Jump to content
nathan_debate

Ndt Finals: Emporia Versus Northwestern

Recommended Posts

1. Didn't see the auto-biographies DA/Turn coming (autobiography cooped? or bootstrapping = radical individualism)

2. Or the body being coopted (they make a body/theory distinction on he aff)

3. Democracy requires leaving the comforts of your confines & coalition building

 

Torquis evidence from the 1NC.  

1. Forfeits civic engagement

2. Forfeits ability to deal with systemic issues (focus on individual stories, etc. versus systemic ones.)

 

impact of uninformed political engagement

 

various other stuff about dialog & identity politics.

 

2NC overview that (partially) answers the "you don't have your hands on the levers of power argument."

 

UDL proves the models aren't mutually exclusive.  Can achieve African American liberation in the context

of policy debate.

 

You have to get out of your own space for empathy.

 

Debate is bigger than any one perspective (???)

 

Galloway evidence (presumably Ryan).  Better advocates.

 

Keller evidence

 

Voting for them versus against them.  Tying them to wins & losses is not constructive.

 

Conklin.  Can include narratives (effectively) in other ways.

 

Anderson.

 

Fails in broader spill over (???)

 

Their framework requires you to negate personal identity which uniquely turns their impact (???)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my concerns aren't as much round-specific....as the system

that they represent. Although I do speak to some round-specific issues.

The bulk of my concerns are with systemic ways or procedural ways in which debates go down throughout the country.

 

The reject script-centrism argument in the 2ar is only a warrant to:

1. flip a coin

2. vote with your bias for whichever team (aka cheat or intervene).

 

Anger and dropping the f-bomb in debate isn't persuasion--its just caustic and agro. Its far more Bill O'Reily & right wing radio than MLK and Maya Angelou. I'm sorry, to me it smells more like Eric Cartman than any rhetor or social changer in American history. Like the college students who have an infinite list of wants, desires, and debates (big sporting facilities, etc...) for them.

 

The topic offers lots of room to talk about his identity issues and how energy relates to them, just because you can't justify a shift in policy doesn't mean the whole system of policy debate back to its origins is in error. Just because you can't find yourself in a resolution that allows you to say oil good or oil bad, coal good or coal bad on the affirmative.....is already basically bi-directional. Not to mention the restrictions or incentives component providing even greater flexibility.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce restrictions on and/or substantially increase financial incentives for energy production in the United States of one or more of the following: coal, crude oil, natural gas, nuclear power, solar power, wind power.

Are you saying that people of color don't care about these things??????? There isn't any literature from an eco-justice perspective on the resolution????? To me thats pretty absurd.

Google told me so. Here's the evidence: http://racereport.com/eco-racism-and-climate-change/

 

Dueling narratives results in.....he said, she said.....my, my, my.....isn't the type of dialog which creates empathy or genuine learning.

Other contexts, other forums. Debate isn't suited to bend over backwards for every oppressed community or disability--specifically in the exact way they specify it.

The negative team isn't the appropriate agent of any resentment or anger.....much less a ballot.

 

It sucks that people have bad home lives.  But one debate ballot isn't going to change that previous history. What about when I was made fun of on the play ground?

Or when I wasn't understood 100s of times in my history?  The race for victim status (or you don't get me or your frameworks don't understand me) in debate doesn't serve us well as a community.

You don't get to click your heels to change that--standards in the community are part of creating a home and stability for engaged and critical discussion.  If that home is constantly shifting.....in

radical form.....from autobiography to autobiography.....from personal victim story to victim story....thats what literature, film, and poetry nights are well suited. Perhaps you can have one of

those after the (???). That will provide you a

1) home

2) allow us to walk/skip/run along the path to Oz together.

 

The lion or scarecrow never yelled at Dorthy.....you don't know my pain.......we're going the other way.  Thats not the model of the Wiz or the Wizard of Oz.  Plus, that sort of framework is more likely to provide empathetic results given that there aren't trophies on the line.  And you have almost total control of the stage.

 

Opting out of policy debate....while still half playing the game is just passive aggression--pure and simple.

You can do your argument, you can do your art--but you have to be topical. The other team could read any of a million manifestos....but you would rightly decry that for being untypical or

unpredictable or irrelevant.

 

Identity centric debates (identity centric dialogs maybe) don't end in dialog--especially with extra-ego on the line--this is a prime performative example of why that is the case.

It does seem odd that the neg I'm pretty sure never mentioned the home metaphor--much less any of the other rhetoric of the aff. Which begs the question of what does it mean to feel at home. Never mentioned in the debate....and never resolved either.

 

That begs a question--debate isn't supposed to be absolutely comfortable--or a home for anyone per se. It also begs the question of why they deserve the ballot for making.

these arguments.

