Jump to content
ggamer

Numerous Questions

Recommended Posts

Just thought I'd jump in and clarify this, because it's sort of semi-correct and semi-wrong from what I know:

 

Discourse is the words and language we use, the dialogues we conduct. If I had a conversation with you, you and I just exchanged discourse. It's most often used in the context of a debate round in the sense of "My discourse is good, I talk about the world in a better way than they do. Vote me." Example: I run non-violence and claim that violent discourse is problematic, non-violent discourse is really really good, and the judges personal action to endorse my non-violent discourse really does matter and makes us all better people real world.

 

ummm....sorta.....

 

Discourse is also what we don't say....do you see? If I say "Don't kill that dog!" and hand you a gun.....I'm saying "Kill that dog". In this way discourse becomes more than what I say, but what the perception of what I said achieved.....In this way discourse acts as perception of what the other team has said, it makes it more offensive if the judge agrees with that perception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ummm....sorta.....

 

Discourse is also what we don't say....do you see? If I say "Don't kill that dog!" and hand you a gun.....I'm saying "Kill that dog". In this way discourse becomes more than what I say, but what the perception of what I said achieved.....In this way discourse acts as perception of what the other team has said, it makes it more offensive if the judge agrees with that perception.

 

I DISAGREE

 

DISCOURSE CAN ONLY BE WHAT YOU SAY

 

YOUR ACTIONS MIGHT INFLUENCE THE JUDGE'S DECISION, BUT THAT IS NOT YOUR DISCOURSE

 

THIS APPLIES TO THE BALLOT IN THE SENSE THAT PEOPLE MIGHT KRITIK YOUR DISCOURSE

 

TRY NOT BE RACIST

 

OR SEXIST

 

OR ELITIST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I DISAGREE

 

DISCOURSE CAN ONLY BE WHAT YOU SAY

 

YOUR ACTIONS MIGHT INFLUENCE THE JUDGE'S DECISION, BUT THAT IS NOT YOUR DISCOURSE

 

THIS APPLIES TO THE BALLOT IN THE SENSE THAT PEOPLE MIGHT KRITIK YOUR DISCOURSE

 

TRY NOT BE RACIST

 

OR SEXIST

 

OR ELITIST

 

I'm sorry you disagre, my example was horrible, I'll try again.

 

I'm not saying actions are discourse,......I never said "Actions are discourse". But not saying anything is saying something. That silence may be a symbolic mode of power to break a system down. THATS DISCOURSE. Not saying anything is discourse, because that's a blatant refusal to not engage or respond to the latter. Anything that has intent to influence, through language or lack of language, is discourse.

 

IF someone said a racist remark, you can re-act in millions of ways. You can laugh, and encourage it, you can tell them to stop, or you can say nothing, make them feel stupid, and it won't happen again. All of these actions act a discursive resistance against racist slurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discourse. Noun.

1. Verbal expression in speech or writing.

2. Verbal exchange; conversation.

3. A formal, lengthy discussion of a subject, either written or spoken.

- Dictionary.com

 

I don't think there's actually a definition of discourse that includes silence, that's just your own personal interpretation of what silence is. (It's a good one, nonetheless). I don't think you could find a dictionary definition that states silence is an act of discourse, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Discourse. Noun.

1. Verbal expression in speech or writing.

2. Verbal exchange; conversation.

3. A formal, lengthy discussion of a subject, either written or spoken.

- Dictionary.com

 

I don't think there's actually a definition of discourse that includes silence, that's just your own personal interpretation of what silence is. (It's a good one, nonetheless). I don't think you could find a dictionary definition that states silence is an act of discourse, though.

 

 

You're taking philosophy and society out of context here. I don't care what Diction means to Dictionary.com....because no dictionary will ever use a word in the context of life, especially in the frame of philosophy. Every word becomes a personal interpretation. I'm saying we can tell people things without saying anything verbally....do you see??

 

I can make a message to millions without one word, that's discourse. That silence has achieved to same thing words has, a message, except silence achives more impact. Because then it's for other's interpretation, it makes the "message" more personal. Thus discourse, by being anything we say, is such that it becomes what we don't say as well. Now do you see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry you disagre, my example was horrible, I'll try again.

 

I'm not saying actions are discourse,......I never said "Actions are discourse". But not saying anything is saying something. That silence may be a symbolic mode of power to break a system down. THATS DISCOURSE. Not saying anything is discourse, because that's a blatant refusal to not engage or respond to the latter. Anything that has intent to influence, through language or lack of language, is discourse.

