... so why not talk about what you BELIEVE in? Why not bring up actually issues that the judge can really make a change with via the ballot. For example there was a girl (I'm very sorry that I don't know her name or more about it) but I know that she was at camp and she had had some problems in her life and grew up very oppressed in modern day society... she never spoke a word at camp touranments... except the last 5 seconds she would say something like "The Oppressed Don't Have A Voice". That is not only something personal, but it makes the judge and the people in the round think of how horrible her life must have been. Narratives are also a good example of this. A team from GDS runs a Reading Good aff in which the girl reads a narrative about how her parents got divorced and she had to go to a new school and she didnt have many firends and she found books and reading to comfort her and help her get through that part of her life

 

*I have to go to class but I'll edit and finish this later*

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that people that are doing performance and reading narrative are not always trying to educate people and make change, there frigging trying to win really bad.

 

And synergy you need to stop complaining- cut some good t blocks, read some some T USFG/ role playing good. Read a K of there ideology( Lacan/ Zizek) i dunno but there is ground to be had. Its not a cheap was to win, be prepared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it ironic (not an irony Affirmative, just ironic) that many of the same people who defend "performance" debating (dancing, rapping, reading poetry, etc) are at the same time openly derisive of debaters who "perform" by reading & speaking at a slower, conversational pace, much as one would to a lay judge. No judge was born knowing how to flow and how to follow 350-words-per-minute speech, so we all started out in the same place as the "mommy/home-ec teacher/random adult" judge. The more we judge, the more we add on other ways to view the debate, but those initial reactions to the debate event are still there, perhaps buried, but still there. Why do we as a community openly deride those who speak to the "inner judge" that is in all judges?

 

And yet if an Aff stands up and does 7:45 of silent standing and :15 of "my voice has been silenced", followed by a 1NC of "2 Ts, 3DA, a K and case", most would say it is the Neg who is failing to adapt to the Aff's framework....but if the Aff does a slow, "traditional" case (inherency, harms, plan & solvency) and the Neg responds with that same barrage, it is suddenly the Affirmative that is expected to respond to the Negative's framework.

 

Just a little odd...........

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it ironic (not an irony Affirmative, just ironic) that many of the same people who defend "performance" debating (dancing, rapping, reading poetry, etc) are at the same time openly derisive of debaters who "perform" by reading & speaking at a slower, conversational pace, much as one would to a lay judge.

I'm an equal opportunity performance hater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT - why not view debate as a space for actual change? I mean if you think about it you are given about 30 minutes of every debate to talk about whatever you want... and at least 3 other people and your partener are going to be listening and giving you their full attention... so why not talk about what you BELIEVE in? Why not bring up actually issues that the judge can really make a change with via the ballot. For example there was a girl (I'm very sorry that I don't know her name or more about it) but I know that she was at camp and she had had some problems in her life and grew up very oppressed in modern day society... she never spoke a word at camp touranments... except the last 5 seconds she would say something like "The Oppressed Don't Have A Voice". That is not only something personal, but it makes the judge and the people in the round think of how horrible her life must have been. Narratives are also a good example of this. A team from GDS runs a Reading Good aff in which the girl reads a narrative about how her parents got divorced and she had to go to a new school and she didnt have many firends and she found books and reading to comfort her and help her get through that part of her life

 

The problem with all of this is that it leaves the other team with NOTHING to say except "you aren't T"... if someone got up and ran as their aff, i was hurt in X way, thats bad, i'm trying to heal thru debate, what would you run? that having that person hurt is good? would you say that they should just shut up? these personal stories put the other team in not only a position that they are unprepared for, but also in a position that is very awkward.

 

I would bet that almost everyone is ready to defend hege good, even if they might not agree... but how many people are willing to effectively say "shut up about your personal problems and debate about something important" that's not exactly what they say (or mean) but i know that if i was in this position i would be afraid of sounding like that...

 

Don't play soccer if you feel the need to use your hands, don't do debate if you refuse to have a discussion with the other team... there are plenty of other speech events conducive to personal expression, debate is about a dialouge and argumentation...

 

-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand where you're coming from, Derek, but if I start stealing my opponent's evidence and make it to quarters, is it okay?

