Jump to content
jsmith36

Ideal paradigm

Recommended Posts

One is commonly advocated, though, and one isn't. Why?
Because "racism good" is not a philosophy, it's idiocy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because "racism good" is not a philosophy, it's idiocy.

 

So if it's a philosophy leading to lynchings and mass murder it's cool?

 

disclaimer: I support marxist-communism. This is just to prove a point.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

This has been my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the fact that it was dropped DOES NOT MATTER, because the fact that it is saying racism good does not change.

 

See what I did there? Except mine is more persuasive than yours.

 

Look below to the other edu. one.

You have yet to justify why debate should be a forum for education about racism being good, or why education about racism good in general is something we should learn.

 

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.

Clearly you missed the joke. Saying West is best because science saves peoples lives is not Nazism. None of the other "West is best" arguments get ran because they're all "other people are savages and inherently inferior to whites." which is racist and no one is dumb enough to say that because they know that 99% of judges will vote them down for being racist.

 

 

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.

 

 

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!

 

I called you a retard because no one with an IQ over 70 would be advocating your position. Now pray tell, what's the link to the "racism good" argument if the other team doesn't say racism is bad? Hmm? I've NEVER seen the racism good K run in a round because it doesn't fucking exist. I have no problem with people saying racism bad, hell teams do it all the damn time without teams saying racism good. So either you're a retard because the impact turn is not the only answer. Or you're a retard because you brought up a non-sequitor because no one ever does it. Existential fallacy.

 

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

You do realize this is the thesis of the entirety of my argument, right? If it is true that racism/sexism are uniquely distinct positions from every other position in debate, then it is completely valid to exclude racist and sexist "arguments" from the debate arena. Oops.

 

Just because I am arguing teams should be able to run any argument does make me nihilistic bud...

 

We agree, you're a passive nihilist. I didn't even have to doctor the quote for this.

 

But if no one believes it, it doesn't effect anyone... than why do you care?

 

You've got to be kidding me. "If no one believes it." Then why, why, why, why, why, should judges give adherence to these arguments? If absolutely no one believes it, then a decision maker should not grant adherence to a claim. If no one believes it, it has no purpose being a claim. If it doesn't affect* anyone, then why make the argument. Trust me, the ONLY time you will ever get the chance to say racism good is against a team that fully believes every argument they are making. Most of them include personal narratives. That is fucked up that you think it's okay to remove yourself from an ethically responsible decision to make an argument that is morally repugnant to win a debate round. Man, get your priorities straight. Life first, then debate.

 

 

I didn't know about this... please explain in more detail... and this is only 1 too.

You're seriously going to pull the "this is one example" bullshit? Dude, the fact that it has happened is enough. A debate program was shut down because of an exchange that took place because of the arguments Fort Hays read against the arguments Towson read. Someone lost their job, their academic tenure, and an entire college got their debate program shut down. The fact that "it's just 1" is stupid.

 

 

THIS IS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS!

Get cancer before you post.

Edited by Studley Dudley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can everyone just chillll out?

 

 

There's no real answer to this question, just a difference in Judge/coach Paradigm.

 

As a coach, I will never endorse any of my students running a Racism Good position. In fact, i'm going to scrub my files of any of those cards from our dropbox ASAP so someone I coach never gets the bright idea of using them. From a school point of view, I would find it very hard to have to explain to any of the following:

 

an administrator/ faculty committee/ school board/ (and/or) Parent committee / Boosters

 

Why my students were saying 'racism good' to try and win a debate round.

 

 

I wouldn't condone anyone I coach running these arguments because they're 1. Repugnant, but 2. Strategically an EPIC FAIL. The answers are so easily constructed even sans evidence and most judges have a very low threshold to accepting defense, turns or even badly worded rhetoric offense or even abuse stories about them.

 

I think a decent novice team could analytically convince all three judges to vote down a racist position run by excellent open debaters.

