Jump to content
jsmith36

Ideal paradigm

Recommended Posts

Therefore I contend that consistancy in decision making is the first criteria for a good paradigm. The second criteria would be aligning that decision making with what you want debate to be.

 

YES. If a judge consistently votes in a certain way or for debaters who frame the debate in a certain way, that judge is consistent and the debaters can either extremely easily adapt or whine about how Judge X doesn't want to hear their sweet new racism bad impact turn. All the other stuff about paradigms is moot - what matters is consistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will not shape the morality of the debaters involved through the ballot. At best, you will suppress existing racist tendencies they have.

 

What is the benefit to voting them down if it does not stop them from being racist? Why is it detrimental to morality to make claims that are obviously untrue?

 

Here's a different benefit. This argument isn't really acceptable in a lot of instances because policy debate has a lot of idiosyncrasies, but I think it applies in the context of morally reprehensible arguments like "racism good" because "racism is horrible" is, for the most part, a universally accepted truth - how we go about solving or mitigating racism is the debate, not whether it's bad.

 

So, if a school administrator or member of the press walked in to a debate round and heard a kid spewing off a couple hundred blatantly racist words per minute, their reaction would almost universally be one of horror and call for defunding of debate. School administrators also almost universally don't want any team associated with their school running racism bad. If you were a school administrator and your school ran a racism bad argument (assuming your school participated in the wiki), would you want that associated with your school online, even if no one heard it in a round? Absolutely not.

 

Debate is a free exchange of ideas and switch-side debate is good. These are two things I believe in extremely strongly. But spewing out racist BS flat out shouldn't be done because it's fundamentally morally awful, and judges who refuse to reward this behavior should not be condemned. There are plenty of other better ways to answer "racism bad," anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a different benefit. This argument isn't really acceptable in a lot of instances because policy debate has a lot of idiosyncrasies, but I think it applies in the context of morally reprehensible arguments like "racism good" because "racism is horrible" is, for the most part, a universally accepted truth - how we go about solving or mitigating racism is the debate, not whether it's bad.

 

So, if a school administrator or member of the press walked in to a debate round and heard a kid spewing off a couple hundred blatantly racist words per minute, their reaction would almost universally be one of horror and call for defunding of debate. School administrators also almost universally don't want any team associated with their school running racism bad. If you were a school administrator and your school ran a racism bad argument (assuming your school participated in the wiki), would you want that associated with your school online, even if no one heard it in a round? Absolutely not.

I agree with this, this makes sense.

 

Debate is a free exchange of ideas and switch-side debate is good. These are two things I believe in extremely strongly. But spewing out racist BS flat out shouldn't be done because it's fundamentally morally awful, and judges who refuse to reward this behavior should not be condemned. There are plenty of other better ways to answer "racism bad," anyway.

I disagree with this. The belief that we should reject morally reprehensible arguments is bad because the notion of what is or isn't "morally reprehensible" varies too much depending on the ethics of the judge who is involved.

 

If a team is so unskilled that they cannot defeat the argument that racism is good they deserve to lose the round. This should not be a difficult thing to do for any halfway competent team. Debating the "racism good" impact turns also gives debaters the skills they need to defeat those who advocate racism in contexts external to debate.

 

There is no moral benefit for refusing to listen to arguments that you perceive as illegitimate. By doing so, you replicate the logic of most racists.

 

I've heard bad judges appeal to "common sense" way too often to be comfortable with judges establishing their own arbitrary bright line as to what arguments are and are not acceptable. For a specific example, the "hegemony judge" I referenced earlier often uses "common sense" as his justification, while never admitting his obvious bias. The best solution is for the judge to judge the round as close to tab as is humanly possible.

Edited by Chaos
"the notion of" "while never admitting his obvious bias"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dudley:Debate is about having a claim and having warrants to back that claim up...if you are saying racism is good, that rape is good, that slavery is good, you have the evidence to back yourself up and it goes dropped by the other team then yeah you should win the damned debate. Bringing your personal morals and ethics into a round with the mindset that yours are right and the idea that if something violates them you are going to vote that team down is pretty close-minded. How can you make the argument that racism=good is a horribly immoral argument when you are saying that only your beliefs are right and therefore if you don't agree with them you are going to lose? Even if your morals are the morals of the majority, and the team you are voting down doesn't actually believe in the argument they're running, you have to agree that what you are doing is wrong and is judge intervention.