 

I'm truly sorry I have to make that comparison, but I'm only trying to point out the ridiculousness of the poster's statement. A 'strategy' is not automatically legitimate just because nobody says you can't do it and it wins you rounds.

 

(Also, there's nothing in the _rules_ about stealing evidence...yadda, yadda.)

 

And there are no rules that you can't dance for your 1ac - the way i see it you can do whatever the fuck you want in debate as long as it is justified. I don't see the paralell you draw from running a performance aff to cheating?

Don't you think that when the Kiritk first came out 100% policy kids were thinking "just cause they can win rounds doesn't mean that its legitamite"..? debate is always evolving and ever changing.

 

 

 

I find it ironic (not an irony Affirmative, just ironic) that many of the same people who defend "performance" debating (dancing, rapping, reading poetry, etc) are at the same time openly derisive of debaters who "perform" by reading & speaking at a slower, conversational pace, much as one would to a lay judge. No judge was born knowing how to flow and how to follow 350-words-per-minute speech, so we all started out in the same place as the "mommy/home-ec teacher/random adult" judge. The more we judge, the more we add on other ways to view the debate, but those initial reactions to the debate event are still there, perhaps buried, but still there. Why do we as a community openly deride those who speak to the "inner judge" that is in all judges?

 

I'm sorry I can't really understand this... are you saying that reading a normal policy 1ac at a slow rate is performing...? I don't know could you just expand on that thought?

 

 

 

The problem is that people that are doing performance and reading narrative are not always trying to educate people and make change, there frigging trying to win really bad.

 

This makes a really pessimistic outlook on debators. If you, The K, run arguments soley to win and nothing else, then have a fun debate carer, your probably not going to go far... Winning is fun, but I would MUCH rather lose while having an entertaining and fun debate about philosophy or someones life or gays in the military, or the army, or whatever, then win on a boring hege debate for an hour and a half.

 

 

 

 

The problem with all of this is that it leaves the other team with NOTHING to say except "you aren't T"... if someone got up and ran as their aff, i was hurt in X way, thats bad, i'm trying to heal thru debate, what would you run? that having that person hurt is good? would you say that they should just shut up? these personal stories put the other team in not only a position that they are unprepared for, but also in a position that is very awkward.
]

 

I don't think so at all. The team can have a lot to say, and yes I somewhat agree that most teams probably aren't prepared to have the debate that you want to engage them in, and when you find a team that brings up just what you want them to and talks and makes the good points, then it makes for a GREAT debate round, something much more fun than debating about spending and having the states do your plan... I didnt mean to focus soley on narratives above, i was talking about performance debate in general, be it poems, affs that K the rez, anything. If kids run some type of biopower aff, then engage them in the case, talk about it, and figure out what really can be done. Believe me, there are numerous strats against performance aff's other than "you aren't T", Fuck T.

 

 

I would bet that almost everyone is ready to defend hege good, even if they might not agree... but how many people are willing to effectively say "shut up about your personal problems and debate about something important" that's not exactly what they say (or mean) but i know that if i was in this position i would be afraid of sounding like that...
]

 

But what I am trying to point out is that I personally think that debating about hege being good or bad doesn't get us anywhere. Too often debators are forced to debate something that they dont believe in and that leads to nothing after the round. WHy not engage the other team in a meaningful and thoughtful disscussion about gays in the military

 

 

Don't play soccer if you feel the need to use your hands, don't do debate if you refuse to have a discussion with the other team... there are plenty of other speech events conducive to personal expression, debate is about a dialouge and argumentation...

 

]

 

I dont think debate is about dialouge and argumentation - if it was then why would kids read at 17094 words per minute? And narratives or even just completely K affs still have dialouge. Sure its about making smart aguements and presenting them in an organized manner, but I think debate is more about educaion and awarness. Getting people to realize the status quo in a way that we all don't usually see it as. That why we read inherency and harms... to show how fucked up the world is, then solvency to show how we can solve it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the best ways to counter something like this is to play on their battlefield and talk about how the oppresions of the squo as pointed out by the aff are nothing compared to a personal experience you had.