 

 

 

JUDGING IS DIFFERENT

Thus getting to how I judge these:

 

I'm not going to drop you just because you ran Racism good, but you better be ready to answer EVERYTHING, and EVERYTHING TO MY SATISFACTION if you want to win the round. There are many strategies to go about refuting and the anti-racism literature is everywhere-- in addition to discursive impacts and out-of-round impacts, and impacts to debate in general.

 

It's going to be tough, but not impossible. Any team that has a chance of losing to a team running 'racism good' in front of me, I can assure you was not the better team in that round. The threshold here is probably lower than any other issue in debate, I don't need much to vote against a racist position.

 

I do buy into the argument about education--see my policy about teams I coach. But I just think my job as a judge is to provide a fair round. A fair round is one where my personal ethics and prejudices and political leanings don't interfere with my personal debate norms (how I judge) the line there is the one that is blurry.

Dudley has made it clear that this is one place where his personal ethics and personal debate norms have blended, and that's fine-- That's something that might go into a paradigm so teams are aware and you're not wasting anyone's time. We don't look at slight differences in paradigm as a "totally illegit" judge.

 

 

 

I have another solution to this kind of thing as well--Whenever I see a team run a position I think might be problematic to run because of out of round issues, I try to bring it up with their coach and make them aware of what's going on so they can take the appropriate action.

 

For example, one of my friends saw a round this year that involved some performance aff that (from what I can gather) consisted of passing around a lot of porn mags to make the other team feel uncomfortable and then make arguments about that to win the round somehow. THIS IS DANGEROUS.

 

^^That's the kind of thing that can become huge depending on who it's run against, how sexually harassed they feel, and how much noise someone wants to make of it. This kind of story gets back to the school and you might have a debate program shut down. So yeah, I think ultimately, it's a coach's job to prevent this kind of stuff.

Edited by TejaVepa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Why?

 

I say, "Judge, I win this argument only if my opponent tries to rebut it; if my opponent remains silent, then I lose this argument." If my opponent does leave it untouched, do I win that argument by her drop?

 

I say, "Blah, blah, bleech, Betty Boop, Brontosaurus, Bronchitis, Blah Blah." Does my opponent have to respond in order to keep me from winning that argument?

 

I think the answer to both questions is no, but that is at odds with your idea that a drop means the argument is an automatic winner for the team that ran it. The first example shows that a judge is not a blind slave to the drop, just because an argument is dropped doesn't mean that it's a winner. The judge is allowed to use tools of analysis (including logic) to determine who (if anyone) wins an argument, even if it is dropped.

 

The second example is along the lines of the racism example. If I spout gibberish, that's not a persuasive argument and no response is required. (At best, a drop would be of zero strategic consequence because nothing of any value or merit was conceded.) The same is true of arguments that are not gibberish, but still fail to meet the judge's basic level of persuasion. If the judge is not persuaded that an argument has any merit when it is first read, why must he assign merit to the argument based on a drop?

 

Why does an argument automatically become more meritorious when its designated opponent does not engage it head-on? Given that: prior to the silence, it was not a persuasive argument in the judge's mind. Walk me through the logical steps that turn it into a persuasive argument when no new content is added to it by either side.

 

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.

True, there are special rules and customs that apply in competitive debate that do not exist in "real world" argumentation, but the overall logical and persuasive tools of argumentation remain the same. If something is not a persuasive argument when it is presented, then it does not automatically gain persuasive power merely by others' silence (particularly when that silence is motivated by a desire to avoid granting any appearance of worth or merit to the idea).

 

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.

 

You're going to have to offer a more concrete definition of "interventionist" because the way you used it here makes me think that judging the whole round is interventionist. Teams were having nice back-and-forth arguments until these so-called "judges" came in and started declaring winners and losers based on whose evidence they believed or whose arguments were more persuasive.

 

We appear to agree that once an argument is admitted to the judge's analysis, it should carry through the round and be counted for whichever team ran it unless there is some sort of rebuttal or counter by the opposing team. Our disagreement is whether it is legitimate for the judge to have any standards for what arguments he admits to that analysis. I'm arguing standards are permissible, largely focused around whether the proponent of the argument makes at least a basic persuasive presentation in favor of the argument.