 

RJK:, how can you say you believe that debate is a FREE exchange of ideas and then say that you don't think racist evidence should be used?

 

I am not a racist, nor do I accept racist tendencies in my every day life, however, when I judge a round I go in as a literal blank slate. I don't have any pre-dispositions on any matter, whatever they want to run, whatever they advocate and what the other team answers with is what I vote on. To vote a team down because they run the Jesus CP(assuming it went conceded) just because I don't believe in Jesus is intervention, and that is the exact same thing you're saying is a good thing to do.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with this, this makes sense.

"morally reprehensible" varies too much depending on the ethics of the judge who is involved.

 

If a team is so unskilled that they cannot defeat the argument that racism is good they deserve to lose the round.

 

There is no moral benefit for refusing to listen to arguments that you perceive as illegitimate. By doing so, you replicate the logic of most racists.

 

I've heard bad judges appeal to "common sense" way too often to be comfortable with judges establishing their own arbitrary bright line as to what arguments are and are not acceptable. The best solution is for the judge to judge the round as close to tab as is humanly possible.

 

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RJK:, how can you say you believe that debate is a FREE exchange of ideas and then say that you don't think racist evidence should be used?

 

I didn't say "racist evidence." I said blatantly racist argumentation. That has no place in an academic exchange of ideas. Debate is better than that. Blatantly racist argumentation that says "white people are better than non-white people and should be privileged" doesn't belong in the activity, and I don't care if that makes me a genocidal censoring jerk. Note that I am making a distinction between this and "racism key to heg," which is a bad argument but slightly less morally reprehensible.

 

I also think a lot of your arguments hinge upon racism having any sort of ideological merit. It doesn't. If an argument has ideological merit (and if you can't make a distinction between "white people are the best bro!" and other types of argumentation, you're not thinking), it certainly does belong in debate. Anyone who thinks racism is good is wrong. Me saying "blatantly racist argumentation has no place in debate" does not mean that I think other arguments should be excluded.

 

I am not a racist, nor do I accept racist tendencies in my every day life, however, when I judge a round I go in as a literal blank slate.

 

=

 

"I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are black."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if a school administrator or member of the press walked in to a debate round and heard a kid spewing off a couple hundred blatantly racist words per minute, their reaction would almost universally be one of horror and call for defunding of debate. School administrators also almost universally don't want any team associated with their school running racism bad. If you were a school administrator and your school ran a racism bad argument (assuming your school participated in the wiki), would you want that associated with your school online, even if no one heard it in a round? Absolutely not.

 

this is the ONLY warranted argument which I concede... although, at this, it should be up to the debater and coaches on whether or not they run the risk of argument, but it's not up to the judge to drop them for it... and schools can apprehend a team and continue funding the activity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with this, this makes sense.

 

 

I disagree with this. The belief that we should reject morally reprehensible arguments is bad because the notion of what is or isn't "morally reprehensible" varies too much depending on the ethics of the judge who is involved.

 

If a team is so unskilled that they cannot defeat the argument that racism is good they deserve to lose the round. This should not be a difficult thing to do for any halfway competent team. Debating the "racism good" impact turns also gives debaters the skills they need to defeat those who advocate racism in contexts external to debate.

 

There is no moral benefit for refusing to listen to arguments that you perceive as illegitimate. By doing so, you replicate the logic of most racists.

 

I've heard bad judges appeal to "common sense" way too often to be comfortable with judges establishing their own arbitrary bright line as to what arguments are and are not acceptable. For a specific example, the "hegemony judge" I referenced earlier often uses "common sense" as his justification, while never admitting his obvious bias. The best solution is for the judge to judge the round as close to tab as is humanly possible.

 

this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is the ONLY warranted argument which I concede... although, at this, it should be up to the debater and coaches on whether or not they run the risk of argument, but it's not up to the judge to drop them for it... and schools can apprehend a team and continue funding the activity...

 

as someone who wants the debate community to survive and wants this activity to continue, as a judge I'm happy to assist debaters and coaches into choosing not to run blatantly racist arguments by publically and proudly saying that any team that makes even a minimal effort in answering these arguments or telling me the other team should lose for running blatantly racist/whatever arguments will win the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear everyone: Debate is an educational activity, as a game it is only beneficial insofar as that game enhances the knowledge of the participants. There are certain categories of knowledge that our game should reject. These are examples of those types of knowledge.

