Jump to content
policyballer

Do critiques need alternatives? (split thread)

Recommended Posts

Not reading an alt in the 1nc is a moving target for the 2nc...

 

Stopping one instance may be better, but who the hell cares if the impacts are still going to happen. This route bares the full weight of the aff advantages as a disad to the squo...

 

Yes, we get it stop regurgitating the fact some teams do well... the fact is a lot more teams do well reading an alt too.

 

well, it depends what the imopacts are...if you run a K with extinction and mass death impacts, then it is basically a disad in disguise, but if you are running a more kritiky impacted kritik, then no alternative can be better.

 

also, if in the 1nc, you o nly read link and internals to 3 da's, does that make the 2nc a moving target becuz they can add uniqueness in the block...no

 

we wouldnt be a moving target because if we did add and alt in the block, which we wouldnt, we would just say this is what rejecting them means...blablabla, it would be adding on, there might be an abuse claim, but i do n ot think moving target is the right one

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is you need no formal alt text. By voting neg you're "By voting negative, you're embracing a world that recognizes the complexity of power relations (for spanos/foucault)."

 

and dont tell me what judges wont vote on, I've seen some pretty amazing debaters do fabulous jobs without alternatives.

 

only 1 post I'm going to answer since everything else will take about 20 minutes.

 

And my point is why choose not to have one and get yourself into the theory debate?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And my point is why choose not to have one and get yourself into the theory debate?

because I like theory and its easier for me to defend that than an alternative that wont work. Spanos isnt going to be for an alternative, thats what foucault and him are against. May interpreters of him would propose an alt. I mean somthing formal, that requires cards. I say that voting negative embraces an ethical system that values life in and of itself by acknowledging the affect of power and truth relations

 

Not reading an alt in the 1nc is a moving target for the 2nc...

 

Stopping one instance may be better, but who the hell cares if the impacts are still going to happen. This route bares the full weight of the aff advantages as a disad to the squo...

 

Yes, we get it stop regurgitating the fact some teams do well... the fact is a lot more teams do well reading an alt too.

impacts arent nuclear war impacts that you're thinking of. spanos i read isnt being used that way like every other k is used.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't referring to NW, running a NW impact with fucko would be dumbtarded...And my argument still applies... if all your no value to life is being caused by much thornier issues as well, then why does it matter if the plan passes because our value to life is already being destroyed in the squo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, it depends what the imopacts are...if you run a K with extinction and mass death impacts, then it is basically a disad in disguise, but if you are running a more kritiky impacted kritik, then no alternative can be better.

 

Just because your impact cards are big doesn't mean your kritik should be run as a disad. Biopower impacts, dean for example, are huge, but it doesnt mean it should be ran as a DA. 1) Its non unique, 2) There's no brink 3) The links are enormously non intrinsic 4) You dont get the benefit of the reason people run K's in the first place- to try and nullify the 1AC with an alternative political strategy or method of thought

 

also, if in the 1nc, you o nly read link and internals to 3 da's, does that make the 2nc a moving target becuz they can add uniqueness in the block...no

No, moving target implies a changing advocacy. In this scenario, the negatives advocacy is the status quo throughout the entire round. If you have no text to a K alt, then your adovocacy can change without being stuck to an ink on paper text to look at at the end of the round.

 

Sandbagging is a whole different theoretical issue that can, in itself, be challenged as illegitimate, but thats not what this argument is about

 

 

we wouldnt be a moving target because if we did add and alt in the block, which we wouldnt, we would just say this is what rejecting them means...blablabla, it would be adding on, there might be an abuse claim, but i do n ot think moving target is the right one

Adding on is a moving target. Imagine this-- aff reads an end strength aff, then in the 2AC clarifies that their plan really means they pay for new guns, missles, tanks, and planes. These are all just adding on, but they do make the aff a moving target. No one argues moving target because they think your alt is going to change from vote negative to hide in a cave and pretend were pirates, the basis of the argument is to stop little "clarifications" like "this is what our alternative really does that the 2ac couldn't answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because I like theory and its easier for me to defend that than an alternative that wont work.