 

It is your contention that the judge must include everything in his analysis of the round, even if it is nonsense, ridiculous, offensive, illegal, or in French?

 

On that note: how would you judge a round that looked like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ

Edited by Fox On Socks
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Independent of my opinion on the legitimacy of a judge deciding not to vote for offensive evilness without prior notice, this can be easily solved. As we all agreed back on page 1, there is almost no problem that cannot be fixed by the judge deciding consistently, and telling debaters in advance how that decision will occur.

On the nat'l circuit these days, most tournaments and/or head coaches expect their judges to post paradigms on the wiki or somewhere equivalent. We have our decision criteria written already, so just save some time berating assholes by posting that now.

If you want, here is a model:

Acting offensively – denigrating the other team, racist comments etc (in particular, if I hear you using the word 'gay', ‘fag’, ‘queer’… as an adjective meaning 'stupid' or similar), are potentially reasons to stop the round (horrific speaks) and definitely reasons to vote against you.

 

To the ones defending the 'right' to say racist things:

1. Don't do it.

2. If the judge's paradigm includes a statement of this sort, don't do it.

We are literally saying "don't say racist things in front of us." If we tell you that in advance, it solves all of your offense except for reasons why it is uniquely good to say racist things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why?

 

I say, "Judge, I win this argument only if my opponent tries to rebut it; if my opponent remains silent, then I lose this argument." If my opponent does leave it untouched, do I win that argument by her drop?

 

I say, "Blah, blah, bleech, Betty Boop, Brontosaurus, Bronchitis, Blah Blah." Does my opponent have to respond in order to keep me from winning that argument?

 

I think the answer to both questions is no, but that is at odds with your idea that a drop means the argument is an automatic winner for the team that ran it. The first example shows that a judge is not a blind slave to the drop, just because an argument is dropped doesn't mean that it's a winner. The judge is allowed to use tools of analysis (including logic) to determine who (if anyone) wins an argument, even if it is dropped.

 

The second example is along the lines of the racism example. If I spout gibberish, that's not a persuasive argument and no response is required. (At best, a drop would be of zero strategic consequence because nothing of any value or merit was conceded.) The same is true of arguments that are not gibberish, but still fail to meet the judge's basic level of persuasion. If the judge is not persuaded that an argument has any merit when it is first read, why must he assign merit to the argument based on a drop?

 

Why does an argument automatically become more meritorious when its designated opponent does not engage it head-on? Given that: prior to the silence, it was not a persuasive argument in the judge's mind. Walk me through the logical steps that turn it into a persuasive argument when no new content is added to it by either side.

 

 

True, there are special rules and customs that apply in competitive debate that do not exist in "real world" argumentation, but the overall logical and persuasive tools of argumentation remain the same. If something is not a persuasive argument when it is presented, then it does not automatically gain persuasive power merely by others' silence (particularly when that silence is motivated by a desire to avoid granting any appearance of worth or merit to the idea).

 

 

 

You're going to have to offer a more concrete definition of "interventionist" because the way you used it here makes me think that judging the whole round is interventionist. Teams were having nice back-and-forth arguments until these so-called "judges" came in and started declaring winners and losers based on whose evidence they believed or whose arguments were more persuasive.

 

We appear to agree that once an argument is admitted to the judge's analysis, it should carry through the round and be counted for whichever team ran it unless there is some sort of rebuttal or counter by the opposing team. Our disagreement is whether it is legitimate for the judge to have any standards for what arguments he admits to that analysis. I'm arguing standards are permissible, largely focused around whether the proponent of the argument makes at least a basic persuasive presentation in favor of the argument.

 

It is your contention that the judge must include everything in his analysis of the round, even if it is nonsense, ridiculous, offensive, illegal, or in French?