 

So what if it's abusurd!!! So is timecube... Are you getting pissed because their mindset is not consistent with the worlds generally accepted astro-planetary-mindset? no. Because no one gives a shit!!! And honestly! If they don't believe their argument, and no one else does, but the other team drops it, and they warranted their arguments, you're being biased in voting them down... it doesn't matter that it's abusurd! Policy debate is absurd, that's no reason to vote a team down... and what about the people who run, ethnocentrism good, or west is best... isn't that the same idea as racism, except on a larger scale (One group > others)? I have seen it run on and won many times...

 

You're not getting it. One of these is not like the others. Timecube never lead to lynchings. One of these isn't still prevalent in modern society. One of these isn't morally repugnant.

 

West is best makes arguments about scientific advancements and how the West should be allowed to make technological developments regardless of others cultural norms of traditional healing, etc. It makes a value judgment about certain characteristics of cultures, it does not make a blanket sweep about an entire ethnicity/race of people.

 

What about the other alternative of: find another damn way to try and win the round (I said this earlier.) I watched a team read a feminism aff. The negative said women should be raped because rape is key to survival sex. The aff's only response was that this argument is morally repugnant and the negative should lose for advocating such a position because it leads to the degradation of women. Guess who won the round on a 3-0? The aff.

 

And Chaos, I get it. You're a wannabe Nietzschean. Nietzsche can fuck off, there are some things that just should be universal ethics. I don't give a fuck if I exclude racists from our activity, they should be excluded.

Edited by Studley Dudley
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morality is what makes us civilized, rather than pure creatures of Darwinian habits. Even if it could be objectively shown that one race or gender is superior or inferior to others, that would not justify discrimination on account of those immutable traits. Why? Because it would not be moral or just.

 

Chaos is correct that morality can be a fuzzy line at times, however I don't think the racism example here is anywhere near that line. By far, the vast majority of civilized people, nations, and cultures acknowledge that racism is not legitimate or acceptable in proper society. Morality has gray areas, but racism isn't in there; it is a settled question.

 

Where there are actual ambiguities as to what is moral or civilized, then the judge should be hesitant to make a definitive statement as to what is moral or not and should defer to the arguments made in-round. But where humanity has taken a clear stand against a particular hateful ideology or despicable practice (slavery, genocide, torture, etc.), then the judge need not abandon that very humanity by giving weight to arguments that promote those ideas or practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I watched a team read a feminism aff. The negative said women should be raped because rape is key to survival sex. The aff's only response was that this argument is morally repugnant and the negative should lose for advocating such a position because it leads to the degradation of women. Guess who won the round on a 3-0? The aff.

 

 

Okay; If it's that easy to defeat the arguments... why do you care if they run them? I never argued you HAVE to vote on those arguments... Only if the other team DOESN'T answer them.

 

West is best makes arguments about scientific advancements and how the West should be allowed to make technological developments regardless of others cultural norms of traditional healing, etc. It makes a value judgment about certain characteristics of cultures, it does not make a blanket sweep about an entire ethnicity/race of people.

 

Okay... you're saying ethnocentrism... which is what justified slavery is okay, but directly saying racism isn't? Ethnocentrism is what justified racism and the Nazis... and it's okay? <-- turn.

 

Dear everyone: Debate is an educational activity, as a game it is only beneficial insofar as that game enhances the knowledge of the participants. There are certain categories of knowledge that our game should reject. These are examples of those types of knowledge.

 

Okay... why can't we learn how racism is bad? Because if a team says it's good... the only logical answer is that it's bad... so... we shouldn't learn reasons why racism is bad? What would Martin Luther King Jr. say?

 

And Chaos' date=' I get it. You're a wannabe Nietzschean. Nietzsche can fuck off, there are some things that just should be universal ethics. I don't give a fuck if I exclude racists from our activity, they should be excluded. [/quote'] Rejecting certain ideas and philosophies is just as close-minded as racism.

 

Morality is what makes us civilized, rather than pure creatures of Darwinian habits. Even if it could be objectively shown that one race or gender is superior or inferior to others, that would not justify discrimination on account of those immutable traits. Why? Because it would not be moral or just.

 

Chaos is correct that morality can be a fuzzy line at times, however I don't think the racism example here is anywhere near that line. By far, the vast majority of civilized people, nations, and cultures acknowledge that racism is not legitimate or acceptable in proper society. Morality has gray areas, but racism isn't in there; it is a settled question.

