Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Kritiks of Topicality, I always here of this being run, but don't have a file on it myself.

 

I have plenty to trade for it, send me a ToC and I'll send you a list of what I'll give. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably better if you have a kritik of topicality that's contextual to your affirmative. For instance, you may have an advantage about speciesism, and on the topicality flow, you can say "They're trying to silence the voices of nonhuman animals with this argument".

 

There's also a file on Evazon.

 

It's also probably better if you don't run a kritik of topicality since it's faster to answer it properly and then go to another flow with the time left over.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense mate, but you had no clue as to the context of how these files would be used by me. I appreciate the advice, but it's annoying when others try to correct you on something not even brought up. I want the files in order to et a better idea how to frame the argument, not to directly run the files.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense mate, but you had no clue as to the context of how these files would be used by me. I appreciate the advice, but it's annoying when others try to correct you on something not even brought up. I want the files in order to et a better idea how to frame the argument, not to directly run the files.

shoot...i respect that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bleiker evidence on "Gatekeeper of IR" is the one which is consistently run by performance teams. I think the metaphor is of policing perhaps. This might even be in some framework files or among other Bleiker evidence.

 

Various ways of embracing the wild versus the supposedly controlling nature of topicality. For instance romantic poetry (not love poetry, poetry from the romantic era which embraces the irrational & the wild).

 

You could probably also cut anthro-Ks of topicality. The deep ecological thinkers really like "the wild"--and would suggest you shouldn't wall it in or box it up (aka zoos & topicality bad).

 

But Bleiker is the standard and I think judges--at least circuit judges understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also seen borders arguments - "topicality replicates the binaries of 'in and out' as do borders" and then they read stuff from that book about violent borders or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like a K of T as well, plenty to trade Pm me! (Preferably highlighted, Homecut)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some various K of T stuff I've ran with various affs (Deleuze to Butler to etc.), PM me if you want them

 

Edit: Also Phantom707 is totally right, like I'm not going to read some Deleuze answer to T while I'm reading a Levinas aff for example. I think seeing examples of Ks of T is pretty useless out of context unless you just like to collect files. If you share your aff, some of us can direct you to specific cards or phrasings of the debate depending on the lit base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you share your aff, some of us can direct you to specific cards or phrasings of the debate depending on the lit base.

 

He mentioned above that he's trying to get a better feel for the argument, not to run it himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how one gets a "better feel" for an argument like a K of T, its a fairly obvious idea and the whole point of our posts are to point out that there's no monolithic K of T (which as a term itself varies from kritks of regular T to kritiks of framework). In terms of understanding (so he could use it in a later argument) it probably doesn't change much if you see the cards or not. They are all starkly different from each other and even then are all fairly obvious ideas, like they just criticize censorship and controlling language/rules. If he just wants to see a bunch of Ks of T for the hell of it then that's another story however.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how one gets a "better feel" for an argument like a K of T, its a fairly obvious idea and the whole point of our posts are to point out that there's no monolithic K of T (which as a term itself varies from kritks of regular T to kritiks of framework). In terms of understanding (so he could use it in a later argument) it probably doesn't change much if you see the cards or not. They are all starkly different from each other and even then are all fairly obvious ideas, like they just criticize censorship and controlling language/rules. If he just wants to see a bunch of Ks of T for the hell of it then that's another story however.

 

I disagree. You consider the ideas in generic K of Ts obvious, but I think that obviousness is a product of your familiarity with the arguments. You've been exposed to generic K of Ts before, so you consider them obvious. But if you didn't have that experience, I doubt you'd find them obvious. Personally, whenever I'm researching an argument to find answers to it, I always try to get my hands on a file related to it so I can understand the claims and interpret them directly from the source instead of being forced to rely on a vague or incorrect incorrect prior conception of what the argument's claims are. I think trusting our preconceptions about arguments we've never seen is a bad idea. It's much better to look at an argument before you start trying to refute it, and I don't like that you're discouraging OP from doing so.