 

On that note: how would you judge a round that looked like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ

 

i think that most of your examples are extremes, not the usual debate round, and in extreme instances intervention is inevitable, in fact, a small degree of interventionism is inevitable as you said. however, they point is for the debaters to debate the issue, not the judge. the judge should objectively look at both arguments and see which side is most persuasive. although this is not always possible, in most debate rounds it is. if you find an argument unpersuasive because they spouted gibberish, then dont vote on it. however, if they spouted gibberish and said "i should win for x,y and z" and the opponent says nothing, not even that the argument is ridiculous, if it has warrants it should be evaluated. you say that an argument does not become more persuasive if an opponent does not respond. therefore, there is no reason presented to reject the argument. if the argument is in french, it does not get the team anywhere in the debate, but there is no objective reason to reject it without it being said in-round. otherwise, you are giving your own reasons for why an argument should not be evaluated, which is akin to saying "i find zombies impacts ridiculous, even if the other team made no comparative impact calc while the zombies team did (which for this example, we will assume they did it well), i do not think zombies are plausible so they should not win." the team "proved" zombies are possible, no refutation was made, and yet you would still reject it based on your own preconceived notions? and maybe it is stated in your paradigm you do not think zombies exist and cannot be convinced otherwise. but is it possible to list every unpersuasive argument when giving a paradigm or posting it on the wiki? unless you do so, any time a decision is made because an arg you did not specifically specify you do not like is presented, left unanswered and then rejected, it makes the whole round horribly unfair and unpredictable and lessens people's interest in the activity because it is a luck of the draw, not argumentative skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I made no reference to Nietzsche in my earlier argument.

 

My argument is that the logical extension of objective judging is to not presume that certain things are or are not morally reprehensible. An argument should not be presumed untrue by the judge before he has considered the argument in the context presented by the debaters. Only this framework is able to check bad interventionist judging.

 

Setting a brightline based on what is "morally reprehensible" fails because of the wide variety of opinions among judges on what is morally reprehensible. Judges from the extreme right might believe that rejecting hegemony is morally reprehensible because it allows for a new Hitler to take power, and judges from the extreme left might believe that arguments such as "we should stay in Afghanistan" are reprehensible because we are killing innocent civilians, yet neither should intervene.

 

Many other impact turns, such as Indo-Pak war good, are morally reprehensible because they functionally advocate mass murder, yet I don't think that you would reject them automatically. Your judging philosophy is extremely inconsistent if you arbitrarily reject certain morally reprehensible arguments and not others, you might want to consider that.

 

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.

I think that this type of argument is dangerous because its only warrant, if it can even be called that, is an appeal to popularity. At other points in history, nonracist arguments would have been rejected automatically on the basis of this standard.

 

Many other arguments within debate must be rejected if popularity is the determinant of what arguments are and are not acceptable. If the community decides to adopt this ethic we'll have to say goodbye to almost every single impact turn, the Capitalism K, and any other counterintuitive argument.

 

By making popularity the determinant of what arguments are acceptable, we necessarily justify the marginalization of all uncommon idealogies, thus homogenizing debate and removing one of the activities most unique and valuable skills, the ability to think in counterintuitive ways and to defend ideas which are not commonplace.

 

My argument is not that debaters should read racist arguments, but that the justifications which have been provided for preventing them from doing so are counterproductive. (This does not apply to RJK's post.) I believe that debaters should not read racist arguments because they are unstrategic and because they may hurt debate programs, as RJK mentioned earlier in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil would love to post on this thread, but Phil would feel obliged to a minimum of 1000 words in order to adequately explain his position on this issue. Phil is not that active, and Phil would like to sincerely apologize for his lethargy.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, are you a coach Phil? (this doesn't pertain to anything said in this thread, I'm just wondering if you are the Phil from CDI)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of curiosity, are you a coach Phil? (this doesn't pertain to anything said in this thread, I'm just wondering if you are the Phil from CDI)

 

lol-wut.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil would love to post on this thread, but Phil would feel obliged to a minimum of 1000 words in order to adequately explain his position on this issue. Phil is not that active, and Phil would like to sincerely apologize for his lethargy.

