Jump to content
Dr. Doom

Death of Debate in post-fiat world is a big impact?

Recommended Posts

Here a thought experiment I'll just throw out there: What arguments (and how many) would you run in a debate on the Negative side if you knew you wouldn't be permitted to "kick out" of any of them in rebuttals? ;)

 

One Off and it would be a K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here a thought experiment I'll just throw out there: What arguments (and how many) would you run in a debate on the Negative side if you knew you wouldn't be permitted to "kick out" of any of them in rebuttals? ;)

 

Depends on the case. Either a CP and a DA, T, or a K. It's not that hard of a question, really. Or are you saying only pick one? In that case, probably a K, but it really does depend on the plan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what people like Brett and I (and others around these parts) are trying to say is that it didn't always used to be so, and that if most debate arguments nowadays ARE horseshit, that isn't a reason to countenance MORE such arguments, nor is it a reason to resist reforms that might restore some semblance of rationality to our discourse...

 

Hate to double post..

 

But when someone portrays Africa in such a light that it is a starving, feeble, aids riddled, flea infested continent then how can you not be like yo, that f'd up When the aff. argues that the best way to solve the war on terror isn't to stop killing all those dirty arabs but throw condoms to the African masses and cover up our BS war then don't you think it is a little messed up. When your representations and assumptions of Africa, the Middle east, ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE US are so skewed and eurocentric aren't K's exactly what are going to bring some rationality back to our discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hate to double post..

 

But when someone portrays Africa in such a light that it is a starving, feeble, aids riddled, flea infested continent then how can you not be like yo, that f'd up When the aff. argues that the best way to solve the war on terror isn't to stop killing all those dirty arabs but throw condoms to the African masses and cover up our BS war then don't you think it is a little messed up. When your representations and assumptions of Africa, the Middle east, ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE US are so skewed and eurocentric aren't K's exactly what are going to bring some rationality back to our discourse.

What we're saying is that if you can't beat those arguments by pointing out there central flaw you don't deserve to win by running a bunch of philoso-babble that you only partially understand. Frankly, most K's suffer from the same flaw - the assumption that the world is an easily predictable system of simple cause-effect relationships. It just ain't so.

 

If I distribute condoms in Africa, the advantage I should claim is decreased spread of HIV and perhaps declining birth rate. Both of those are closely enough attached to the actual action to be feasible. If I claim to solve terrorism by doing it, I am no better than the K debater who claims that my advocacy of a plan involving the reproduction of Africans is racist and will lead to human extinction. Neither of those things is going to happen, and we all know it. If you run a DA saying that there will be cultural backlash and trade problems with resource rich nations of Africa, you're closer to the right track.

 

Is it possible that by spending a million dollars on my plan the deficit will reach that magical point of no return where the world economy collapses killing off the vast majority of humankind? Sure. Can we predict complex systems well enough to definitively say it will happen? Don't make me fucking laugh. Haven't all you kids notice that every time you say "If you vote negative (or affirmative) the world will end" any judge over 25 rolls her eyes and chuckles? It's because we know you're full of shit and don't believe a word you're saying. If you really think letting the arbiter definitively see your distortion of reason is effective debate, there is no hope for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, i don't know how you guys can hold kritiks responsbile for bad debate. it's not like there aren't novices who say they don't link to a disad because it's not topical.

That would depend on what you mean by "internal links." If by that you mean "scenario in which the asserted link could conceivably add an infinistesimally small amount of probability to an already highly unlikely outcome," then yeah, you hear a few teams try that approach...
you make it sound like you think internal links are bad. this is nuts to me.
No, I teach them to "no link" the hell out of 'em, and to mock the opponent as vigorously as they think they can get away with...
good. this should also win zero point of holocaust and biopower is nuclear extinction debates. (read: non-unique)
That aren't asserted? I would be really, really interested to hear such a beast. I never have...