 

IF someone said a racist remark, you can re-act in millions of ways. You can laugh, and encourage it, you can tell them to stop, or you can say nothing, make them feel stupid, and it won't happen again. All of these actions act a discursive resistance against racist slurs.

 

I CONCUR WITH THIS NEW RESTRUCTURING OF YOUR ARGUMENT

 

IN CASES WHERE THEY SAY RACISM BAD AND YOU SAY NOTHING YOU CAN EASILY LOSE

 

ALSO, IF THEY CALL FOR AN IMPACT TO RACISM, PERHAPS THEY CAN ALSO LOSE AS WELL

 

AND ARGUING OVER CONTEXT IS PRETTY FOOLISH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the topic of discourse, in theory, wouldn't casting the ballot towards the team using the "good" discourse be unnecessary as long as they were using it?

 

with the ballot, the judge endorses whoever's discourse is most productive in this framework. usually an alternative will say something about how micropolitically advocating this kind of "good" discourse solves b/c individual endorsement is key to any kind of bigger revolution/movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but you see if you really do care about your discourse & what not, than it should be enough for it to occur (talk about it in round). do you really need a shiny gold star on your forehead (or ballot in your favor) to prove that you used the "right", most productive discourse? plus the individual endorsement doesn't have to be in the form of a ballot, you can become "enlightened" as an individual w.o./ a stupid piece of paper proving it... & another thing-the bigger revolution/movement is all nice & dandy but honestly-who the fuck cares? usually nobody! it's kind of sad but seriously in round we just want to win, & use micropolitical, revolution, discourse, etc. stuff to get to that point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is pretty true and these are all good arguments to make, but at the same time the ballot asks who did the better debating. If one team wins that their discourse is best and they also win that they are the better team within that discourse then they did the better debating. The other team should have either proved the discourse was bod or shown how they were better under the discourse. Either way, the team that debates better should win even if that comes through the use of a framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but you see if you really do care about your discourse & what not, than it should be enough for it to occur (talk about it in round). do you really need a shiny gold star on your forehead (or ballot in your favor) to prove that you used the "right", most productive discourse? plus the individual endorsement doesn't have to be in the form of a ballot, you can become "enlightened" as an individual w.o./ a stupid piece of paper proving it... & another thing-the bigger revolution/movement is all nice & dandy but honestly-who the fuck cares? usually nobody! it's kind of sad but seriously in round we just want to win, & use micropolitical, revolution, discourse, etc. stuff to get to that point...

 

No, debaters aren't looking for a star, they want the judge's paradigm shifted and evolved to meet the means in the round. If the judge does so, then they are inclined to sign the ballot for the paradigm he has shifted or evolved into. It's not the paper that is the judge's endorsement, it's the paper that PROVES the judges endorsement. He/She is required to make a big decision, if his endorsement changes, he/she SHOULD sign the ballot. You're right, but the argument works, and some debaters out there have nothing to lose, and don't care, but use debate as an activist activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hehe. i have successfully turned this into a debate. :P sorry people-i was simply trying to defend centralhighanalytico's point-which i thought was a good one.

 

ok but now to reply-thalushizzle-i agree as well. but also i don't think that in any way does setting up the "right framework" or just standing up in your 1AC & saying a bunch of stuff about genocide & then claiming that because you used the "proper discourse" should you win. a lot of teams do this & after their 1AC basically just blow off the entire round. this sort of automatic, easy win isn't really deserved, in my opinion. yeah-the ballot is an indication of who is the "best debater" but i hardly think that saying "genocide is bad" in your first speech warrants you a win or you as a "good debater".

 

now to reply to next2last03- there is no reason why if the judge shifts his paradigm & evolves, you automatically win. in that why-debaters are essentially "looking for a star". why the hell do you need it on the ballot, written down if the judge's paradigm already shifted? & the judge is by no means inclined to sign the ballot for the paradigm he has shifted or evolved into. like, what the hell? just because he switched or made a decision, does not mean that that team did the best debating or deserves to win. example to prove my point-basically if i shift/evolve a judge's paradigm because i just read a bunch of stuff in my 1AC that had awesome, convincing, persuasive tags-why on earth am in entitled to win? what if i just screwed the whole debate after that? what if i really do suck as a debater but i can fortunately read other shit that people write for me? do i automatically "win"? hell no! this is all my opinion-but i just view it as completely unjust/unfair/undeserving, etc. also-why does something (paper) need to prove the judges endorsement? isn't it enough for everyone to become enlightened & from there vote for the best debater? oh & p.s. to all those out there who do use debate for activism no matter of their winning/losing & use narratives & such-hella major props to you! you deserve much respect & love. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you mean? usually it is way more than some little cheesy, tacked on iv. sometimes it becomes the only voting issue (refer to my above posts on how i feel about that :D ). most teams-if they know what they're doing-will make it apriorie (sp???) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, with a good ind. voter, tied into some kritikal analysis of the opponents discourse.