If the issue is alternatives not working, how is defending nothing, which is guarenteed not to work, better than defending an alt that doesnt work?

 

 

I say that voting negative embraces an ethical system that values life in and of itself by acknowledging the affect of power and truth relations

 

so writing the words "{vote negative to embrace an ethical system that values life in and of itself by acknowledging the affect of power and truth relations" down at the end of your shell destroys the value of your entire criticism, while saying the words doesnt?

 

thats the point i'm really having a hard time understanding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The illusion of fiat gives a perfect oppurtunity for the judge to recognize assumptions/systems and vote to reject them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that argument is likle saying that since people have always been murdered, or war has always happened, that it is alright to engage in these things again.

 

No, it's like saying that I will still shop at Wal-Mart, despite the whole big-business, monopoly/trust, corporate takeover dealie.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the issue is alternatives not working, how is defending nothing, which is guarenteed not to work, better than defending an alt that doesnt work?

 

 

 

 

so writing the words "{vote negative to embrace an ethical system that values life in and of itself by acknowledging the affect of power and truth relations" down at the end of your shell destroys the value of your entire criticism, while saying the words doesnt?

 

thats the point i'm really having a hard time understanding

The thing is, not having an alternative is gauranteed to win me the round if I debate correctly. Its got just as good of a chance to win, if not better.

 

By voting negative, by negating the affirmative, you thus embrace bla bla bla. So there is "not alt text" or card that gives solvency to the alt. My point in the criticism isnt to solve for it, but to say why the aff doesnt meet it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is, not having an alternative is gauranteed to win me the round if I debate correctly. Its got just as good of a chance to win, if not better.

 

By voting negative, by negating the affirmative, you thus embrace bla bla bla. So there is "not alt text" or card that gives solvency to the alt. My point in the criticism isnt to solve for it, but to say why the aff doesnt meet it

If you debate correctly you should be guaranteed to win any round...

 

You've still failed to respond to a few very important points this whole thread:

 

Why does it matter if the aff doesn't meet it if everything else in the world isn't meeting it? There's issues in the world that are much thornier that are causing the implications of the K. Voting neg does absolutely nothing, and causes no change. If your point in criticism isn't to solve anything then you're just embracing coffee shop intellectualism that does nothing.

Your impact is inevitable. You don't solve anything. There's no offensive reason to vote neg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Without an alt, the aff can just say, "well, that's the way it's always been (non-U), and we're not set out to change that (link), so unless if the negative team tells us a better way to do it (non-competitive), then we don't really have anything to debate about (fair grounds). All they're doing is name-calling(k of k), which is childish and should not be allowed in the debate room. Vote affirmative because we solve for our harms.(solvency)""

 

if you were debating in 1850, and the topic was: the u.s. federal government should substantially reform the institution of slavery - and a team ran a kritik of slavery against your affirmative, claiming that slavery is inherently wrong, that we need to question how our own discourse perpetuates the underlying assumptions that prop up slavery, that our rhetoric and the judge's ballot are speech-acts, however trivial, that resist slavery..... would you still make the above argument? ... 'that's the way it's always been...'

 

_

 

yes, hardt & negri aren't as rigorous as i'd like -- they dismiss gramsci. they completely omit the name bakunin from either of their works, despite the fact that his critiques of statism were contemporaneous with marx and incredibly germane to their own perspective on communism's reversion to the state... nevertheless, taken together empire and multitude reset the agenda for an awful lot of critical theory, so how you disagree with them says an awful lot about your own political reasoning? once you've outgrown them, as opposed to rejecting them off-handedly, then you'll know you're ready for better things... i felt the same about chomsky too.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you debate correctly you should be guaranteed to win any round...

 

You've still failed to respond to a few very important points this whole thread:

 

Why does it matter if the aff doesn't meet it if everything else in the world isn't meeting it? There's issues in the world that are much thornier that are causing the implications of the K. Voting neg does absolutely nothing, and causes no change. If your point in criticism isn't to solve anything then you're just embracing coffee shop intellectualism that does nothing.

Your impact is inevitable. You don't solve anything. There's no offensive reason to vote neg.