This is #1 for you, because of the reaction it caused.

 

Jschroe is not even really named Phil, sorry for any confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol oh okay...and i went to CDI this summer and there was a lecturer named phil, but i cant remember his last name and kerpen kinda sounded like thats what it could have been so i was just wondering if it was him or not, sorry for the confusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I made no reference to Nietzsche in my earlier argument.

 

My argument is that the logical extension of objective judging is to not presume that certain things are or are not morally reprehensible. An argument should not be presumed untrue by the judge before he has considered the argument in the context presented by the debaters. Only this framework is able to check bad interventionist judging.

 

Setting a brightline based on what is "morally reprehensible" fails because of the wide variety of opinions among judges on what is morally reprehensible. Judges from the extreme right might believe that rejecting hegemony is morally reprehensible because it allows for a new Hitler to take power, and judges from the extreme left might believe that arguments such as "we should stay in Afghanistan" are reprehensible because we are killing innocent civilians, yet neither should intervene.

 

This is a Nietzschean argument about the subjectivity of morality and the inability to universalize ethical claims because of various disagreeing ethical opinions. Fuck Nietzsche.

 

Many other impact turns, such as Indo-Pak war good, are morally reprehensible because they functionally advocate mass murder, yet I don't think that you would reject them automatically. Your judging philosophy is extremely inconsistent if you arbitrarily reject certain morally reprehensible arguments and not others, you might want to consider that.

Of the examples you have given (afghanistan, heg, and indo-pak) none of these things are pervasive and have an effect on society as racism does. None. Racism good is the most likely argument to have an implication from the argument that takes place in the room to the way it affects the debaters, judge, and any people viewing the debate. Let me say this for a third time: One of these is not like the other. Not only that, but 9 times out of 10 the only reason a team will get to say racism good is because the other team is reading "the project" (scare quotes). Indo-pak war good, et al, are not something that offensive relative to racism good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a Nietzschean argument about the subjectivity of morality and the inability to universalize ethical claims because of various disagreeing ethical opinions. Fuck Nietzsche.

 

 

Of the examples you have given (afghanistan, heg, and indo-pak) none of these things are pervasive and have an effect on society as racism does. None. Racism good is the most likely argument to have an implication from the argument that takes place in the room to the way it affects the debaters, judge, and any people viewing the debate. Let me say this for a third time: One of these is not like the other. Not only that, but 9 times out of 10 the only reason a team will get to say racism good is because the other team is reading "the project" (scare quotes). Indo-pak war good, et al, are not something that offensive relative to racism good.

 

To be clear here Brian, I probably agree with everything you are saying, I think it is fine if somebody does not evaluate things such as "racism good" because it is horribly offensive.

 

However, that being said I do feel Chaos's args about morality being subjective. For example just a few posts ago you constantly referred to another poster as a "retard" and his arguments "retarded". I find just as horribly offensive, and just as exclusionary as people saying racist slurs (imagine the outrage if somebody called another argument "niggardly").Unlike the stupid Indo-Pak reference this IS the same thing, why is one ok and not the other?

 

I'm not saying due to the ambiguous nature of morality here (you think discriminating against race is bad but not disability) we should reject all morality, I'm saying if you are going to take the position that being offensive is wrong than don't put don't put double standards on it.

 

Also, if this was a debate round and one team reads "racism good" and then other responds with "that's retarded", who do I reject? Is defending "racism good" for you a reason not to vote for a team or just a reason not to vote on those claims? Because I feel if you are saying that you will refuse to vote for a team that says "racism good" it more or less makes deciding a ballot impossible when the other team responds just as offensively. Another problem with just straight rejecting the team means that it would mean invalidating everything else they said (for example do I ignore your args about not being racist because you also said retarded? Where do we draw the line?). I think when judging it would just be safer to reject the arg, not the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a Nietzschean argument about the subjectivity of morality and the inability to universalize ethical claims because of various disagreeing ethical opinions. Fuck Nietzsche.

