Jump to content
Evan Scribner

Underused Authors

Recommended Posts

What are some K authors that you think are underused in debate?

 

kincheloe, as far as i know nobody has really used him as a main author except us at millard south, i've seen one card in the wave 2 k answers file from the 3nr but it was cut as a straw man to make an argument that the card isn't even talking about.

 

he was the author that we use for the blues epistemology criticism/aff.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kant could be used more

 

No he kant. (see what i did there, see it, huh, see it?)

 

@OP: the debaters themselves. I feel like if you're going to strike the most effective criticism, debaters should use their own voices more, and authors voices less. Truly critical teams can analyse an aff or neg critically with their own ethics, as many of the K authors are often not much more qualified than us highschoolers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you say that?

 

For the sake of initiating a pun. I actually don't use his materials simply because I don't view him as a particularly outstanding philosopher (I did like critique of judgement, however.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of initiating a pun. I actually don't use his materials simply because I don't view him as a particularly outstanding philosopher (I did like critique of judgement, however.)

Gotcha. I think Critique of Pure Reason could be harvested for a whole lot of epistemological indicts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguments just need a logical backing in theory.

Fixed.

 

Edit: I fixed mah fix.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is in the critique section. Philosophical/critical arguments just need a logical backing in theory

 

That depends on who's judging. I can think of a few judges on my circuit who may be more reluctant to vote on an argument without warrents beyond a highschooler's oppinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends on who's judging. I can think of a few judges on my circuit who may be more reluctant to vote on an argument without warrents beyond a highschooler's oppinion.

 

Sounds like theory arguments must not be a thing there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed.

 

No, you just quoted part of it without fixing it. You need to capitalize the "A" in "arguments" in order to have truly fixed it.

...biatch.

 

Inb4Kersch

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like theory arguments must not be a thing there

 

There's a difference between the two. I've never heard a theory arguments saying that using technology desensitizes people and allowed all mass genocide in the 21st century to occur.

 

That would be a fun round, though haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heidegger... there's never enough Heidegger.

 

Heidegger himself kinda unintentionally indicated why he isn't used more often in debate when he said, "making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy."

 

It may just be me, but a lot of his writing is really dense and difficult to understand.

  • Upvote 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...