 

Like if someone did an aff on how the oppressed have no voice, I would say that the oppression and psychological damage that my father caused on me are nothing compared to your situation and that we should work with the affs framework, but vote neg because they are shadowing even worse circumstances.

 

This is not a very thought out answer though, since I have never personally encountered a performance aff.

 

I personally think that they are one of the "strategies" in debate that I would consider as cheating since you cannot really counter what they say with evidence and you have no clue if there is any validity in their statements. Also they make the neg look like jerks, because they might say that the neg endorses oppression or whatever.

 

I admit: I am ignorant to this type of argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Synergy.. It saddens me that from someone who posts on Cross-X all day long and probably lives and breathes debate... you still act so naive and un-open to the actuality of what happens in a debate round.

If you walk into a debate round, debate for an hour and a half, and have bio terrorism as an impact in your 1ac - the judge votes neg and everyone leaves the round and they start it all over again. But once everyone leaves nothing happens that you claimed would happen if you lost. Everything you said in the debate was never actually going to happen no matter what the judge decided, and all the reasons that you tell the judge to vote for you like "my bio-terrorism adv. outweighs "X impact" because it is faster, kills more, and is more likely to happen" but those are all lies.

wait so now you tell me! here I was thinking I had my hands so close to the levers of power. thanks for proving that debate is a game

 

MAYBE the impacts would happen in the real world of policy making if the plan was actually implemented... but then again most impact scenarios that kids throw around in debate wouldn't even happen in the real world. ---- So what the fuck are we doing? we tell the judge to vote for us to stop nuclear war... and if the judge does vote to stop nuke war... the judge didn't do shit. The ballot was used as a tool to stop something that was never going to happen anyway - so why the fuck did we waste our time, our weekends at touraments, or hours cutting and updating arguments... to stop problems in the world that you DONT ACTUALLY STOP?
you can stop debating if you want to, but I will stay in debate because it's pretty much the only school subject that academically challenges/excites me.

 

Maybe the reason these teams are so anti-debate is because they're too lazy to cut real arguments?

 

 

why not view debate as a space for actual change?

because

a) it trades-off with what debate is intended to be-a game- and by far the best forum for high school students to learn about government policy and philosophy. silencing your voices is good for my education.

B) the are much, much better forums for social activism. I'm not saying debate can't cause change, but that debate is a TERRIBLE tool for that change. There is so much crap to dela with for "social actists" from topicality to politics to camps to travel to coaches to time limits to silly Ks to bad judges, etc... You would be much better off quiting debate and joining the fucking Peace Corps. You know, do something actually useful with your time in a forum where your voices aren't silenced, ie "people give a shit"

 

 

I mean if you think about it you are given about 30 minutes of every debate to talk about whatever you want... and at least 3 other people and your partener are going to be listening and giving you their full attention... so why not talk about what you BELIEVE in? Why not bring up actually issues that the judge can really make a change with via the ballot.

 

yes that may be "fun"... for you, because you're not the one that has to negate "hugging kittens good"

 

For example there was a girl (I'm very sorry that I don't know her name or more about it) but I know that she was at camp and she had had some problems in her life and grew up very oppressed in modern day society... she never spoke a word at camp touranments... except the last 5 seconds she would say something like "The Oppressed Don't Have A Voice".

Sounds like a bad debate. I hope she lost.

That is not only something personal, but it makes the judge and the people in the round think of how horrible her life must have been.

Why would you want to think that?

 

Narratives are also a good example of this. A team from GDS runs a Reading Good aff in which the girl reads a narrative about how her parents got divorced and she had to go to a new school and she didnt have many firends and she found books and reading to comfort her and help her get through that part of her life

No, the only reason GDS runs this no-impact aff is so they can pull out their securitization K in the 2ac. sorry if you missed the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Max, some of us just like winning too much. If you don't find an hour and a half of tactical arguementation tense and thrilling, you really should not bother with debate (I think I know you better than that, but still...)

 

Furthermore, having a discussion on the Aff's ground on gays in the military means the negative will always fucking lose. In the Affirmative framework, the negative's discourse is limited to "Gays Bad."