Give me an example of what you would consider a "specific" link to a kritik. I have a feeling your definitional standards are a little looser than mine, but I'll keep my powder dry until I see a card...

we have done this one before. while i'll defend the use of most (MOST) generic links kritik debaters use it is only under the assumption that the two nc spends three to five (preferably more) minutes nitpicking through the one ac and offering link scenarios based on the claims made by those authors - kritiks are first and foremost a case turn, links espoused from the discourse used by those advocating certain policies. anyway, as i mentioned before there are in fact specific links - pardon me as i haven't debated since the marine resources topic. this is all copy and pasted (i am pretty sure it is missing ellipses - just the portions of cards i underlined here) from a post i made on here a long time ago.
here's my 1nc, they're all luke cards from "the (un)wise (ab)use..." unless i say otherwise:

 

the affirmative is the creation of little wildlife worlds caught in the same global capitalist economy that promotes environmental neglect. the isolation of these wildlife worlds allows environmental abuse to expand into unprotected areas.

Instead, the protection of ecosystems in Nature preserves, which host low-impact sustainable cultivation of flora and fauna in traditional economies or high-traffic flows of conscientious ecotourists, becomes the sine qua non of "wise use" for WWF wildlife fund managers worldwide.

 

As coequals in the circle of life coevolving in the webs of biodiversity, human beings nobly become another animal being responsible for other animal beings. Thus, the World Wildlife Fund, becomes the key trustee of an international family of mutual funds for creating and operating these little wildlife worlds all over the planet. Its consummational agenda for a transnational ecocolonialism pays out as a post-consumptive environmental reservation system where the Earth's last remaining wilderness and wildlife become the tamelife habitats and inhabitants of exotic biodiversity.

 

This is pathetic, but it is where whatever was once "wild nature" is now left. The wise use of Nature boils down to containing only a few of the most egregious instances of the unwise abuse of select charismatic megafauna by detaining a few survivors in little wildlife worlds all over the planet. And, in the current political environment, which increasingly favors legislative moves to rollback any serious Nature preservation initiative, even this ecocolonialist work of the WWF now can only be applauded. The WWF is caught within the same global capitalistic economy that promotes pollution, poaching, and profit, but its consummational good deeds advance the reproduction of global capitalism at all other unpreserved sites, shifting the role of the WWF from that of anti-consumptive resistance on a local level to one of pro-consummational rationalization on a global scale.

 

the affirmative is no different than the nature buying of the environmental organization "the nature conservancy." reserves will have to be graded like real estate property.

Compared to so many other environmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) plainly is doing something immediate and significant to protect Nature--buying, holding and guarding large swatches of comparatively undisturbed natural habitat. Yet, it does this in accord with the consumeristic ground rules of the global capitalist economy. Millions of acres, occupying many diverse ecosystems now are being held in trust by the Nature Conservancy. This trust is being exercised not only for future generations of people, but also for all of the new generations of the plants and animals, fungi and insects, algae and microorganisms inhabiting these plots of land. Beginning with the 60 acres in the Mianus River Gorge, this organization has protected by direct acquisition and trust negotiations over 7.5 million acres of land in North America as well as Central America, South America, and the Caribbean in over separate 10,000 protection actions. In the past forty years, on pieces as small a quarter an acre to as large as hundreds of square miles, the Nature Conservancy in the United States has arranged for the on-going protection of an area the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island.84 Given that so many ecological initiatives fail so frequently, this string of successes cannot be entirely ignored.

 

Nonetheless, one must admit the Nature Conservancy's achievements are perhaps seriously flawed, even though these flaws reveal much more about the consumption of public goods through a private property system and free enterprise economy than they show about environmentalism. Because of what has happened to Nature, how capital operates, and where resources for change must be solicited, the Nature Conservancy does what it does: consume land to be held "in trust: for Nature. As a result, the tenets and tenor of the Conservancy's operations as "an environmentalist organization" are those of almost complete compliance, and not those of radical resistance to the fast capitalist global economy.

