Jump to content
RyeZOAM

Round 460: [Space] TheSpecifier (Aff) vs. Dedevin (Neg)

Recommended Posts

I guess i can judge this one. Tab Ras, fine with every arg except time cube. Short paradigm.

 

k- Explain key points that the neg or aff should win on.

cp- needs to be a net benefit

da- needs to be an impact calc in 2ac and 2nc

t- becomes a wash after a while of just straight theory, need explanations of violations and standards/voters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will judge. I have debated against both of you, so you should have somewhat of an idea on how I view debate.

 

As an overarching rule, I think that tech is more important than truth. A dropped argument is a true argument. That said, an argument must contain a claim and a warrant; hence, I probably am inclined to reject the argument, not the team.

 

I have at least a rudimentary understanding of most K's. If you are running DnG or deeper Lacan stuff, you might want to invest some time in your explanation of it, but I should be fine.

 

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested in judging this as well. Just like Chris, I have debated against you both, and that means you probably have at least a basic idea of my views of debate. I probably also agree with him that arguments shouldn't be arbitrarily ruled out, and a dropped argument is a true argument (with proper extension). Deeper K's should probably also be explained in more depth too.

 

Feel free to ask questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 to make it odd?

 

Tab

 

K's- explain them in the block please, especially if they're some of the more out there K's (Lacan, D&G)

CP's- solve the aff/advantage

DA's-impact calc

Theory- fine with everything except RVI's

 

Dropped arg=true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Liam has no objections, i'm fine with a 5-judge panel. otherwise i'd preff Keith, Chris, and Spencer just because i know how they evaluate rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Liam has no objections, i'm fine with a 5-judge panel. otherwise i'd preff Keith, Chris, and Spencer just because i know how they evaluate rounds.

 

everyone but the trex... lol jk everyones chill with me ill have the 1AC BY THE MORN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 to make it odd?

 

Tab

 

K's- explain them in the block please, especially if they're some of the more out there K's (Lacan, D&G)

CP's- solve the aff/advantage

DA's-impact calc

Theory- fine with everything except RVI's

 

Dropped arg=true

 

well fuck...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. why is some level of conformity bad?

2. is forcing people to be predictable bad only because it forces them into a particular framework of debate?

3. is having a sense of individuality impossible under the current norms of contemporary debate?

4. why is reading the same argument over and over again bad? Couldn't you possibly read this Aff under multiple resolutions?

5. what is it specifically about contemporary debate that is bad?

6. Do you advocate some form of space exploration/development?

7. Did you read an advocacy statement? what is it?

8. What is the BwO that D&G reffers to?

9. What does it mean to be made into an "organism"

10. What is "being-for-short"?

11. If you weren't ordered and forced to be something that you aren't, what kind of debate would you engage in?

12. what would a good debate experiance look like?

13. what does voting aff do to to model debate after this concept? wouldn't that be doing the same type of ordering to contemporary debaters?

14. does contemporary debate order everyone or just a particular group of people?

15. what is the "Britlestar" that Olkowski writes about?

16. how do people debate in it's "regurgitated form"?

17. Can you explain what Guattari means when he says: "I think it’s impossible to sustain the sole promotion of the power sign for very long in the exclusive work of reality* unless you topple over into archaization. So you need to come to terms with the absurdity of the figure-sign’s deterritorializtion in its non-sense efficiency and logic."

18. What is he referring to as "the power sign"?

19. What happens when the judge votes aff?

20. Did you read any Inherency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well fuck...

Yup, put that in my paradigm after your round... Abusive RVI's aren't abusive. And by that I mean, I won't vote on an RVI unless it's extremely abusive/standards are really good/dropped. However, if it's not very abusive and is answered in any way, I won't vote on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard I can judge this too?

 

I'm open to anything but I'm not quite as kritkally-inclined as some of my team mates are, so some more explanation will probably go a long way.

 

I do however understand perm/framework debates relatively well so you're fine there. Just win your links and explain them well as well as what my ballot does and you should be fine.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard I can judge this too?