This doesn't refute my warrants at all.

 

I find the word "fuck" offensive because it degrades women. Many judges do also. Should you lose a debate round for using that word?

 

I'm not saying that universal ethics don't exist, I'm saying that they should be debated about, that solves any risk of any nonexistent offense that you might pretend to access.

 

Of the examples you have given (afghanistan, heg, and indo-pak) none of these things are pervasive and have an effect on society as racism does. None. Racism good is the most likely argument to have an implication from the argument that takes place in the room to the way it affects the debaters, judge, and any people viewing the debate.

While racism is more likely to effect the lives of individuals involved within the activity, that doesn't refute the fact that it is often considered morally reprehensible to argue that wars are a good thing.

 

Let me say this for a third time: One of these is not like the other. Not only that, but 9 times out of 10 the only reason a team will get to say racism good is because the other team is reading "the project" (scare quotes). Indo-pak war good, et al, are not something that offensive relative to racism good.

This is a claim without a warrant. Stop making assertions and start making arguments.

 

Additionally, even if I were to concede that racism is more offensive than war (it's not), that still doesn't refute the fact that it is morally reprehensible. If you think that war doesn't matter then you're the one engaging in relativist ethics, not me.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be clear here Brian, I probably agree with everything you are saying, I think it is fine if somebody does not evaluate things such as "racism good" because it is horribly offensive.

 

However, that being said I do feel Chaos's args about morality being subjective. For example just a few posts ago you constantly referred to another poster as a "retard" and his arguments "retarded". I find just as horribly offensive, and just as exclusionary as people saying racist slurs (imagine the outrage if somebody called another argument "niggardly").Unlike the stupid Indo-Pak reference this IS the same thing, why is one ok and not the other?

 

Look at the context of my post. I even acknowledge the potential liability for it to demean people born with a mental disability. My argument was that no one of a high intelligence could justify the argument that racism is good. That's not an insult or degradation upon the character of those who are mentally disabled*, but rather Jonathon, whom I was insulting.

 

*retarded is no longer a medically recognized term for people with an IQ lower than 70. It is now "mentally disabled". "retarded" is now as outdated as "moron" and "idiot". Anyone who wants to get their panties in a bunch over the 'r' word has to get their panties in a bunch over those terms as well, because they were also previous medical names for people with mental disabilities.

 

I'm not saying due to the ambiguous nature of morality here (you think discriminating against race is bad but not disability) we should reject all morality, I'm saying if you are going to take the position that being offensive is wrong than don't put don't put double standards on it.

 

Also, if this was a debate round and one team reads "racism good" and then other responds with "that's retarded", who do I reject? Is defending "racism good" for you a reason not to vote for a team or just a reason not to vote on those claims? Because I feel if you are saying that you will refuse to vote for a team that says "racism good" it more or less makes deciding a ballot impossible when the other team responds just as offensively. Another problem with just straight rejecting the team means that it would mean invalidating everything else they said (for example do I ignore your args about not being racist because you also said retarded? Where do we draw the line?). I think when judging it would just be safer to reject the arg, not the team.

 

My whole point has been that it is perfectly okay for the judge to reject the argument regardless of what the other team says. "That's retarded" is probably also an argument that is totally okay for me, as a judge, to ignore.

 

 

Additionally, even if I were to concede that racism is more offensive than war (it's not), that still doesn't refute the fact that it is morally reprehensible. If you think that war doesn't matter then you're the one engaging in relativist ethics, not me.

 

Dude, you don't get it. Racism good is more offensive to the team to whom you are saying it because 90% of the time that will be a "project team" than saying Indo-Pak war good. I'm not saying racism is more offensive than war, I'm saying that contextually the two arguments are drastically different in how they affect the individuals making and receiving those arguments.

 

This doesn't refute my warrants at all.

 

I find the word "fuck" offensive because it degrades women. Many judges do also. Should you lose a debate round for using that word?