 

In the Nature Conservancy's operational codes of land consumption, a triage system comes into play. Some lands of Nature are more "ecologically significant," some regions are much more "natural areas," but some grounds are far less "protectable" than others. The methods of the Conservancy show how it implicitly sees Nature as real estate properties inasmuch as its chapters must constantly grade the acreages they receive--labelling some as truly ecologically significant, some as plainly natural areas, some as merely "trade lands."85 The latter are sold, like old horses for glue or worn-out cattle for dogfood, and the proceeds can used elsewhere to promote conservation. In seeking to preserve Nature, the Nature Conservancy strangely oversees its final transformation into pure real estate, allowing even hitherto unsalable or undeveloped lands to become transubstantiated into "natural areas" to green belt human settlements and recharge their scenic visits with ecological significance.

 

When it asks for land to protect wildlife and create sanctuary for ecosystems. However, the Nature Conservancy tends not to detail the ultimate cause of its concern. Protect it from what? Create sanctuary from what? The answer is, of course, the same consumeristic economy that is allowing its members to accumulate stock, mail in donations, buy and sell land. In many ways, the Conservancy is disingenuous in its designation of only some of its lands as trade lands. Actually, all of its protected lands are trade lands, trading sanctuary and protection here (where it is commercially possible or aesthetically imperative) to forsake sanctuary and protection there (where it is commercially unviable or aesthetically dispensable). It extracts a title for partial permanence from a constant turnover of economic destruction anchored in total impermanence.86 The Conservancy ironically fights a perpetually losing battle, protecting rare species from what makes them rare and building sanctuary from what devastates everything on the land elsewhere with the proceeds of its members' successful capitalist rarification and despoliation.

 

consumption must end- preserves are ripped from nature only to be returned as resources for consumption

To avoid this collapse of ecological throughput, consummativity as consumptiveness must end. Human beings must slow their increasing mass populations, halt wasteful resource-intensive modes of production, and limit excessive levels of material consumption. All of these ends, in turn, require a measure of surveillance and degree of navigational steering beyond the powers of modern nation-states, but perhaps not beyond those exercised by some postmodern worldwatch engaged in the disciplinary tasks of equilibriating the "net primary production" of solar energy fixed by photosynthesis in the four systems to global consummativity as consummation. Natural resources in the total solar economy of food stocks, fisheries, forest preserves, and grass lands are rhetorically ripped from Nature only to be returned as consummationally-framed environmental resources, enveloped in accounting procedures and encircled by managerial programs. Worldwatching presumes to know all of this, and in knowing it, to have mastered all of its economic/ecological implications through its authoritative technical analysis to perfect consumption as the would-be warden of this planetary solar economy. By questioning the old truth regime of mere consumptive growth, a new regime of consummation for a much more sophisticated ecological economy stands ready to reintegrate human production and consumption in balance with the four biological systems.

 

No longer Nature, not merely ecosystem, the terraforming of our world under this kind of watch truly reduces it to strategic spaces. As "an environment," ringed by many ecological knowledge centers dedicated to the rational management of its assets, the global ecosystem is to be understood through the disciplinary codes of green operational planning. The health of global populations as well as the survival of the planet itself allegedly necessitate that a bioeconomic spreadsheet be draped over consummativity on Earth, generating an elaborate set of accounts for a terraforming economy of global reach and local scope. Hovering over the world in their scientifically-centered astropanopticon of green surveillance, the disciplinary grids of efficiency and waste, health and disease, poverty and wealth as well as employment and unemployment. Fusing geo-economics with geo-politics, Brown, Flavin and Postel declare "the once separate issues of environment and development are now inextricably linked."

 

wilderness management has become a way to not talk about the foundations of production. shiva '92(the env. in question, pg. 187)

the real meaning of sustainability would make it clear that nature's economy is primary, and the money economy is parasitic on it... it is still assumed that capital is the basis of all activity. the preservation of the primacy of capital creates a dualism between 'conservation' and 'development'... 'development creates mutually exclusive categories of 'human settlements', 'wildlands' and 'productive forests'. 'sustainable development' continues that trend. people are pushed out of forests to have wildlife and biosphere reserves. while diversity is protected in thes set-asides, 'productive forests' are based on the traditional logic of uniformity and market orientation... production is untouched by ecological principles... conservation is reduced to 'wilderness management'... true sustainability demands that ecological principles be incorporated into production processes to reshape them. conservation has to be a basis and foundation of production. it cannot be an addendum.

