Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maury

Round 93: Murray VS. Christian - THROWDOWN

Recommended Posts

Requin, and ponelli I have a question on kato, I guess I should have made this argument but he changed the framework of the debate in the 1ar, why would that be evaluated?

 

And Requin you said " but I look at the line by line and find that nuclearism goes cold conceded and full weight eventually outweighs the mitigated impact of imperialism,"

 

But the bolded part isn't true at all, he conceded imperialism in the 1ar and went theory and kato. so yea...

 

good debate anyways murray.

 

1) I assume you mean 1nr, and you didn't make the argument, basically. If you wanted an example warrent for why i'd accept it if you lost said argument, well most good 2ARs and 2NRs provide a framework (lens to view the round) that isn't explicitly stated earlier - it may be bad but I already hate judge intervention, sorry.

 

2) You're right and i must have mis-phrased - he didn't win on any mitigation for my RFD. That was supposed to be my conjecture on how the round would have went if zizek hadn't mattered (see two posts up). As a side note that didn't play out, at the point where neither of you makes adequate analysis I have to pick something to vote on even if its arbitrary and interventionist. -.-

 

 

Edit: sorry if I wasn't clear - I'm talking that if his case makes a portion of the system a little bit better that's a mitigation

Edited by RequinB4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
word of advice: if you're going to make fun of someone who is infinitely more qualified than you will ever be to judge, don't pussy out.

 

if you try deleting that again, i'll just un-delete as long as you want to keeo this little game going.

great modding. it's his post -- he can do whatever he wants to it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"there is something violent in the very symbolization of a thing"

"Language simplifies the designated thing, reducing it to a “unary feature”; it dismembers the thing, destroying its organic unity, treating its parts"

 

This his natural criticism of the Symbolic Order, we can never fully represent things as they truly are because it is only a representation, but the reason the holocaust (and subsequent anti-Semitic) violence occurred was because of the image of the Jew that was constructed in language representations.

 

This is not to say that all representations lead to violence but that violent representations (the secondary violence of language) would manifest itself in (physical) violence because my actions (policies) are precluded off of the way I represent the thing, object, person. If I react to the image of the Jew established by the pogrom then my actions will inherently be violent because those representations necessitate that violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This his natural criticism of the Symbolic Order, we can never fully represent things as they truly are because it is only a representation, but the reason the holocaust (and subsequent anti-Semitic) violence occurred was because of the image of the Jew that was constructed in language representations.

 

This is not to say that all representations lead to violence but that violent representations (the secondary violence of language) would manifest itself in (physical) violence because my actions (policies) are precluded off of the way I represent the thing, object, person. If I react to the image of the Jew established by the pogrom then my actions will inherently be violent because those representations necessitate that violence.

 

Actually, his main critique is of the way we interpret language in the symbolic order - he doesn't care what "really happens" or if the reps are bad or good since basing our actions off reality is impossible (and the real real is just horrific) just how we construct it.

 

case in point -

 

as opposed to the violence of immediate raw confrontation: in language, instead of exerting direct violence on each other, we debate, we exchange words, and such an exchange, even when it is aggressive, presupposes a minimum of recognition of the other.

 

I understand he's refuting this warrant for why using language is good, but the reason he highlights the problem with ignoring bad reps (view jews as other is one example) is based on our response. In a world in which psychoanalysis is unnecessary, reps don't have to come first.

 

Not that that's possible or anything, but there's your distinction :P

Edited by RequinB4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, his main critique is of the way we interpret language in the symbolic order - he doesn't care what "really happens" or if the reps are bad or good since basing our actions off reality is impossible (and the real real is just horrific) just how we construct it.

 

This sentence makes absolutely no sense. For that matter, the rest of your post is also entirely meaningless.

 

And no, I'm not a psychoanalysis hater, your just not making sense grammatically or logically.

Edited by ABC123
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after talking so much crap and totally sucking in this debate. i can now throw my head back and laugh at cjiron!!!!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You couldn't do that before?

 

Remember, there was a reason this debate happened and it was because christian was talking shit about how he "beat me" in our last round. I laughed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cjiron
You couldn't do that before?

 

Remember, there was a reason this debate happened and it was because christian was talking shit about how he "beat me" in our last round. I laughed.

Thats not true

 

 

after talking so much crap and totally sucking in this debate. i can now throw my head back and laugh at cjiron!!!!

I didn't suck, I did alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats not true

 

 

 

I didn't suck, I did alright.

 

Murray VS. Cjiron -... November 17th, 2008 02:31 PM and u are better?

 

thanks for the rep :)

 

doesn't matter if i could do better. i don't talk crap about how good i am. i just make fun of kids who's balls haven't dropped and are acting like they the shit.

Edited by Niloc
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't suck, I did alright.

 

And the popes a muslim who pisses on the cross, we can't fly because we haven't tried hard enough, Michael Jackson doesn't rape kids, etc.