 

I'm not saying that universal ethics don't exist, I'm saying that they should be debated about, that solves any risk of any nonexistent offense that you might pretend to access.

 

And this is the debate we're having, should we have a universal ethic that racism is bad (yes, we should), or not. I don't see any good argument for "not."

 

Also, you really think women can't fuck? Lesbians exist dude.

 

This is a claim without a warrant. Stop making assertions and start making arguments.

 

...racism is more likely to effect the lives of individuals involved within the activity...

 

That is my warrant, because it's more likely to actually have an impact on those watching, and debating, racism good is vastly different from "war good". You've already conceded the difference, you just thought it wasn't a warrant for a later argument. Embedded clash my friend, learn it.

Edited by Studley Dudley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the context of my post. I even acknowledge the potential liability for it to demean people born with a mental disability.

 

I realize that you had posited it that way in your original post, but using that rhetoric while fighting for equality on another front just makes me really uneasy and i feel it does in a certain way hurt your ethos. Even if you can reason away objections to it for yourself not everyone will view using that word in the same way. It just feels like it would be better suited to not say it.

 

My argument was that no one of a high intelligence could justify the argument that racism is good. That's not an insult or degradation upon the character of those who are mentally disabled*, but rather Jonathon, whom I was insulting.

 

I know but with that clarification you are explicitly saying "retarded" = one of not high intelligence. And that's just not only factually wrong, but ethically wrong as well.

 

Saying that using the word "retard" to just mean somebody is dumb does not equate to an insult to those who are mentally disabled is like saying that using the words "gay", "faggy", and "niggerish" to describe things would not be insulting either. I get the feeling that's not a position you want to be defending.

 

*retarded is no longer a medically recognized term for people with an IQ lower than 70. It is now "mentally disabled". "retarded" is now as outdated as "moron" and "idiot". Anyone who wants to get their panties in a bunch over the 'r' word has to get their panties in a bunch over those terms as well, because they were also previous medical names for people with mental disabilities.

 

*nigger is no longer a medically recognized term for people of African descent. It is now "African-American" and/or "Black". "Nigger" is now as outdated as "colored" or "coon"...so it's cool for me to say nigger.

 

^see how stupid that sounds? "Retard" has more or less recently been unrecognized as a medical term unlike the other two you mention, it still contains all of the connotations of meaning mentally disabled. And you know what maybe those other two words should stop being used, who knows? I haven't really heard much about the disabled community speaking out against their use, if i did I would probably start checking myself. However I have heard the disabled community calling heavily for people to stop using the term "retard" to mean somebody is stupid.

 

I'm not sure why you are being so defensive of your right to use the word "retard". I didn't want to debate you on this issue, I just wanted to point out it that using the word probably isn't that great for your ethos when you are arguing for people to stop being racists. Just look at this issue as if it was a debate:

One side presents an advocacy to challenge racism and accuses racists of being "retarded.

The obvious answer to this is PIC out of the word "retard". Solves your offense and has the NB of not excluding the mentally disabled as well as makes your message more accepted. All of your answers above were purely defensive, vote on risk of offense.

 

My whole point has been that it is perfectly okay for the judge to reject the argument regardless of what the other team says. "That's retarded" is probably also an argument that is totally okay for me, as a judge, to ignore.

 

thats fair, i was just curious about that aspect.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, you don't get it. Racism good is more offensive to the team to whom you are saying it because 90% of the time that will be a "project team" than saying Indo-Pak war good. I'm not saying racism is more offensive than war, I'm saying that contextually the two arguments are drastically different in how they affect the individuals making and receiving those arguments.

My defense:

1. There is no reason that an argument should be rejected simply because it is offensive. Many other arguments are also offensive but you have not rejected them. You have conceded my earlier point:

 

Additionally, even if I were to concede that racism is more offensive than war (it's not), that still doesn't refute the fact that it is morally reprehensible.

If you feel that arguments should be rejected because they are morally reprehensible, which was your initial argument in this thread, then your judging philosophy is extremely inconsistent.