 

the aff isn't preserving nature, it's a burial society giving care to a variety of nature's cemeteries

Nature, in all of its wild mystery and awesome totality, is not being preserved by the Nature Conservancy. It is, in fact, dead, as McKibben and Merchant tell us.89 Nonetheless, its memory might be kept alive by the Nature Conservancy at numerous burial parks all over the nation where glimpses of its spirit should be remembered by human beings in a whiff of wild fight, the scent of a stream, or the aroma of surf. This goal may be a very well-intentioned one; but, in many ways all that the Nature Conservancy does boils down to serving as a burial society dedicated to giving perpetual maintenance and loving care at a variety of Nature cemeteries: Forest Glen, Mountain Meadow, Virgin River, Jade Jungle, Prairie View, Harmony Bay, Sunny Savannah, Brilliant Beach, Desert Vista, Happy Hollow, Crystal Spring. As Nature's death is acknowledged, more and more plots are needed to bury the best bits of its body in gardens of eternal life. Thus, the call for members, funds, and donations always will grow and grow.

 

This mission is even more ironic given the means whereby it is funded. Those humans, whose production and consumption had so much to do with Nature's death, the middle and upper-middle classes, are given an opportunity to purchase some atonement for their anonymous sins as consumers by joining the Nature Conservancy. Indeed, they even can transfer their accumulations of dead labor, and by extension, dead nature, to the Nature Conservancy to tend the gravesites of that which they murdered cheeseburger by cheeseburger, BTU by BTU, freon molecule by freon molecule in their lethal mode of suburban living. Even more ironically, the hit men of these myriad murder for hire deals--or major corporations--also are solicited by the Conservancy to pony up land, capital or donations to sustain this noble enterprise. Economy and environment are, of course, not incompatible, because this is the circuit of maggot and corpse, buzzard and body, grub and grave so common in today's postmodern ecology. Capital and Nature, the dead and living, are incompatible, but the capital has won, Nature is dead. All that is left is the zombie world of economies and environments, or the cash credits inside corporate ledgers for capital circulation and the ecological debits outside of corporate accounting charged off as externalities. Some still think capitalism has not yet defeated Nature, but they are deluded. Everything is environment now, nothing is Nature except perhaps the last reaches of innerspace and outerspace where aquanauts and astronauts, riding hi-tech robotic probes, have not yet come in peace, killing everything before them to then rest in peace.

in any case, i would like to see these other beasts you're referring to - it's a rare, rare thing that i hear a disad that offers a specific link scenario.

 

We aren't talking about heading up to the "national circuit" tournaments right out of the box, if ever. That isn't the problem. The problem is that what DOES go on there tends to filter down to regional and even local circuits. It doesn't take very many college debaters judging, or very many local kids hitting a summer institute, before the issue comes into play.
i don't see an issue :) besides you're not seriously blaming good debaters for having good ideas just because bad debaters debate them badly are you
The topics themselves are TREMENDOUSLY complex these days. Throw the super-topic were call the kritikal stance into the equation, and you've got an extremely daunting activity to newcomers...
i still don't see this "problem" :) though i agree - resolutions are dumb. the nfl either needs to learn from ceda or adopt to changes in the way people debate and stop publishing articles in rostrum that might've been relevant

ten years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we're saying is that if you can't beat those arguments by pointing out there central flaw you don't deserve to win by running a bunch of philoso-babble that you only partially understand. Frankly, most K's suffer from the same flaw - the assumption that the world is an easily predictable system of simple cause-effect relationships. It just ain't so.

 

How can you possibly claim that K's are the ones that suffer from assuming contingency, every single DA is an A leads to B leads to C. And if it is some philoso-babble that you claim then the Aff. should be able to answer it or if I don't explain it well enough then the judge won't vote on it, it is my risk not yours.