 

i will agree that the team who evolves the judge's paradigm will most likely get the ballot, simply because that with that evolving paradigm, he will have some sway to their side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a good point, I also think that by evolving the paradigm you can have greater control over how the round goes because you can focus on winning the ballot by the paradigm you as the debater have set. Excuse me if I repeated you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah. the team will -most likely- get the ballot.unless the neg makes args. against their discourse or just make it not that big of a voting issue, or set up a reverse framework w/ their own discourse. but as i ranted above-an evolved paradigm is not enough justification for a team to win-in my mind.

 

ps.this is kinda to centralhighanalytico-discourse usually becomes kinda part of your framework. & when it gets to that point, it is waaaayy beyond an iv. it's how the judge views the round & votes, essentially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it kinda automatically becomes part of framework. cuz after all, if framework is the way that you want the judge to view the round & you want them to view it w/ your discourse in mind-than hell yes-it is framework. it depends on how you set things up & how you handle it. & how your discourse/framework differs. i would be sure to make it obvious that i am including discourse in framework for max. & ultra efficiency/benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now to reply to next2last03- there is no reason why if the judge shifts his paradigm & evolves, you automatically win. in that why-debaters are essentially "looking for a star". why the hell do you need it on the ballot, written down if the judge's paradigm already shifted? & the judge is by no means inclined to sign the ballot for the paradigm he has shifted or evolved into. like, what the hell? just because he switched or made a decision, does not mean that that team did the best debating or deserves to win. example to prove my point-basically if i shift/evolve a judge's paradigm because i just read a bunch of stuff in my 1AC that had awesome, convincing, persuasive tags-why on earth am in entitled to win? what if i just screwed the whole debate after that? what if i really do suck as a debater but i can fortunately read other shit that people write for me? do i automatically "win"? hell no! this is all my opinion-but i just view it as completely unjust/unfair/undeserving, etc. also-why does something (paper) need to prove the judges endorsement? isn't it enough for everyone to become enlightened & from there vote for the best debater? oh & p.s. to all those out there who do use debate for activism no matter of their winning/losing & use narratives & such-hella major props to you! you deserve much respect & love. :)

 

This is the entity formerly known as Next2Last....I never said if a judge shifts to the paradigm of that team they "Automatically win", I'm not ignorant. I rather explained it better why the ballot counts in round. It's proof of endorsement, thats it. If you read your 1Ac and it was good, and then the 2AC fell apart, the your AFF becomes mute.....don't try to pull exceptions to everything I'm saying.... If you really suck as a debater, you don't deserve a good case until you learn the right way to run it. No it's not enough, this is a competition, if I waste my time trying to shift and change people, I better get a win out of it, that is, If I deserve it. My last post answered all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

framework should be generally set up in the 1ac/nc. if not-you might as well go make an intrinsic perm. :D

 

 

greathouse-next2last-whoever you are-yes but you see if you already reaped the benefits of the switched paradigm/ discussed the discourse, hehe/etc. then why do you need a proof of endorsement? oh & i totally agree to the whole "if you really suck as a debater, you don't deserve a good case until you learn the right way to run it." but unfortunately a lot of people still do, even if they don't deserve them. & i'm not trying to pull exceptions to stuff you're saying. :rolleyes: sorry if it came off that way. :) i was just trying to make the point that just because you have this paradigm switch or whatever the hell we're talking about-doesn't make you a good debater. or deserving of a shiny gold star. haha. you're funny. it's like those debaters who use motivating/performance/narratives just to win & don't give jack. like the ones who maybe run an animal rights case & then you see them eating a burger. if you are trying to shift & change people-it would not be a waste of time-if that is your true intention. this is precisely what i was/am talking about. if you want to use debate as activism then more power to you but if you just want to use an activism type case & expect a win for that-not right. or cool. shame.

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...