 

2. There is no reason that a judge should care about whether or not individuals get offended by rational arguments. While certain arguments might impact the individuals more, it does not logically follow that these arguments should thus be rejected.

 

3. There is no reason that a team should be more offended by an impact turn that refers to others directly. This implies that an ethical theory which favors the self over others is somehow more just, which is patently false and which would also take out any justification for assumption #2.

And this is the debate we're having, should we have a universal ethic that racism is bad (yes, we should), or not. I don't see any good argument for "not."

My argument is not that we shouldn't adopt a universal ethic that racism is bad but rather that we should make debaters articulate reasons that these ethics exist before these ethics are applied.

 

My offense:

1. You've conceded that there is no benefit to rejecting the arguments of a racist team because it does not stop the racist thoughts behind their actions, that is something which only debate has a possibility of achieving.

 

2. It is vitally important that debaters are capable of proving that racism is bad if these debaters truly wish to combat racism. While other forums for learning these arguments exist, the probability that they confront these arguments in a "practice" situation dramatically increases if we allow switch side debate to run its course.

 

3. You've conceded that to refuse to consider certain positions before they are proven true or false replicates the logic of most racists.

 

4. You've conceded that the degree of subjectivity involved in deciding which morally reprehensible arguments merit on face rejection is unacceptably high and that you are functionally justifying the arbitrary imposition of any preconceived notions that the judge may have.

 

That is my warrant, because it's more likely to actually have an impact on those watching, and debating, racism good is vastly different from "war good". You've already conceded the difference, you just thought it wasn't a warrant for a later argument. Embedded clash my friend, learn it.

Addressed above, at the top of my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a Nietzschean who believes that since shit is always inevitably fucked up we shouldn't make ethical claims about certain instances of things that are fucked up!

 

Okay, passive nihilist.

 

That's literally what your post boils down to. "There are other things, we can't get rid of all of them, so your morals are subjective, and shouldn't be imposed upon others."

 

No dude, racism is always wrong, and other things are not the same as racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that there's no response to nihilism other than to call it what it is, it's not really a strawman. It's you being a nihilist. I refuse to be a nihilist. Just because some suffering is inevitable doesn't mean all suffering is inevitable nor does it mean I should be placid in the face of suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that there's no response to nihilism other than to call it what it is, it's not really a strawman. It's you being a nihilist. I refuse to be a nihilist. Just because some suffering is inevitable doesn't mean all suffering is inevitable nor does it mean I should be placid in the face of suffering.

 

Ahh but if some suffering is inevitable, then what suffering is not? Suffering has occurred without even being previously perceived, and yet not all suffering has been prevented. If some suffering could be prevented, then how much? And if not all suffering is preventable, then what suffering can actually be prevented? Suffering does indeed seem to be prevalent in all times, regardless of any context, and yet some suffering does indeed seem to be prevented. In reality though, how much of that suffering was actually prevented? What form of suffering is preferable, in this regard? The one that is easily prevented, or the one prevented only to allow another, perhaps greater, suffering to be endured? Suffering is a fickle concept in this regard, because no matter how you define it, more can be done and you have not done enough. It seems that suffering in fact does not even exist! It is merely a radical form of epistemology that persists in defining what naturally occurs in our daily world. In this sense, suffering will never cease to exist until we stop defining it as such. This is the basis of nihilistic thinking. Such a thinking is hypocritical in that it is radical in and of itself; its endless pursuit of knowledge about suffering is as pervasive as the radical concept of suffering itself. The basic question remains, is it true? This is of course the most difficult question of all to answer, because if we no longer define suffering as suffering, does suffering not yet exist even though we refuse to recognize it? This proposes a paradoxical situation in which we must recognize the radical nature of suffering at the same time as we radically refuse to recognize that recognition. In this way, we have to ask ourselves whether it is actually worth it to even pose the question in the first place. If the question is answered with a paradox, is that actually an answer to the question or merely a restatement of the question itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...