 

If I distribute condoms in Africa, the advantage I should claim is decreased spread of HIV and perhaps declining birth rate. Both of those are closely enough attached to the actual action to be feasible. If I claim to solve terrorism by doing it, I am no better than the K debater who claims that my advocacy of a plan involving the reproduction of Africans is racist and will lead to human extinction. Neither of those things is going to happen, and we all know it. If you run a DA saying that there will be cultural backlash and trade problems with resource rich nations of Africa, you're closer to the right track

 

Is it possible that by spending a million dollars on my plan the deficit will reach that magical point of no return where the world economy collapses killing off the vast majority of humankind? Sure. Can we predict complex systems well enough to definitively say it will happen? Don't make me fucking laugh. Haven't all you kids notice that every time you say "If you vote negative (or affirmative) the world will end" any judge over 25 rolls her eyes and chuckles? It's because we know you're full of shit and don't believe a word you're saying. If you really think letting the arbiter definitively see your distortion of reason is effective debate, there is no hope for you.

 

You talk about how it used to be, and how you claimed feasible shit back in the day but guess what all that talk was shit, it didn't do anything, you didn't bring about change, you didn't affect any policy's your impact/education/depth of argumentation was no greater then todays policy rounds. But you know what I can see racism, when someone reads a card saying we shouldn't extend rights to Africans because it lowers our cultural standards then they deserve to be punished, they deserve to have their argument turned and crammed up their ass and have a judge write on the ballot you racist prick. Maybe then he will stop and be like o shit, you know what maybe that is fucked up. Maybe then he might be able to branch out from his nice little white world and not fear that he is mudding his gene pool.

 

The education provided By DA's, CP's, solvency arguments, they MAY affect you at some point in your life, maybe you will be the president or a senator, maybe you might be the one setting up hat trade deal with south Korea but the odds of that knowledge ever being applied is slim to fucking none. What are the odds that you will hold a job in your life, maybe notice how fucked the system is towards minorities, towards woman. Maybe you will live in a country with a government and some day they will try to pass some act just so that they can invade your private life and you will be like yo, that bullshit, you aren't trying to protect me from terrorist. When a K debater claims genocide as an impact, he is arguably the only one who can do so, because before any group of people will go and kill another they have to justify it inside their heads, they have to accept and believe that that group is inferior to dogs.

 

THis whole we have to do everything through the USFG is just crap, a K is arguing that guess what you vote aff, you vote neg, no bombs are going to rain down on us. But you vote Aff you are endorsing racism. You should like K's they are the absolute only ones who can claim to have any real world impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you possibly claim that K's are the ones that suffer from assuming contingency, every single DA is an A leads to B leads to C. And if it is some philoso-babble that you claim then the Aff. should be able to answer it or if I don't explain it well enough then the judge won't vote on it, it is my risk not yours.
I made no such claim. What I suggested was the K is not the most rational response to escalating scenarios in debate. The rational response is to debate sensible harms and impact scenarios. Say you run an aff with no extinction or nuclear war scenario, then neg comes back and runs a bunch of DA's claiming you'll cause extinction three times over. You then stand up in 2ac and say, "Wow - We'll make the world extinct three times? On the other hand, the harms in the case are real whereas all those bizarre neg scenarios require the assumption that we can easily predict complex systems. In other words, at least we're talking about a practical, potential reality instead of some debate-fantasy that neg is obsessed with." Trust me, if your judge is over 25, the chances of him taking you more seriously than your opponent just shot through the roof.

 

 

 

You talk about how it used to be, and how you claimed feasible shit back in the day but guess what all that talk was shit, it didn't do anything, you didn't bring about change, you didn't affect any policy's your impact/education/depth of argumentation was no greater then todays policy rounds. yada yada yada
That's just wrong. Because there were more competitors in the activity back in the day when we tried to at least make some effort to base arguments in the real world, there was more education. Most of the education from debate comes in the form of critical thinking which, believe it or not, occurs whether you know what a K is or not. Most of the education you will get from your HS debate experience hasn't happened until you're much older. I still learn more about the world nearly every day. And I learn more than I would had I never debated.