 

Yes.....a radical-afrocentric & radically-individualistic perspective was sold in the wrapper of an accomodationist metaphor (Wizard of Oz/Wiz accomodation).

 

But congrats to both teams...and congrats to them for making all the historical strides Aubtin points out.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was so shocked when i heard this Home argument because prior to hearing it i have been working on a aff very similar to it. It helped me out a lot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats to Emporia Elijah Smith and Ryan Wash for not only being the first black team to win the NDT, but for being the first team to ever win the NDT and CEDA in the same year, this is an amazing achievement that proves that debate is not a pure hegemonic force of the straight white male. They are an amazing team and Elijah is one of the best people that I know.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate proves that over the past 9 years, progress has been made. Judges voted down Louisville in 2004 because they wanted to keep the hegemonic white structure but this year, there was no white male in the females, this year was a finals of diversity, not your usual white males in the final round. I feel like Northwestern going for framework and case was a really bad idea, they could have gone for a counteradvocacy. Northwestern wasn't an all white male team so they could have worked out a counteradvocacy really really well.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Judges voted down Louisville in 2004 because they wanted to keep the hegemonic white structure

 

Wait what?

 

 

 

but this year, there was no white male in the females

 

Wait what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Anger and dropping the f-bomb in debate isn't persuasion--its just caustic and agro. Its far more Bill O'Reily & right wing radio than MLK and Maya Angelou. I'm sorry, to me it smells more like Eric Cartman than any rhetor or social changer in American history. Like the college students who have an infinite list of wants, desires, and debates (big sporting facilities, etc...) for them.

 

The topic offers lots of room to talk about his identity issues and how energy relates to them, just because you can't justify a shift in policy doesn't mean the whole system of policy debate back to its origins is in error.  Dueling narratives.....he said, she said.....my, my, my.....isn't the type of dialog which creates empathy or genuine learning.

Other contexts, other forums.  Debate isn't suited to bend over backwards for every oppressed community or disability--specifically in the exact way they specify it.

The negative team isn't the appropriate agent of any resentment or anger.....much less a ballot.

 

It sucks that people have bad home lives.  But one debate ballot isn't going to change that previous history. What about when I was made fun of on the play ground?

 

Or when I wasn't understood 100s of times in my history?  The race for victim status (or you don't get me or your frameworks don't understand me) in debate doesn't serve us well as a community.

You don't get to click your heels to change that--standards in the community are part of creating a home and stability for engaged and critical discussion.  If that home is constantly shifting.....in

radical form.....from autobiography to autobiography.....from personal victim story to victim story....thats what literature, film, and poetry nights are well suited. Perhaps you can have one of

those after the (???). That will provide you a

1) home

2) allow us to walk/skip/run along the path to Oz together.

 

 

I certainly enjoyed the 2ar but some of Nathan's comments really do strike home. 

 

Parts of the 2ar were ad homs against Peyton - about how she couldn't remotely access the kind of oppression that Ryan had been through. It's for that reason that I'm kind of thankful NW didn't go for a counter-advocacy argument. Yes, Asians and females are probably structurally underrepresented in policy debate. But I'm not sure a clash between quare identity and feminism or the other ism's is productive. The neg made a clear argument - asking for the ballot to endorse one particular identity over another is arbitrary and begging for judge intervention.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asians under represented in debate...haha..

Yes, Asians and females are probably structurally underrepresented in policy debate.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this year, there was no white male in the females

 

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you meant to say "no white male in Finals"...

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anger and dropping the f-bomb in debate isn't persuasion--its just caustic and agro. Its far more Bill O'Reily & right wing radio than MLK and Maya Angelou. I'm sorry, to me it smells more like Eric Cartman than any rhetor or social changer in American history. Like the college students who have an infinite list of wants, desires, and debates (big sporting facilities, etc...) for them.

I disagree. This is obviously something that Ryan and Elijah are very passionate about. I think there's a distinct difference between swearing every other word and using profanities on occasion to highlight something extremely important. There's plenty of afro-pessimist literature that talks about the need for black bodies to resist through states of rage ("black rage" is the term of art that's often used). I also don't think they would take too kindly to you telling them what good, productive debaters should sound like. That probably just reinforces white supremacy (it's the "conform or leave" arguments Ryan makes in the 1AC when he talks about his experience at his first national tournament).

The topic offers lots of room to talk about his identity issues and how energy relates to them, just because you can't justify a shift in policy doesn't mean the whole system of policy debate back to its origins is in error. Just because you can't find yourself in a resolution that allows you to say oil good or oil bad, coal good or coal bad on the affirmative.....is already basically bi-directional. Not to mention the restrictions or incentives component providing even greater flexibility.

