Jump to content
bigdaddy69

Revolution in Debate

Recommended Posts

kritiks are the TITS! siriously? what good is "real world aplication" if the application if flawed at ad hominum? if there is an inconsistency or a hidden direction of the argument at a deeper level than a DA can point out do we then just ignore it? sorry thats just kind of obsurd, and usualy kritiks arn't to hard to answer, name any and ican tell you easy answers. HAHA us cheater? nope! That would be you my friend! You are trying to cheat future debaters out of the higher levels of reason.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kritiks are the TITS! siriously? what good is "real world aplication" if the application if flawed at ad hominum? if there is an inconsistency or a hidden direction of the argument at a deeper level than a DA can point out do we then just ignore it? sorry thats just kind of obsurd, and usualy kritiks arn't to hard to answer, name any and ican tell you easy answers. HAHA us cheater? nope! That would be you my friend! You are trying to cheat future debaters out of the higher levels of reason.

 

Bumping a troll thread! Don't feed the trolls...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Anyone who thinks critiques are "the cutting edge" of debate needs to rethink their knowledge set about debate. Its rather challenging to be revolutionary when you're arguing the norm, and to that end, arguing that which has been previously argued.

2) Anyone who thinks critiques offer more 'real world discussion' or that they provide 'greater learning' than policy arguments are delusional.

3) Guess what, anyone who thinks the opposite of number 2 is also equally delusional.

 

There is nothing fundamentally wrong or horrible about arguing critiques in a debate round as many do provide valuable insight into communication, systems of logic, and belief structures; though I am prone to agree that more often than not, critiques are irrelevant to the actual 1ac most of the time. Which begs the obvious question, why is no one critically evaluating contemporary debate strategy? Probably for the same reason that inherency is a dead issue - the influential and respected educational powers that be have declared such ideas valid and beyond question by affirmation on the ballot. But its hard for me to fault the strategy behind the critique when I see teams arguing policy strategies which leave me dumbfounded as well (e.g. disads which link to the counterplan). I frequently find myself thinking entire legions of monkeys are working around the clock conceptualizing awful debate arguments and strategies. I think the greater problem in debate is a systemic infection of specious logic perpetuated by the masses through blind acceptance. But due to the obvious clash of policy arguments, this lends superficial credence to the idea that 'critiques are bad' while 'policy is great'... when in actuality, both are victims of the same pervasive sophism.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the greater problem in debate is a systemic infection of specious logic perpetuated by the masses through blind acceptance.

This kind of seems to be the problem with everything, not just debate.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest notorious debater

You shouldn't even be allowed to debate if you don't know how to answer a K.

 

Verry good point good sir! Totaly agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know, there WAS a time when debate existed and even flourished in which we debated neither kritiks NOR politics DAs. It isn't an either-or choice, and saying "kritiks are at least better than a 'tix DA" isn't really much of a defense.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's the best troll i've heard on this thread... comparing the kritik to the lack of educational merit in a politics disad and saying they're both bad... you're funny man

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, all DAs suck and aren't educational.

 

Kritiks are logical. Case debate is logical. CP debate with stupid DAs is tolerable. DAs by themselves are incredibly stupid.

 

We need a real revolution in debate. Get rid of the DA, now and forever.

 

Also, let's ban permutations while we're at it, because they're really stupid.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Permutations are helpful in real life.

 

In a sense, about 50% of innovation is based off of permuations. You take the givens & combine them. For instance, Reese Peanut butter cup (peanut butter + chocolate).

This is after all what re-mixes are about.

 

Or for instance Facebook was Myspace for Universities until it expanded. Lots of people have copied various aspects of Amazon or Ebay, etc.....via APIs. This also happens

in innovation in other fields.

 

Plus, permuations make debaters on both sides think more.

 

Complexity & nuance good....ergo permutations good.

Also, thinking about different paradigms together = uniquely good and educational. I just read this last night in a science book. Its key to new ideas & synthesizing stuff.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I trust Brian more than warranted arguments because he can sing. That means that everything he says is true.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

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...