Because you assign a certain impact to your argument that says within that ethical system they cant articulate a value to life If they want to make that argument they sure can. Voting negative negates a plan that cant articulate a value to life. just lol @ saying impact inevitable. Sure say that in a round, but its not inevitable if you vote neg. If they want to try and win that the impact is inevitable, by all means they can read 100 cards saying that to prove it. The offensive reason to vote neg is the fact that the aff cant articulate a value to life, as I've said about 4 times now

"Without an alt, the aff can just say, "well, that's the way it's always been (non-U), and we're not set out to change that (link), so unless if the negative team tells us a better way to do it (non-competitive), then we don't really have anything to debate about (fair grounds). All they're doing is name-calling(k of k), which is childish and should not be allowed in the debate room. Vote affirmative because we solve for our harms.(solvency)""

 

if you were debating in 1850, and the topic was: the u.s. federal government should substantially reform the institution of slavery - and a team ran a kritik of slavery against your affirmative, claiming that slavery is inherently wrong, that we need to question how our own discourse perpetuates the underlying assumptions that prop up slavery, that our rhetoric and the judge's ballot are speech-acts, however trivial, that resist slavery..... would you still make the above argument? ... 'that's the way it's always been...'

 

_

 

yes, hardt & negri aren't as rigorous as i'd like -- they dismiss gramsci. they completely omit the name bakunin from either of their works, despite the fact that his critiques of statism were contemporaneous with marx and incredibly germane to their own perspective on communism's reversion to the state... nevertheless, taken together empire and multitude reset the agenda for an awful lot of critical theory, so how you disagree with them says an awful lot about your own political reasoning? once you've outgrown them, as opposed to rejecting them off-handedly, then you'll know you're ready for better things... i felt the same about chomsky too.

agree with your example. Although mine isnt specific to rhetoric, its criticizing the same thing. All ks are criticizing somthing in the world today and because I'd criticize the aff with pretty good "impacts" or implications means its a reason to vote neg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you assign a certain impact to your argument that says within that ethical system they cant articulate a value to life If they want to make that argument they sure can. Voting negative negates a plan that cant articulate a value to life. just lol @ saying impact inevitable. Sure say that in a round, but its not inevitable if you vote neg. If they want to try and win that the impact is inevitable, by all means they can read 100 cards saying that to prove it. The offensive reason to vote neg is the fact that the aff cant articulate a value to life, as I've said about 4 times now

I was hoping someone would ask this question by now but no one has. Is there value to life in the squo? Yes the judge votes to reject the aff obviously that's what voting negative does by its very nature. But what does that do? Do they magically find a value to life? In order to win an argument like this you'd have to win either a) value to life now or B) rejecting gives value to life (which would be an alt card).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you assign a certain impact to your argument that says within that ethical system they cant articulate a value to life If they want to make that argument they sure can. Voting negative negates a plan that cant articulate a value to life. just lol @ saying impact inevitable. Sure say that in a round, but its not inevitable if you vote neg. If they want to try and win that the impact is inevitable, by all means they can read 100 cards saying that to prove it. The offensive reason to vote neg is the fact that the aff cant articulate a value to life, as I've said about 4 times now

 

No. Your answer should be that the K 1) Takes out case solvency because without a meaning to life, we're going to fail to quantify living and thus we're unable to help it, and 2) The K turns case because assuming a value to life only perpetuates a life that is inherently bad and shouldn't be happening.

 

On a more basic note, the only real answer you need to the "You don't have an alt - it's a N/U disad" argument is that the K takes out solvency, meaning the aff has no offense, and that it turns case, meaning that the status quo/voting negative 1) Has a better chance of solving case, and 2) Has a better chance of avoiding the impacts. Without an alt, you kind have to go for the try-or-die position.

 

Furthermore, this is more strategic. First, the aff can't just say 'perm' - they have to articulate why the argument doesn't link to the affirmative (which gives you ground to kick out of it if they start winning a turn), and second, as long as you're winning the case turn you're winning the round - the status quo has less of a chance of linking to the impacts read in round.