 

You have the burden of proof here to show us other arguements to run against a performance aff other than T. Saying that 'other arguements exist' does not suffice, as we ignorant and closed-minded white-middle-class males need your enlightenement to guide our way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This makes a really pessimistic outlook on debators. If you, The K, run arguments soley to win and nothing else, then have a fun debate carer, your probably not going to go far... Winning is fun, but I would MUCH rather lose while having an entertaining and fun debate about philosophy or someones life or gays in the military, or the army, or whatever, then win on a boring hege debate for an hour and a half.

 

 

yeah i agree an interesting debate over philosophy is more fun than a boring one, sure. Its not a question though of what kind of debates you would rather have, its more a question of what performance teams are in debate for. Most of them use it a strategic advantage to beat underprepared teams and so all they have to deal with is T. GDS reads the narrative to win, they read reading good, it helps me and then they bust out security in the 2AC if you read DA's. Teams like Greehill and Caddo are in it for the ballot when they read there DADT narratives. Most teams are not there to actually make change in debate, with the exception of a few college teams that read personal narratives ( lousville i think), most performance teams are in it for the ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's right. GDS ran Kato and literacy solves biopower in the 2ac after their hartwarming narrative in the 1ac against us. It's not like they're here to change things. But I'm totally down with it because at least they had a plan text. It's just annoying when teams try to defend their performance is more important. Or the fact that they feel excluded is more important than debating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who would rather get into an argument about the advantages and disadvantages of reading over the very diverse and relevant argument about the impact that US global power has on world stability/peace is probably not in the right activity... just saying....

 

-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think one of the best ways to counter something like this is to play on their battlefield and talk about how the oppresions of the squo as pointed out by the aff are nothing compared to a personal experience you had.

Like if someone did an aff on how the oppressed have no voice, I would say that the oppression and psychological damage that my father caused on me are nothing compared to your situation and that we should work with the affs framework, but vote neg because they are shadowing even worse circumstances.

This is not a very thought out answer though, since I have never personally encountered a performance aff.

I personally think that they are one of the "strategies" in debate that I would consider as cheating since you cannot really counter what they say with evidence and you have no clue if there is any validity in their statements. Also they make the neg look like jerks, because they might say that the neg endorses oppression or whatever.

I admit: I am ignorant to this type of argument.

 

Yeah sure, you can do a lot of things. If an aff wants to engage you in a kritikal aff, then get engaged. I'll get to some arguments you can run later on..

 

 

wait so now you tell me! here I was thinking I had my hands so close to the levers of power. thanks for proving that debate is a game

 

Sure, Debate is a game. But if you spend so much time playing, wouldn't you rather try to change the mindsets of people in the debate world about issues that you care about? Now I can only speak for myself, but I think its less about the ballot (in my case) and more about the round.

 

 

you can stop debating if you want to, but I will stay in debate because it's pretty much the only school subject that academically challenges/excites me.

yes, me too. I'm not going to stop debating, but you should probably stop calling different types of debate cheating.

Maybe the reason these teams are so anti-debate is because they're too lazy to cut real arguments?

 

Who said that performance teams are anti-debate? Kids who run performance arguments or completely K aff's are still debating, just on a more indepth philosophical level. (at least in my opinion) The kids still cut real arguments, and I would argue that personal things that we run in debate are more real than anything else that kids run that aren't really going to happen post round. Why are straight up policy kids too lazy to cut arguements against performance?

 

because

a) it trades-off with what debate is intended to be-a game- and by far the best forum for high school students to learn about government policy and philosophy. silencing your voices is good for my education.

B) the are much, much better forums for social activism. I'm not saying debate can't cause change, but that debate is a TERRIBLE tool for that change. There is so much crap to dela with for "social actists" from topicality to politics to camps to travel to coaches to time limits to silly Ks to bad judges, etc... You would be much better off quiting debate and joining the fucking Peace Corps. You know, do something actually useful with your time in a forum where your voices aren't silenced, ie "people give a shit"

 

a) That just simply isn't true - if you want to view debate as only a game then have fun. But Im not going to. I would rather view debate as a place where kids can go and try to make an affect on the world. it IS key for kids to learn about government policy and philosophy. I would say that probably all the performance args have a philosophical undertone, or even are 100% written by a philosopher.