 

I'm open to anything but I'm not quite as kritkally-inclined as some of my team mates are, so some more explanation will probably go a long way.

 

I do however understand perm/framework debates relatively well so you're fine there. Just win your links and explain them well as well as what my ballot does and you should be fine.

 

Mason fb chatted me about judging. It would make the panel an odd number (but i guess that does conform to debate norms, uh-oh...) I'll probably evaluate along the lines of Chris and Dino. I will say clear once, then i start docking speaks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mason fb chatted me about judging. It would make the panel an odd number (but i guess that does conform to debate norms, uh-oh...) I'll probably evaluate along the lines of Chris and Dino. I will say clear once, then i start docking speaks.

 

This reminds me. I'm not okay with spreading as a judge.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. why is some level of conformity bad?

its boring, it traps us, it doesnt allow us to be creative and learn about what we want

2. is forcing people to be predictable bad only because it forces them into a particular framework of debate?

forcing people to be predictable is bad in a number of ways, one being that the framework of debate reduces us down to just a footnote

3. is having a sense of individuality impossible under the current norms of contemporary debate?

no thats not what we are kritiking

4. why is reading the same argument over and over again bad? Couldn't you possibly read this Aff under multiple resolutions

it is predictable, routine, boring, uneducational, i guess but i choose to read this aff now to make a message

5. what is it specifically about contemporary debate that is bad?

examples above, i can be more specific if you want

6. Do you advocate some form of space exploration/development?

nope

7. Did you read an advocacy statement? what is it?

not really, we advocate the aff

8. What is the BwO that D&G reffers to?

 

9. What does it mean to be made into an "organism"

a being, just the same

10. What is "being-for-short"

not an individual

11. If you weren't ordered and forced to be something that you aren't, what kind of debate would you engage in?

we would see after the aff, we just cant keep the same format

12. what would a good debate experiance look like?

not predictable, look above

13. what does voting aff do to to model debate after this concept? wouldn't that be doing the same type of ordering to contemporary debaters?

no we dont give an example after the aff we just see the problems with the current debate

14. does contemporary debate order everyone or just a particular group of people?

everyone

15. what is the "Britlestar" that Olkowski writes about?

16. how do people debate in it's "regurgitated form"?

we give explanation about how some debaters run the same argument, and how debate is so predictable

17. Can you explain what Guattari means when he says: "I think it’s impossible to sustain the sole promotion of the power sign for very long in the exclusive work of reality* unless you topple over into archaization. So you need to come to terms with the absurdity of the figure-sign’s deterritorializtion in its non-sense efficiency and logic.", yes he is criticizing the person who tries to create an exact predictable methodology

18. What is he referring to as "the power sign"?

the restrictions and the way we view debate

19. What happens when the judge votes aff?

in short it challenges our beings and the way we think about current debate methdology

20. Did you read any Inherency?

fuck you... and you could say current debate practices is the "inherent barrier"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so why should we have to defend the resolution to make debate better? what does topicality do for debate?

our affirmative talks alot about how current debate norms constricts what we can run and do, are you saying restricting someone is a good thing?

so um... we dont read an advocacy statement, isnt the CP basically the plan?

why are they mutually exclusive?

why is losing ontology a good thing?

CONDO?

do you have value to your life?

why does this plan, that only focuses on changing debate norms lose peoples value to lifes? is it just because we affirm something?

if i affirm anything in my life does everyone lose value?

so you say that we are pursuing ontology that restricts everyone??? when we say that predictability and constriction is bad?

how are we focusing on knowledge production? and why is that bad? will focusing on debate really overwelm the system this much?

doesnt pablo frieire in pedagogy of the oppressed specifically talk about how he wants the way we practice education to change? why does this not fuel the need for our aff?

how do we confine debate?

condo?

how to we view the role of the ballot?

arent we speeking as current dabait people in the activity?

do we ever frame debate in a utopia of perfect debate society?

is the aff posible in the world of the alt?

can the alt solve the aff?

how does your alt work?

as the nonconformists of this debate round how are we not the other? who is the other? and how will they be solved in the dabait squo?

how will passive resistence solve the aff? how is this a solvency take out, just because they can predict it? why does this shape the role of the ballot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so why should we have to defend the resolution to make debate better? what does topicality do for debate?