 

I do agree that looking at specific K of Ts is helpful. But generic ones exist and should also be looked at in order to get familiarity with the arguments.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that generic ones don't exist, like there are generic Heidegger Ks or generic Security Ks, but a K of T means a type of argument that kritiks topicality (which in it's own right is vague, there are Ks of T that define words in the resolution and Ks of T that focus on framework (which is usually called topicality)). The reason I think it is fairly obvious isn't because I know the potential arguments (which admittedly does help) is because the function of the argument speaks for itself (literally criticisms of trying to control speech). It's functionally the same as asking for a K aff answer to framework, like we can all give you generic Ks good (?) cards or like Schlag ev but it's better for you to at least tell us the context (how kritikal of an aff, the lit background, etc.) because it doesn't really help the OP to know how his argument or his 1AC can be utilized as a K of T instead of resorting to generics. Seeing my DnG answers to T (which vary from criticisms of otnotheological language to literally vandalizing debate) probably won't help understanding how an aff that Ks exceptionalism should answer T (which probably would be more Butler-like) or a Nietzsche aff (which would probably be based around the Johnston evidence).

 

Also the closest thing I can think of as a generic K of T is the Topicality = Genocide cards that aren't really good and are generally considered jokes. However it's no hair off my chest what the OP does, If he wants me to lump together everything I have that I'd consider a K of T, then it's his trade. I just don't think it's useful for him other than to glance at when we could all offer him hyper-specific advice to understanding the argument, answering the argument, and making one based off his arguments. Phantom707 made a great post with legitimate points that he kind of blew off and honestly it seems the K of T is more for the purpose of evidence accumulation rather than understanding. With that said, this really isn't a fruitful argument and probably isn't worth our times to be posting over any more. I personally just am getting a little pissy at the OP because he ripped me off by trading a camp file to me for a stack of Baudrillard files and ignored every PM and email I have since sent him, which is something everyone should consider before trading him.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can trade you my framework answers for the thirdspace aff that I read this year - here's the link to the wiki the 1AC is on: http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2012-2013+-+Shawnee+Mission+South+%28KS%29+-+Keith+Monaghan+%26+Mason+Owen#AFF-Thirdspace (Shawnee Mission East)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 With that said, this really isn't a fruitful argument and probably isn't worth our times to be posting over any more. I personally just am getting a little pissy at the OP because he ripped me off by trading a camp file to me for a stack of Baudrillard files and ignored every PM and email I have since sent him, which is something everyone should consider before trading him.

aw shit! nick been called out!

 

Relevant to the discussion: I'd love if someone could trade or point me towards some cards and arguments about how theory, T, Framework, or debate in general furthers capitalist or neoliberal mindsets, commodifies information/debaters, etc. etc. That'd be real neat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can trade you my framework answers for the thirdspace aff that I read this year - here's the link to the wiki the 1AC is on: http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2012-2013+-+Shawnee+Mission+South+%28KS%29+-+Keith+Monaghan+%26+Mason+Owen#AFF-Thirdspace (Shawnee Mission East)

 

I'd actually be interested in your aff (particularly any Campbell evidence and arguments specifically about thirdspace or anything else related to Soja's writing) if you are willing to trade.

 

And dancon Giroux makes some of the best framework cards, particularly regarding the nature of democracy and the place of academic critique in movements and policy. Look at his writing specifically involving the Occupy movement for some good framework args.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aw shit! nick been called out!

 

Relevant to the discussion: I'd love if someone could trade or point me towards some cards and arguments about how theory, T, Framework, or debate in general furthers capitalist or neoliberal mindsets, commodifies information/debaters, etc. etc. That'd be real neat.

sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got some young t-shells, not asking for much. Maybe some solvency deficits on some common affs. Thanks!

What is it with people calling arguments young!?

  • 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...