 

Where there are actual ambiguities as to what is moral or civilized, then the judge should be hesitant to make a definitive statement as to what is moral or not and should defer to the arguments made in-round. But where humanity has taken a clear stand against a particular hateful ideology or despicable practice (slavery, genocide, torture, etc.), then the judge need not abandon that very humanity by giving weight to arguments that promote those ideas or practices.

 

We aren't saying the judge MUST believe it, but we are saying that they believe we debated better. plain and simple... there is no morality in this issue.

 

as someone who wants the debate community to survive and wants this activity to continue, as a judge I'm happy to assist debaters and coaches into choosing not to run blatantly racist arguments by publically and proudly saying that any team that makes even a minimal effort in answering these arguments or telling me the other team should lose for running blatantly racist/whatever arguments will win the round.
Name 3 times that a entire program has shut down because of 1 argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay; If it's that easy to defeat the arguments... why do you care if they run them? I never argued you HAVE to vote on those arguments... Only if the other team DOESN'T answer them.

Education, we've been over this.

 

Okay... you're saying ethnocentrism... which is what justified slavery is okay, but directly saying racism isn't? Ethnocentrism is what justified racism and the Nazis... and it's okay? <-- turn.

Nazis wore pants, you wear pants, you're a Nazi.

 

Okay... why can't we learn how racism is bad? Because if a team says it's good... the only logical answer is that it's bad... so... we shouldn't learn reasons why racism is bad? What would Martin Luther King Jr. say?

 

Also: a team does not have to say racism good in order for another team to racism bad. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would probably say that we should never discuss why racism is good because it is always bad.

 

Speaking of MLKj, you know with whom he fought all the time? Malcolm X. MLK said racism was bad, therefore Malcolm X was saying racism is good. That's your logic, right?

Did you SERIOUSLY just say that the only answer to racism bad is the impact turn?!?!?! You are a fucking retard, and I mean that in the least offensive way possible to people with IQs below 70, because you clearly must be amongst that group to think so.

 

Ever seen a debate between Towson and Liberty FH, or Emporia WW, etc. These are all teams that say racism bad. Here's a hint: They don't automatically concede the round and neither team says racism good. Or what about OU GW and Towson/Emporia? Or Baylor CM?

 

None of these teams say racism good and they all respond.

 

Rejecting certain ideas and philosophies is just as close-minded as racism.

Let me repeat this. One. Of. These. Things. Is. Not. Like. The. Other.

 

Also; pretty sure Nietzsche wasn't cool with racism. I believe you are what we here in the philosophy department would call a "passive nihilist."

 

We aren't saying the judge MUST believe it, but we are saying that they believe we debated better. plain and simple... there is no morality in this issue.

Minus the part where the argument you are advocating is morally repugnant.

 

Name 3 times that a entire program has shut down because of 1 argument.

Here's the thing about being a youngin'. You can't even remember as far back as 3 years ago when William Shannahan used to be a debate coach. And that's a collegiate program. Where there is much much less oversight/restrictions.

Edited by Studley Dudley
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay; If it's that easy to defeat the arguments... why do you care if they run them? I never argued you HAVE to vote on those arguments... Only if the other team DOESN'T answer them. They're moral issues. Maybe you've heard before that racism or dehumanization must always be denied, ideas in debate rounds don't stay there, and there are people who believe in that because, you know, they're being moral.

 

 

 

Okay... you're saying ethnocentrism... which is what justified slavery is okay, but directly saying racism isn't? Ethnocentrism is what justified racism and the Nazis... and it's okay? <-- turn. West is best is a shit argument, but it holds some value and warrant to be justified in its use. Saying Racism Good has no value except "hurr durr, impact turn" and "fuck the negroes, latinos, arabs, and all colors". It's a purposeless argument.

 

 

 

Okay... why can't we learn how racism is bad? Because if a team says it's good... the only logical answer is that it's bad... so... we shouldn't learn reasons why racism is bad? What would Martin Luther King Jr. say? We do learn how racism is bad, it's an integral part of history classes and most english classes.

 

Rejecting certain ideas and philosophies is just as close-minded as racism.

No, willful ignorance of certain ideas and philosophies is just as close-minded. I'm almost positive that Dudley understands Nietzsche.

 

 

We aren't saying the judge MUST believe it, but we are saying that they believe we debated better. plain and simple... there is no morality in this issue. This is fucking stupid. Racism IS a moral issue. You're being clinical about things, which is practically justifying the existance of racism.