Affirming a topical plantext under the resolution allows for a minimum stability for predictable ground to generate arguments; i would say that this ability to know what it is we're talking about is what makes debate of any sort possible, and is a reason why contemporary debate is good. (It also forces people to research new arguments each year instead of "recycling" the same old performance aff from topic to topic :P)

our affirmative talks alot about how current debate norms constricts what we can run and do, are you saying restricting someone is a good thing?

i would argue that a very basic form of restriction is necessary for debate (you just have to read a plantext. i'm not asking much. lol)

so um... we dont read an advocacy statement, isnt the CP basically the plan?

The only difference is we seperate the Aff from the advocacy to better break down the notion of stasis in the advocacy to understand it better and rethink our evaluation of it.

why are they mutually exclusive?

Because when you advocate the affirmative case that you wrote, you will say anything that is necessary to defend it, whereas the negative won't use it as a utility.

why is losing ontology a good thing?

solves technologic thought.

CONDO?

Yup.

do you have value to your life?

Not if our thought is inherently technological.

why does this plan, that only focuses on changing debate norms lose peoples value to lifes? is it just because we affirm something?

V2L is lost from the technological thought of utilizing an Aff you wrote for the purpose of winning a round; no.

if i affirm anything in my life does everyone lose value?

not necessarily.

so you say that we are pursuing ontology that restricts everyone??? when we say that predictability and constriction is bad?

how are we focusing on knowledge production? and why is that bad? will focusing on debate really overwelm the system this much?

you don't, your technilogical thought is rooted in Cartisian ontology which is bad because we lose V2L and it resorts in the same ordering that you kritik. it's Cartisian science that focuses on knowledge production. it's not focusing on debate that causes technological thought, it's the use of the aff you create yourself as a means of utility.

doesnt pablo frieire in pedagogy of the oppressed specifically talk about how he wants the way we practice education to change?

Not that i'm aware. as of the 1NC i read a particular piece of evidence that talks about oppressors and the oppressed.

why does this not fuel the need for our aff?

even if it fuels your advocacy, it's the disassociation of your advocacy with you, the aff, as the author.

how do we confine debate?

You actually confine debate to a question of conformity and limits which rules out any discussion of subjects outside that.

condo?

Yup.

how to we view the role of the ballot?

You never actually answered this question of mine, but i figured from your 1AC it was something along the lines of challenging the Status Quo of contemporary debate in order to allow for less constriction on debaters.

arent we speeking as current dabait people in the activity?

i don't think you are. the style of argumentation that you're using probably isn't a norm in contemporary debate.

do we ever frame debate in a utopia of perfect debate society?

i don't think so. i don't think that's the link to our argument.

is the aff posible in the world of the alt?

Possibly. its not so much a kritik of your speech act in itself, rather, how you put two competing methodologies against eachother that is bad.

can the alt solve the aff?

actually i would say yes. i would argue that your forcing this debate around competing methodologies is more oppressive and restrictive than contemporary debate where you can read a variety of arguments, including K affs.

how does your alt work?

1. we reject your oppressive framework of pitting competing methodologies against eachother 2. we embrace critical constructivism (explained in Kincheloe in 2005) which is a refusal to engage in action or debate based around a particular methodology.

as the nonconformists of this debate round how are we not the other? who is the other? and how will they be solved in the dabait squo?

The nonconformists are the other. i don't know what it means for them to "be solved," but i would argue that this practice of debate that essentially does away with any real sense of predictability is bad.

how will passive resistence solve the aff? how is this a solvency take out, just because they can predict it? why does this shape the role of the ballot

Passive resistance solves because the best way to kill the system is to stop participating. if no one engages in a bad type of debate, it will fall apart. It's a solvency takeout because you actively object to the system without changing it. the roll of the ballot is something like advocating a better debate world--Baudrillard says that when you do that, you're merely affirming it's existence and granting it legitimacy.

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...