 

Because debate's real gift is the tendency to independent thought, it's effect is diminished by anything that keeps newcomers from getting involved. If that means some kritikal arguments and claiming one dollar spent by aff leads to extinction need to go the way of the dodo - so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's just wrong. Because there were more competitors in the activity back in the day when we tried to at least make some effort to base arguments in the real world, there was more education. Most of the education from debate comes in the form of critical thinking which, believe it or not, occurs whether you know what a K is or not. Most of the education you will get from your HS debate experience hasn't happened until you're much older. I still learn more about the world nearly every day. And I learn more than I would had I never debated.

 

Because debate's real gift is the tendency to independent thought, it's effect is diminished by anything that keeps newcomers from getting involved. If that means some kritikal arguments and claiming one dollar spent by aff leads to extinction need to go the way of the dodo - so be it.

 

How could you possibly win that policy is more real world. IT IS A FACT THAT NOTHING YOU DID/SAID IN ROUND DID JACK SHIT OUTSIDE OF THE ROOM. None of what you said is specific to policy type arguments. Your argument is basically that K's are hard, get fucking used to it if a kid is too intimidated by a kritik to debate because it has a learning curve guess what they are weak and need to find a different activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd hate to break it to you but kritiks don't mean shit either. sure, some debaters end up being philosophers and activists, but they also end up becoming lawyers and working for think tanks. some even become politicians. pretending that debate is anything more than a banal activity that has significance to anyone who isn't involved or, even more nutty, that it somehow causes real change in those that are outside of the activity is just foolish (and not at all what your authors are talking about). at best you can change the way other debaters debate. debate will always be the wrong forum, regardless of what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How could you possibly win that policy is more real world. IT IS A FACT THAT NOTHING YOU DID/SAID IN ROUND DID JACK SHIT OUTSIDE OF THE ROOM. None of what you said is specific to policy type arguments. Your argument is basically that K's are hard, get fucking used to it if a kid is too intimidated by a kritik to debate because it has a learning curve guess what they are weak and need to find a different activity.

 

I never said that anything I did affected the real world policies. I said that arguments based on what how real world actually behaves are more persuasive than those which imply everything we say or every policy we make is inclined to cause some form of global injustice or catastrophe. If you can't grasp that distinction, quit debating now. And frankly, the more you base your arguments on genuinely likely scenarios, the more people will take you seriously - in rounds and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol you always mischaracterize me! gosh brolroblobolobloo you are just full of it!

i was responding to masterdebaterollie, obviously. in fact i was almost taking your side. as far as "genuinely likely" scenarios go maybe you just didn't read previous posts. that or you are under the impression that the nature conservancy and world wildlife fund don't exist. get off it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol you always mischaracterize me! gosh brolroblobolobloo you are just full of it!

i was responding to masterdebaterollie, obviously. in fact i was almost taking your side. as far as "genuinely likely" scenarios go maybe you just didn't read previous posts. that or you are under the impression that the nature conservancy and world wildlife fund don't exist. get off it

My bad dude - I simpy hit the wrong "quote" button. Take a xanax or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said that anything I did affected the real world policies. I said that arguments based on what how real world actually behaves are more persuasive than those which imply everything we say or every policy we make is inclined to cause some form of global injustice or catastrophe. If you can't grasp that distinction, quit debating now. And frankly, the more you base your arguments on genuinely likely scenarios, the more people will take you seriously - in rounds and out.

 

You said that anything that makes debate hard must be a bad thing because then kids won't join it. That was your only argument on K's. Everything else is just applicable, if not more, to current policy rounds. I quite frankly don't give a fuck if a judge doesn't buy an extinction scenario, I don't need to claim any.