 

I was hoping someone would ask this question by now but no one has. Is there value to life in the squo? Yes the judge votes to reject the aff obviously that's what voting negative does by its very nature. But what does that do? Do they magically find a value to life? In order to win an argument like this you'd have to win either a) value to life now or B) rejecting gives value to life (which would be an alt card).

 

See, this is exactly what I was mentioning. Without an alt, the only real wiggle-room the negative has is that voting negative won't link as hard to the K as voting aff - the neg depends on a try-or-die mentality, instead of claiming actual solvency.

 

But, if the neg is winning a solvency takeout (no offense from aff) and a case turn (impacts are a disad to plan), and even framework (the aff is the only one representing life that way - no link for the neg), the neg doesn't have to win those arguments. Whether there's a value to life now or rejection gives a value is irrelevant - the aff is the one quantifying life's value, and the neg doesn't link to it - case turn is a reason to vote.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Your answer should be that the K 1) Takes out case solvency because without a meaning to life, we're going to fail to quantify living and thus we're unable to help it, and 2) The K turns case because assuming a value to life only perpetuates a life that is inherently bad and shouldn't be happening.

 

On a more basic note, the only real answer you need to the "You don't have an alt - it's a N/U disad" argument is that the K takes out solvency, meaning the aff has no offense, and that it turns case, meaning that the status quo/voting negative 1) Has a better chance of solving case, and 2) Has a better chance of avoiding the impacts. Without an alt, you kind have to go for the try-or-die position.

 

Furthermore, this is more strategic. First, the aff can't just say 'perm' - they have to articulate why the argument doesn't link to the affirmative (which gives you ground to kick out of it if they start winning a turn), and second, as long as you're winning the case turn you're winning the round - the status quo has less of a chance of linking to the impacts read in round.

 

 

 

See, this is exactly what I was mentioning. Without an alt, the only real wiggle-room the negative has is that voting negative won't link as hard to the K as voting aff - the neg depends on a try-or-die mentality, instead of claiming actual solvency.

 

But, if the neg is winning a solvency takeout (no offense from aff) and a case turn (impacts are a disad to plan), and even framework (the aff is the only one representing life that way - no link for the neg), the neg doesn't have to win those arguments. Whether there's a value to life now or rejection gives a value is irrelevant - the aff is the one quantifying life's value, and the neg doesn't link to it - case turn is a reason to vote.

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you offer an alternate framework, impact calculous, "way to view the world", say represenations come first, discourse shapes reality, or any of that jive- you are offering an alternative.

 

Why do we need alternatives? Or why do we need to offer different lens, impx calculouses, reps first, etc- because it gives a UNIQUE reason to reject the other team.

 

for fucks sake

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's a subtle distinction between a kantian (or deontological) 'impact' and a utilitarian (or teleological) 'impact' that's being missed here when discussing a kritik's implications:

 

even if reforming slavery resulted in the best possible outcome, an argument could be made for a moral duty to oppose slavery and let the chips fall where they may. lincoln, for example, was strictly utilitarian (he studied bentham's determinism in law school, actually), and in a famous open letter, he informed the staunch abolitionist horace greeley that if he (lincoln) could perserve the union without freeing a single slave, he'd do it, and if he could perserve the union by freeing every slave, then he'd do that... so the end (telos) is the federal government and he was willing to do whatever it took (including invading another sovereign nation) to accomplish that end.

 

most so-called 'postmodern' scholars probably wouldn't like being plunked into the category of deontology, but it was michel foucault, after all, who argued for a return to kant (the subject of his doctoral dissertation, and his apologia, what is enlightenment?, based on the kantian treatise of same name). even though a nietzschean like foucault opposes all supposedly preexisting moral universals, there's clearly a voice of conscience that speaks silently through his work: why the concern for subjugated knowledges? for the colonized? for the students in skool, the criminals in prison, the mentally ill in asylums, etc.?

 

the point is although - after god's timely demise - we might not have access to a universally-applicable moral compass, a historical investigation of how we've been constructed as subjects and an intellectual experiment in going beyond those limits contributes to an ethical aesthetic in its own right, regardless of whether we'll one day live in utopia, or even whether we're getting closer to it step-by-step.