 

Name 3 times that a entire program has shut down because of 1 argument. Maybe not an argument, but everyone should know about the whole Fort Hays thing

 

It was easier to write in the quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay; If it's that easy to defeat the arguments... why do you care if they run them? I never argued you HAVE to vote on those arguments... Only if the other team DOESN'T answer them.

So you're saying that, whether or not the judge is persuaded by an argument, he or she must vote on it if it is dropped by the opposition?

 

That would seem to be at odds with what you write below:

 

We aren't saying the judge MUST believe it, but we are saying that they believe we debated better. plain and simple... there is no morality in this issue.

 

If you do not persuade the judge that your position is just or humane, and the judge is ultimately unpersuaded by your advocacy for that reason, then have you debated better?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(take a lesson from the PuFo kids who got their right to stand during CX formally revoked by the NFL because of some fistfight)

 

This is a myth whispered in hallways before rounds. Sometimes the mythical fighting teams change; other times it wasn't a fistfight but a pen-stab.

 

In any case, this myth not only never happened but is provably false. NFL does instruct debaters to sit where ALL FOUR debaters are cross-examining each other, but does not say anything about the other two of three examination periods.

 

That said, carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the thing about being a youngin'. You can't even remember as far back as 3 years ago when William Shannahan used to be a debate coach. And that's a collegiate program. Where they is much much less oversight/restrictions.

 

THIS. This was my first thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Education, we've been over this.

 

 

Nazis wore pants, you wear pants, you're a Nazi.

 

 

Did you SERIOUSLY just say that the only answer to racism bad is the impact turn?!?!?! You are a fucking retard, and I mean that in the least offensive way possible to people with IQs below 70, because you clearly must be amongst that group to think so.

 

Ever seen a debate between Towson and Liberty FH, or Emporia WW, etc. These are all teams that say racism bad. Here's a hint: They don't automatically concede the round and neither team says racism good. Or what about OU GW and Towson/Emporia? Or Baylor CM?

 

None of these teams say racism good and they all respond.

 

 

Let me repeat this. One. Of. These. Things. Is. Not. Like. The. Other.

 

Minus the part where the argument you are advocating is morally repugnant.

 

 

Here's the thing about being a youngin'. You can't even remember as far back as 3 years ago when William Shannahan used to be a debate coach. And that's a collegiate program. Where they is much much less oversight/restrictions.

 

Well my post was kind of pointless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Education, we've been over this. Look below to the other edu. one.

 

 

Nazis wore pants, you wear pants, you're a Nazi. Nazis weren't Nazis because they were pants... they were Nazis and justified it because they were ethnocentric. There is a big difference between ethnocentrism and pants bud.

 

 

 

Also: a team does not have to say racism good in order for another team to racism bad. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would probably say that we should never discuss why racism is good because it is always bad.

 

Speaking of MLKj, you know with whom he fought all the time? Malcolm X. MLK said racism was bad, therefore Malcolm X was saying racism is good. See below. And as for Rawrcat... if we can learn that in school... what's the point of debate... what can't we learn in school... under that logic, that it's "possible" to learn it in school... then why not get rid of debate? I mean there's philosophy class, poli. sci., s.s., and history... why is debate needed at all then?

That's your logic, right?

Did you SERIOUSLY just say that the only answer to racism bad is the impact turn?!?!?! You are a fucking retard, and I mean that in the least offensive way possible to people with IQs below 70, because you clearly must be amongst that group to think so. You are mis-understanding my argument. I said to answer Racism Good you almost always have to say Racism Bad. You are misconstruding the logic... Just because something has an answer doesn't mean it automatically is the same when reversed. You don't need Racism Good to say Racism Bad, but to ANSWER Racism good you almost always have to say Racism Bad, or risk losing the link. And the fact you are calling me a retard is funny! Way to get emotional bud!

 

Ever seen a debate between Towson and Liberty FH, or Emporia WW, etc. These are all teams that say racism bad. Here's a hint: They don't automatically concede the round and neither team says racism good. Or what about OU GW and Towson/Emporia? Or Baylor CM?

 

None of these teams say racism good and they all respond. Look above.

 

Let me repeat this. One. Of. These. Things. Is. Not. Like. The. Other. Rawrcat actually gave a good answer to this. I concede this.

 

Also; pretty sure Nietzsche wasn't cool with racism. I believe you are what we here in the philosophy department would call a "passive nihilist." Just because I am arguing teams should be able to run any argument does make me nihilistic bud...

 

Minus the part where the argument you are advocating is morally repugnant. But if no one believes it, it doesn't effect anyone... than why do you care?