B) This is what is so dumb and naive of you. Debate is ONLY a terrible tool for change when you view it that way. Have you ever thought that kids who run K/performance arguments are trying to change the minds of kids like you who think that can't change anything in the world through debate?

 

 

yes that may be "fun"... for you, because you're not the one that has to negate "hugging kittens good"

Well, I have never hit a "hunggin kittens good". seems like you try to make deep critical things sound dumb because you don't understand them...

 

 

Sounds like a bad debate. I hope she lost.

and kids were worried that the negative would have to come off as an ass.... sounds like you are an ass.

 

 

No, the only reason GDS runs this no-impact aff is so they can pull out their securitization K in the 2ac. sorry if you missed the point.

Well maybe thats a bad example, I was just giving different types of performance affs that have been run, what about kritikal affs or different stuff like that.

 

 

why should someone win because they were opressed in their past?

 

Its not that they should win, its that they are able to attach something personal into the arguments that they run in debate. Just because someone reads "debate = biopolitical" doesn't mean they should win. But if they are able to think more critically and in depth about how debate currently functions in the world and the other team just acts like these stupid kids who dont try to debate them, but try to out policy them, then they probably should win.

 

 

 

Also, Max, some of us just like winning too much. If you don't find an hour and a half of tactical arguementation tense and thrilling, you really should not bother with debate (I think I know you better than that, but still...)

Furthermore, having a discussion on the Aff's ground on gays in the military means the negative will always fucking lose. In the Affirmative framework, the negative's discourse is limited to "Gays Bad."

You have the burden of proof here to show us other arguements to run against a performance aff other than T. Saying that 'other arguements exist' does not suffice, as we ignorant and closed-minded white-middle-class males need your enlightenement to guide our way.

I am better than that, and I dont see why a K aff or one off on the neg all from a philosophical view point while attacking an idea brought up in debate from a different plank, is not a tactical arg.

 

okay, on my "burden" - I am not going to do all the work for you kids but I'll tell you this - you can do 2 things

1. you can attack a K/performance arg and try to our policy them

-OR-

2. you can engage them in their own type of debate.

1 - read a shit load of policy args - fiat good, key to real change, framework shit, T, framer's intent, etc. (im sure you all know that)

2 - If someone reads a narrative - get up and read your own. If someone reads a K aff, be engaged in it - find flaws, or even out K them. Zizek and Lacan write some good shit that you could easily make into a K against performances. so (and I can't spell) but spychoanalysis K against this type of debate are reallly stong.

 

 

yeah i agree an interesting debate over philosophy is more fun than a boring one, sure. Its not a question though of what kind of debates you would rather have, its more a question of what performance teams are in debate for. Most of them use it a strategic advantage to beat underprepared teams and so all they have to deal with is T. GDS reads the narrative to win, they read reading good, it helps me and then they bust out security in the 2AC if you read DA's. Teams like Greehill and Caddo are in it for the ballot when they read there DADT narratives. Most teams are not there to actually make change in debate, with the exception of a few college teams that read personal narratives ( lousville i think), most performance teams are in it for the ballot.

no, its about what debates I would have, I'm not speaking for the debate community or K debators in general, Im speaking from what I think about how debate should be. sure some kids try to use performances to get an edge, I dont do that.

 

 

 

Anyone who would rather get into an argument about the advantages and disadvantages of reading over the very diverse and relevant argument about the impact that US global power has on world stability/peace is probably not in the right activity... just saying....

-G.

reading is just ONE example out of the BILLIONS that you could run on the K/performance level. Those kids who would rather debate about philosophy are probably in the RIGHT activity.

 

*** I would just like to point out that I am not speaking for everyone who runs these types of arguments in the debate world, im only speaking for me. Now im not advocating that everyone should run performance or K affs, just that its rediculous to call them cheaters. There is a good balance of policy/K debates these days, and I dont want to get rid of policy, im just simply saying that K's/performances are a very personal way of connecting the debate world to your life or what you believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reading is just ONE example out of the BILLIONS that you could run on the K/performance level. Those kids who would rather debate about philosophy are probably in the RIGHT activity.