 

They all have the same level of truth as that statement.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats not true

 

Do you want to really break down that round if i didnt go theory in the 1ar? Ok, 1. the only reason i went for theory is cause i was on vacation and you were bitching about the 1ar, so i posted in in like 10 minutes.

but lets break it down

1. You had nothing going for you on both T's because murray conceded reasonability good, competeing interps bad, look at his 2nc again.

2. You had nothing going for you on the DA's you conceded in the block heg solves the da impacts

3. you had nothing going for you on nuke subs, his only real answer was a counter perm which is really stupid.

4. offsets ill give you that, though I might of had a chance to win theory on it. o and he gave one reason for functinoal competetion good.

5. the kappelar card, I wouldve outweighed whatever the impact was because

a. you had NO DEFENSE ON EITHER OF MY ADVANTAGES. guareenting you lost on that to.

So in reality the concessions in the block would have had yall probably lost.

 

 

Hi Cjiron,

 

You have been talking a lot of shit in this round. Most of that I don't care about, we can all be assholes on the intrablawgs, it's chill. What I do care about is when punks think they beat me. I lose rounds, often, and most of the time I deserve it. But our round was something different. I won, you lost, and that was that. Yes, you did a lot of whining about the round, you made a lot of excuses, and I had time in the 2NR to mock you with great hilarity. Again, none of that matters.

 

If you want to have a rematch, we can do a few different things. You can come to st. marks and I will personally set up a round for us during lunch or dinner, and we can have this throw without any judges or anyone who wants to listen. Or, we can have another round on here. I'll take you maverick, and I will again dominate your soul. Fuck, if you want to do "actual speeches", my 4-500wpm is ready to take you for your money.

 

Kid, I don't know who you think you are, but let's get a few things straight: I am better than you will ever be at debate, my girlfriend is hotter than yours, my car is faster than yours, and my life is straight up more thuggin'. They call me Murray. With a capital M. And Murray doesn't take shit from anyone. Especially snot nosed little shits who want to play tough online.

 

I call your bluff. Let's settle it in a round.

 

Much love,

Murray

 

Q.E.D. Bitch

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good debate. Interesting to watch, minus the chatter, and I really like Murray's approach to the resolution.

 

Christian - I don't know where you found that Ward Churchill card; whether it's from a file or not, I suggest not running it, because Churchill, as anyone from Colorado will tell you, is not as much an authority as he lets on, needless to say. Just thought it had to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good debate. Interesting to watch, minus the chatter, and I really like Murray's approach to the resolution.

 

Christian - I don't know where you found that Ward Churchill card; whether it's from a file or not, I suggest not running it, because Churchill, as anyone from Colorado will tell you, is not as much an authority as he lets on, needless to say. Just thought it had to be said.

 

tl;dr.

But seriously, all it says it Churchill may have plagiarized some of his work. Not a particularly devastating indict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tl;dr.

But seriously, all it says it Churchill may have plagiarized some of his work. Not a particularly devastating indict.

Plagiarism and fabrication. I consider that a significant credibility issue, especially for an "expert".

First of all, if you're best argument is "LULZ HE AINT NO REDDIE" then you're going to lose every debate against this argument.

 

Second, there are more than enough answers to turn the shit out of your "white people says he aint red" arguments. Really? it's ok to genocide native americans because he isn't 100% native? Brillant.

 

Third, you're arguments are weak sauce.

This isn't intended to be a critique of the argumentation made in the round. It's merely an interest in pointing out a problem with a source. I recognize the best you can do attacking credibility here is take out the card, which doesn't do a whole lot, especially in the context of where the debate eventually went. I don't know why you think my purpose here is to make that kind of claim.

 

And the claim isn't about his alleged native ancestry, it's about his expertise and credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, if you're best argument is "LULZ HE AINT NO REDDIE" then you're going to lose every debate against this argument.

 

Second, there are more than enough answers to turn the shit out of your "white people says he aint red" arguments. Really? it's ok to genocide native americans because he isn't 100% native? Brillant.

 

Third, you're arguments are weak sauce.

First of all, you take Zizek and Churchill seriously.

 

Second, you are fucking stupid

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, being one of 8 republicans on this website i take zizek AND churchill (Together!) seriously.

 

second, stop being a fucking nutwacker.

A very mature coach. Do you spend all your time online trying to win virtual debates because you never won any in high school?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Churchill is a legit strategy as long as you can win the 'he's not an indian' debate. Its true if you can't do that, you shouldn't run him. Same is true for every other argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fizelly27
Churchill is a legit strategy as long as you can win the 'he's not an indian' debate. Its true if you can't do that, you shouldn't run him. Same is true for every other argument.

that is like saying nietzsche is a legit strategy if you can win the "he is a nazi" debate. there are good arguments to be made against churchill; author indicts are not one of them.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...