 

 

Here's the thing about being a youngin'. You can't even remember as far back as 3 years ago when William Shannahan used to be a debate coach. And that's a collegiate program. Where there is much much less oversight/restrictions. I didn't know about this... please explain in more detail... and this is only 1 too.

 

 

So you're saying that, whether or not the judge is persuaded by an argument, he or she must vote on it if it is dropped by the opposition?

 

That would seem to be at odds with what you write below:

 

If you do not persuade the judge that your position is just or humane, and the judge is ultimately unpersuaded by your advocacy for that reason, then have you debated better? Answering a position is different than persuation... I said if they don't answer it, vote racism good... if they answer it, go ahead and vote the racism team down... this is ALL I have been trying to say.

 

I find the people who are getting emotional funny!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find the people who are getting emotional funny!

Oh, so you're that smelly kid that always smarts off in class to try and impress people who don't want to associate with you?

Also, racism is a touchy subject that is pretty much a major moral issue, therefore not something to view clinically as you and many others are doing.

 

 

I'm only going to answer the one point that I was address in (argumentatively), partially because I'll get all pissy if I do more and because you're mostly debating Studley Dudley at this point. Debate's sole purpose is not education. That is a large part and every part of debate gears towards that to some extent, but it is a competition of logical application of arguments.

You're assuming that education cannot be achieved outside of debate, which is one of the stupidest and most arrogant things to think. And I'll go ahead and say the use of project affirmatives is just another way to contextualize racism to a group in society that's mostly buffered from the effects of racism, since I'm sure that's what you're wanting to make a point about next.

Edited by The Debater Formerly Known As Rawrcat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Answering a position is different than persuation...

Yes...

 

I said if they don't answer it, vote racism good... if they answer it, go ahead and vote the racism team down... this is ALL I have been trying to say.

No. That's just wrong. Ideas are not inherently persuasive. In a complete vacuum, if you are presented with an argument, you still have the option to accept it or reject it. You do not need to have counterargument in order to reject an idea that you find unpersuasive on its own merits.

 

So why is the rule separate for judges? Why must a judge accept all arguments for which there is no counter given by the opposition no matter how ridiculous or unpersuasive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. That's just wrong. Ideas are not inherently persuasive. In a complete vacuum, if you are presented with an argument, you still have the option to accept it or reject it. You do not need to have counterargument in order to reject an idea that you find unpersuasive on its own merits.

although i agree with most of what you said, i believe it is the opposing debater's burden to show whether an argument is valid or not, not the judge. if the team that presents it gives no reason to accept the arg, its fine to vote how you want but if the arg is not persuasive but dropped and has a warrant, the opposing debater has failed to meet their burden and should not win the argument. you are not evaluating args in a vacuum, but in a debate round, where both teams are supposed to weigh in on the merits of all arguments presented and decide for you. basically what i am trying to say is the reason to vote down an arg should be articulated by the opposing team, and if not you should not reject it because that is interventionist, which is generally accepted to be bad in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're not getting it. One of these is not like the others. Timecube never lead to lynchings. One of these isn't still prevalent in modern society. One of these isn't morally repugnant.

 

So, why is it okay for teams to run the Cap K and advocate Marxism, a communist revolution, and complete upheaval of society as we know it, which has historically lead to the Gulags and other horrors worse than lynchings, but not racism good? Even if not all out communist in the alternatives, many Cap K's endorse the destruction of capitalism, which necessarily entails something more strongly socialist arising.

 

People have strong feelings against communism, too; American society can barely stand the concept or brand of socialism today, let alone full on communist thought.

 

One is commonly advocated, though, and one isn't. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

Originally Posted by codyarmstrong

I am not a racist, nor do I accept racist tendencies in my every day life, however, when I judge a round I go in as a literal blank slate.

 

 

 

 

=

 

"I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are black."

 

 

Wow...just because I believe debate is an activity where you should be allowed to run whatever the fuck you want without any fear of being voted down because of somebody's(whether it be the majority or otherwise) morals disagrees with the argument I am a racist? I am not trying to justify that racism is a good thing you dumb fuck, I am trying to justify that arguments should be run without any pre-conceived perceptions on said argument. If a team straight up drops an argument, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, that affects the case and gives them the round, they should have the ability to win on it. Whether the team that runs it, the team that is supposed to refute it, or the judge actually believes it DOES NOT MATTER, because the fact that it went dropped does not change.

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...