 

Dont try to pretend that performance is just like a Kritik, we are discussing the merits of things like silence and dancing and sock puppets, not a conventional Kritik with a poetry alt...

 

There is a difference between a kritik and performance...this activity has come to embrace philosophical arguments because they constitute an alternate lens through which we can evaluate policy actions. When you take out the whole deal of policy and just have "philosophy" debates (vague much?) you not only alienate a majority of your peers, you also are missing the point of debate. The structure of the activity (both formal and informal rules) make it that it is more educational to do things certain ways. Yes we can break the rules, but breaking all of them at once in one fell swoop does not get us anywhere from an education perspective...

 

-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont try to pretend that performance is just like a Kritik, we are discussing the merits of things like silence and dancing and sock puppets, not a conventional Kritik with a poetry alt...

 

There is a difference between a kritik and performance...this activity has come to embrace philosophical arguments because they constitute an alternate lens through which we can evaluate policy actions. When you take out the whole deal of policy and just have "philosophy" debates (vague much?) you not only alienate a majority of your peers, you also are missing the point of debate. The structure of the activity (both formal and informal rules) make it that it is more educational to do things certain ways. Yes we can break the rules, but breaking all of them at once in one fell swoop does not get us anywhere from an education perspective...

 

-G.

 

And what I am saying is that most times when do something like dance, use sock puppets, etc. you have a philosophical undertone and you use philosophy to back up your point.

 

Example: (maybe not the best one) If someone raps their 1AC (which isn't a k its a performance) and then claim that rapping makes them organic beings.. organic beings good - true to ourselves or w/e the argument is. That is a performance with philosophy of the "organic being" behind it.

 

Sock puppets (althought I have never hear, seen, or ran this) I assume use the puppets as an attack on oppression, and read cards, probably philosophical, to back up their performance.

 

and as for Silence, I would be silent for the 1ac or something and then my 2ac would read authors like Zupancic and other philosophers (maybe even baudrillard?) to explain what the performance accomplishes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Example: (maybe not the best one) If someone raps their 1AC (which isn't a k its a performance) and then claim that rapping makes them organic beings.. organic beings good - true to ourselves or w/e the argument is. That is a performance with philosophy of the "organic being" behind it.

 

Umm, ok, so how many of us are ready for an "organic beings" good/bad debate... i know that i for one would have nothing to say here but T and maybe some analytic no solvency stuff... like, i have yet to see any organic beings lit ever, and given the resolution, i doubt any of us are prepared...

 

-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's right. GDS ran Kato and literacy solves biopower in the 2ac after their hartwarming narrative in the 1ac against us. It's not like they're here to change things. But I'm totally down with it because at least they had a plan text. It's just annoying when teams try to defend their performance is more important. Or the fact that they feel excluded is more important than debating.

 

 

Yeah I remember when we hit that team.

we ended up running a nasa tradeoff DA and t.

they had very little to say in the 2ac because all of their counter-k's were based off nuke war. they ran kato against our impact of space colonization solves global warming.

so it was an awesome round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
global warming is a hard link to securitization..

 

 

how?

 

NASA will colonize space.

space colonization solves the problem of global warming.

 

how does that have anything to do with kato?

 

or was that sarcasm?

 

is this sarcasm?

 

...

:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, ok, so how many of us are ready for an "organic beings" good/bad debate... i know that i for one would have nothing to say here but T and maybe some analytic no solvency stuff... like, i have yet to see any organic beings lit ever, and given the resolution, i doubt any of us are prepared...

-G.

 

actually... I remember reading about organic beings on C-X... If you look aroudn you will be able to find some cards/I'll post them later when im on my own computer. But if you go on C-X you could easily have see it.

you could also get up and RAP too... or at least try to and claim you were.

 

 

Yeah I remember when we hit that team.

we ended up running a nasa tradeoff DA and t.

they had very little to say in the 2ac because all of their counter-k's were based off nuke war. they ran kato against our impact of space colonization solves global warming.

so it was an awesome round.

Im sure it was an awsome round, those rounds tend to be fun

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...