 

asking a good question violates the apparent inevitability of the status quo, it actively does something by showing us that the way things are isn't a matter of ironclad necessity, but is, in a very real way, contingent upon how we think. yes, a kritik can propose another system that's more just than the one we've got now -- that's the easy part! it's easy to take a bird's eye view and see the millions of people dying of starvation, preventable disease, and malnutrition and simply say, 'this would work to stop it'. that's policymakers' masturbation - it's a fun fantasy role-playing game and provides us a fleeting relief.

 

the really difficult part is revealing how our own lives - the rhetoric used in allegedly educational forums for discussion, for example - are complicit in that misery, and cultivating the virtues which make the matter intolerable and urgent. since kant (and through nietzsche and heidegger and others) we've learned that this isn't chiefly about imposing totalizing structures but of working on particular discursive practices. we learned this because when we changed the structures yet failed to change the underlying practices, we got the same results - for example, the industrialism of stalinist russia.

 

so yes, case might cause the very harm it intends to eliminate (taking-out & turning solvency), but that's still playing the game on their terms. you don't judge apples with the same criteria as oranges. the more important point harks back to some of the basic lessons of kritik: the vision of the world imagined as per fiat is an ILLUSORY alternative, however grandiose the harms it claims to solve, whereas the speech-act of rethinking in-round assumptions is a REAL alternative, however inconsequential you may consider its results. that doesn't mean traditional policymaking isn't actually doing something - on the contrary, it's desensitizing us to the suffering we need to identify with if we ever hope to accomplish anything worthwhile.

 

in summmation: if you want to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed (or an 'alternative'), you can - but for right now, for your sake, and for your daughter's sake, you might want to think about offering your judges a quality alternative called kritiking.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
completely agree, I never said rorty advocates absolute truth, in fact he opposes that. You go to situation to situation with a different truth which works well for each situation

 

um

 

Foucault says there is no all knowing truth. Thats what pragmatism says. So that means there isnt an alt that can solve power relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was hoping someone would ask this question by now but no one has. Is there value to life in the squo? Yes the judge votes to reject the aff obviously that's what voting negative does by its very nature. But what does that do? Do they magically find a value to life? In order to win an argument like this you'd have to win either a) value to life now or B) rejecting gives value to life (which would be an alt card).

There is a value to life in the status quo, but their plan cant articulate one if they're willing to kill in the name of truth. Its a nonsensical framework to work within. I'm going to argue it that way so I just hope I can meet you sometime at a tourny to show you exactly what I mean since its impossible to explain it here :)

If you offer an alternate framework, impact calculous, "way to view the world", say represenations come first, discourse shapes reality, or any of that jive- you are offering an alternative.

 

Why do we need alternatives? Or why do we need to offer different lens, impx calculouses, reps first, etc- because it gives a UNIQUE reason to reject the other team.

 

for fucks sake

And you're just a moron.

um

I really dont understand what "contradiction" you see. Foucault and rorty dont disagree in a complete sense. Both disagree with tehre being an absolute truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you're just a moron.

 

And you're a douchebag.

 

What he says makes plenty of sense. Even when a K doesnt defend an "alternative" in the sense of "and our alternative text: reject biopower" you have provided some alternate way of viewing the world. For example "viewing life as valuable in and of itself" is an alternative. At the very least, you have provided an alternative framework for evaluating the debate (look at the methodology of the aff, not the political outcome) and impacted that argument (your methodology => no value to life [although I personally dont really think this is a great impact]) in order to prioritize it.

 

Without some alternate "framing" of the debate (which some might call an alternative) the judge is literally voting for the status quo, which isn't what your authors would advocate, because you lack "uniqueness" (i.e. there is no value to life now). So you need to do something (even if all that something is is "critiquing the affirmative" or "rejecting the affirmative") in order to solve that impact.

 

Maybe that alternative doesn't have to be "whatever being" or "rethink ontology," but you are still advocating something that isn't the status quo.