 

How do K's not grasp how the real world actually behaves? They address the underlying assumptions that are latent in our everyday decisions. And learning about that is more important than learning about any type of policy because regardless of what we do we will have to make moral decisions but guess what very few of us have to make policy decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IT IS A FACT THAT NOTHING YOU DID/SAID IN ROUND DID JACK SHIT OUTSIDE OF THE ROOM.

 

isn't this the same thing as saying, "i learned nothing from debate."?

 

more to the point... regardless of whether or not a specific thing you said in a debate round had a real world impact, the fact still remains that skills learned because of debate affect all aspects of life. the ability to logic and reason not only well, but quickly; the ability to research thoroughly; not to mention the ability to construct an argument are all consequences of the activity. each one of these skills is tempered by the way a person chooses to debate and the types of arguments a person chooses.

 

don't get me wrong, i am not an anti-kritik nazi, nor am i a kritik fanboy. however, in the context of this thread (which was originally about the end of debate *see my signature for when that will happen), we as the debate community ought to be aware of the impact that different types of reasoned arguments have on the activity. i submit that kritik debate has opened the activity to more and different ideas, thus opening debate to those who do not reason in the traditional consequential policy manner. it doesn't bother me that this means high school students have to learn about nietzche to excel in debate, on the contrary, i see this as a good thing. (on a side note, i also believe that philosophy should be taught in public schools). the more chances a student has to be able to use logic and reason, the better.

 

thus, what is said in a debate round does have an impact beyond the round because it is a part of the total experience that is debate. if one team is in a round and hears an argument they are not prepared for, they (if they care to be good) will go to school the next week and prepare for it. the next time they hear that argument and read their responses, the other team (again if they care to be good) will prepare for their responses. this is the process of debate which leads to the aforementioned skills.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
isn't this the same thing as saying, "i learned nothing from debate."?

 

more to the point... regardless of whether or not a specific thing you said in a debate round had a real world impact, the fact still remains that skills learned because of debate affect all aspects of life. the ability to logic and reason not only well, but quickly; the ability to research thoroughly; not to mention the ability to construct an argument are all consequences of the activity. each one of these skills is tempered by the way a person chooses to debate and the types of arguments a person chooses.

 

don't get me wrong, i am not an anti-kritik nazi, nor am i a kritik fanboy. however, in the context of this thread (which was originally about the end of debate *see my signature for when that will happen), we as the debate community ought to be aware of the impact that different types of reasoned arguments have on the activity. i submit that kritik debate has opened the activity to more and different ideas, thus opening debate to those who do not reason in the traditional consequential policy manner. it doesn't bother me that this means high school students have to learn about nietzche to excel in debate, on the contrary, i see this as a good thing. (on a side note, i also believe that philosophy should be taught in public schools). the more chances a student has to be able to use logic and reason, the better.

 

thus, what is said in a debate round does have an impact beyond the round because it is a part of the total experience that is debate. if one team is in a round and hears an argument they are not prepared for, they (if they care to be good) will go to school the next week and prepare for it. the next time they hear that argument and read their responses, the other team (again if they care to be good) will prepare for their responses. this is the process of debate which leads to the aforementioned skills.

 

That comment was in context to broblolob claiming that debate then was more productive then today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That comment was in context to broblolob claiming that debate then was more productive then today.

 

than then you completely missed the point. more arguments = better debate, its just that simple.

 

more productive? well, thats an economic standard and not an argumentative standard. last i checked, debate is still producing the leaders of the next generation, but 4x4 educational standards have hurt all extra-curricular activities. so, i would have to say debate used to be more productive because there were more students taking debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm leavin' you hangin', but for what its worth I've been deathly ill since Westside a couple of weeks ago, and I'm being beseiged by morons in other threads. I'll try to do better... ;)