 

I really dont understand what "contradiction" you see. Foucault and rorty dont disagree in a complete sense. Both disagree with tehre being an absolute truth

 

could have just been sentence construction issues. I took what you said "that's what pragmatism says" to refer to "absolute truth" which would be interpreted as "pragmatism says there is an absolute truth, foucault refutes this."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could have just been sentence construction issues. I took what you said "that's what pragmatism says" to refer to "absolute truth" which would be interpreted as "pragmatism says there is an absolute truth, foucault refutes this."

 

i kind of thought that too, but i re read it, and, it seems tome that yes, it is just a wierd way of wording it, but "champ" wasnt making some huge contradiction, i just wasnt reading right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you're a douchebag.

 

What he says makes plenty of sense. Even when a K doesnt defend an "alternative" in the sense of "and our alternative text: reject biopower" you have provided some alternate way of viewing the world. For example "viewing life as valuable in and of itself" is an alternative. At the very least, you have provided an alternative framework for evaluating the debate (look at the methodology of the aff, not the political outcome) and impacted that argument (your methodology => no value to life [although I personally dont really think this is a great impact]) in order to prioritize it.

 

Without some alternate "framing" of the debate (which some might call an alternative) the judge is literally voting for the status quo, which isn't what your authors would advocate, because you lack "uniqueness" (i.e. there is no value to life now). So you need to do something (even if all that something is is "critiquing the affirmative" or "rejecting the affirmative") in order to solve that impact.

 

Maybe that alternative doesn't have to be "whatever being" or "rethink ontology," but you are still advocating something that isn't the status quo.

 

 

 

could have just been sentence construction issues. I took what you said "that's what pragmatism says" to refer to "absolute truth" which would be interpreted as "pragmatism says there is an absolute truth, foucault refutes this."

I'm not going to spend any more time on this uniqueness debate. You can run kritiks with them if you want, but you can also run them without uniqueness. I dont see a point of a k if you're making it like a disad, so I run it without an alt. The discussion about this is getting quite pointless now and I'll just have to debate you in a round

 

Obviously I'm not advocating do nothing, but by voting negative you embrace an ethical system that etc etc.

 

I meant that both rorty and foucault advocate there being NO absolute truth. I dont know what was wrong about the wording since I'm viewing it through my 1 lense rigged game, har har.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not going to spend any more time on this uniqueness debate. You can run kritiks with them if you want, but you can also run them without uniqueness. I dont see a point of a k if you're making it like a disad, so I run it without an alt. The discussion about this is getting quite pointless now and I'll just have to debate you in a round

 

Obviously I'm not advocating do nothing, but by voting negative you embrace an ethical system that etc etc.

 

I meant that both rorty and foucault advocate there being NO absolute truth. I dont know what was wrong about the wording since I'm viewing it through my 1 lense rigged game, har har.

 

I'm agreeing with you. All im saying is that an alternative doesnt have to be a CP, "voting negative to embrace an ethical system that etc etc" is an alternative way of viewing the world from the aff. You don't have to view it in terms of uniqueness, you are just positing a different vision from the aff that the judge can vote for. Thats different from just being on case like "TURN--AFF INCREASES BIOPOWER, THAT CAUSES EXTINCTION" sort of along the lines of what the original maker of this thread was suggesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if thats what you're saying, ofc that makes sense lol.

 

Maybe someone thought that I was proposing just saying somthing wrong with the aff and not even proposing a reason to vote neg to embrace somthing different, because thats not what I meant :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you keep saying you're guarenteed to win at least one round because you dont write down your "reason to vote neg to embrace somthing different." Doesn't this kind of prove that there's a big theoretical issue to having no text to your alternative?

 

For a last note on my part, I think the fact that this thread started as a debate over whether K's need alts at all, with policyballer saying it should just be a case takeout to help something else outweigh, to the two people defending this stance agreeing that they are proposing an alternative, just not defending it as such, shows the the issue is pretty well resolved and agreed upon, that to be a complete argument K's do need some form of alternative.

Someone summed it up well in the judging forum, where this thread was unfortunately started again, that the issue were inevitably debating here regarding defending a stable alternative advocacy, is a theoretical issue to be decided in round, rather than an issue of the criticism itself.

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...