again, i don't know how you guys can hold kritiks responsbile for bad debate
Whoa, hoss! If you and Brett want to have that particular fight, be my guest. That isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that kritiks add a level of complexity to the game that can't help but discourage newcomers (and new coaches). That's all. The problem isn't that kritiks are bad arguments (they're arguments, which means like any other kind of argument they come in both good and yucky flavors). The problem is that the sheer number of them (and the way they are deployed) is having deleterious effects on the activity. You may not agree, and that's fine, but that's the only point I'm interested in pursuing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
more arguments = better debate, its just that simple.
Except that it isn't. More GOOD arguments = better debate. You're entitled to believe that the ratio of good arguments to crappy ones has been improving, but you'll have a tough time selling the idea to anyone who hasn't sipped the Kool-Aid on modern praxis...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that it isn't. More GOOD arguments = better debate. You're entitled to believe that the ratio of good arguments to crappy ones has been improving, but you'll have a tough time selling the idea to anyone who hasn't sipped the Kool-Aid on modern praxis...

 

how about you go back and read my three paragraph post and attack that instead of going after my 5 word tagline summarizing that post.

 

however, "good" is a relative term that has different meanings for different people in different contexts; so, my "more arguments = better debate" is basically the same thing, just less presumptuous.

 

and for the record, i didn't sip the kool-aid, i chugged it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You said that anything that makes debate hard must be a bad thing because then kids won't join it. That was your only argument on K's. Everything else is just applicable, if not more, to current policy rounds. I quite frankly don't give a fuck if a judge doesn't buy an extinction scenario, I don't need to claim any.
I never said any such thing. Read the whole thread, and take note of what I did say, and maybe you'll get a grip. I suggested someone could kritik kritiks on the grounds that they are hostile to newcomers. There are plenty of debate arguments that fit the description, but even the most complex and indecipherable kritik isn't nearly the turn-off as ideological nitwits who can't grasp the basic nature of switch-side debate. (find a mirror) The other side of the coin is always applicable.

 

How do K's not grasp how the real world actually behaves? They address the underlying assumptions that are latent in our everyday decisions. And learning about that is more important than learning about any type of policy because regardless of what we do we will have to make moral decisions but guess what very few of us have to make policy decisions.
Sure, but the idea that every aff is somehow uniquely guilty of your pet kritik is more full of bullshit than the claim that one penny over the current budget will lead to nuclear war. If someone does something that deserves a kritik, go for it. Just arguing marxism because you get it doesn't make you special. All it means is you don't really grasp history or economics.
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said any such thing. Read the whole thread, and take note of what I did say, and maybe you'll get a grip. I suggested someone could kritik kritiks on the grounds that they are hostile to newcomers. There are plenty of debate arguments that fit the description, but even the most complex and indecipherable kritik isn't nearly the turn-off as ideological nitwits who can't grasp the basic nature of switch-side debate. (find a mirror) The other side of the coin is always applicable.

 

Sure, but the idea that every aff is somehow uniquely guilty of your pet kritik is more full of bullshit than the claim that one penny over the current budget will lead to nuclear war. If someone does something that deserves a kritik, go for it. Just arguing marxism because you get it doesn't make you special. All it means is you don't really grasp history or economics.

 

So basically you have no argument against the K. Just the outlandish link and impact claims of the aff. in the neg. regardless of what the scenario is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how about you go back and read my three paragraph post and attack that instead of going after my 5 word tagline summarizing that post.
Oh, please. There is nothing in the longer post which makes the slightest difference. If anything, you prove my point even more thoroughly: You're saying that the dramatically increased number of arguments for which one must be prepared, as well as the arcane and often counter-intuitive manner in which they are argued, makes for "better" debate. It doesn't. It makes for more and more rounds where actual clash is minimal, more and more frustration for beginning debaters (and coaches) as they come to realize the virtually limitless nature of the kind of debating you advocate, more and more kids deciding some other activity is a more productive and rewarding place to invest their extracurricular time...
my "more arguments = better debate" is basically the same thing, just less presumptuous.
I wouldn't be using the word "presumptuous" to describe someone else's position on this issue when your own is based on so little. Your argument simply doesn't make sense at any level, and you have yet to make a cogent answer to any of the substantive points being raised here...
and for the record, i didn't sip the kool-aid, i chugged it.
Which is why no one here is surprised that all you can bring to the discussion is the standard, off-the-rack defense of modern praxis...

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...