 

Are you saying that people of color don't care about these things??????? There isn't any literature from an eco-justice perspective on the resolution????? To me thats pretty absurd.

Google told me so. Here's the evidence: http://racereport.com/eco-racism-and-climate-change/

Sure, you're right, there's a shitload of environmental justice literature. But if you really pay attention to it you'd know that, despite all the reforms we've done and restrictions and regulations we put on pollution and such, very little has been done. We still have no solution to nuclear waste (they store it on-site, and when they run out of space they put it on boats, ship it to some third world country, throw them a few bucks and say "it's your problem now") and coal plants that aren't even close to meeting EPA pollution regulations are still operational (despite being 50+ years old) because they are too goddamn cheap and companies don't want to spend the money to replace them. The reason these things happen is not because it's not illegal, but because the people in power just don't give a fuck. A good majority of congress is paid off by fossil fuel lobbies, and every time Obama tries to move the market in a more renewable direction he gets shot down (although in fairness Solyndra didn't help). Your resolutionally topical (is that a term? It is now.) policies are bound for failure. These things aren't going to get changed without massive cultural revolution.

It sucks that people have bad home lives.  But one debate ballot isn't going to change that previous history. What about when I was made fun of on the play ground?

Or when I wasn't understood 100s of times in my history?  The race for victim status (or you don't get me or your frameworks don't understand me) in debate doesn't serve us well as a community.

So...what would you have them do? Forget that quare bodies are oppressed? Forget that their subjectivity automatically places them in a disadvantaged position in society? I'll answer your "wrong forum" arguments here.

 

There's a few reasons debate is the perfect place for these types of discussions:

 

1. The examples you give (film, literature, poetry nights) are already commodified. People will attend those things, afterwards say "that poem was pretty tight" and then carry on with their lives like nothing happened. I guarantee you people will be talking about this debate for years to come, it will serve as motivation for other "project" teams, and serve as a wake-up call to the rest of the community that these arguments aren't going anywhere and, in fact, can win the NDT and CEDA.

 

2. It's an intellectual forum for discussion. Rey Chow in Writing Diaspora makes the argument that, because we are intellectuals in the West, we have a uniquely privileged position from which to speak from, and it's our job to interrogate that position so as to break down that privilege. I think debate gives us a unique opportunity for that because of it's nature. Also, Martin Shaw talks about the fact that it is Western academic institutions that are contributing to the erosion of US imperialism (he concludes that we need US imperialism, but the fact remains that our academic discussions do have some sort of impact).

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. We'll they had a choice between rage & debate and the chose the former. (see also empathy link in cross-ex that was downright dismissive)

2. Persuasion certainly doesn't require rage or f-bombs.

3. Rage is not consisent with the accomodationist Wiz or Wizard of Oz metaphor which supposedly guides their aff.

4. when you can PIK the other teams advocacy.  Do everything but the rage.

 

This--if you don't provide magic solutions and systemic change arguments--your change is a "failure" is not only silly but a self-fulfilling prophesy of the philosophy you are engaging in.

 

Empirically, the Clean Air Act reduced air pollution & saved lives.  I'm pretty sure thats on the EPA website & Congressional testimony.

 

You don't forget the subjectivities, but you do have to at least be topical.  (And remember, you're the one thats bringing up the forced and false either/or) You don't win presidential elections because someone hit you on the playground or raped you.  You win or should win based on qualifications for the office.  Plus, presidential debates would be silly if they were 90% autobiographical, with an addendum "my people suffered the most."  If thats what wins debates in your framework--that also what creates the down-ward spiral of victimhood.

 

And the idea that the ballot brings some sort of redemption or safety or reparrasions for victim status is just silly. 

 

It's an intellectual forum for discussion. Rey Chow in Writing Diaspora makes the argument that, because we are intellectuals in the West, we have a uniquely privileged position from which to speak from, and it's our job to interrogate that position so as to break down that privilege. I think debate gives us a unique opportunity for that because of it's nature. Also, Martin Shaw talks about the fact that it is Western academic institutions that are contributing to the erosion of US imperialism (he concludes that we need US imperialism, but the fact remains that our academic discussions do have some sort of impact).

 

Lets talk about real imperialism.....like people dying in Afghanistan and Iraq......not debate imperialism.  People not winning trophies. 

 

Otherwise we start talking about the everyone gets the win & everyone gets the trophy....which dissolves the competitive nature of the activity.  We become drunk on trophies and wins.....while choking out debate, clash, research, and the drive for excellence.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. We'll they had a choice between rage & debate and the chose the former. (see also empathy link in cross-ex that was downright dismissive)

2. Persuasion certainly doesn't require rage or f-bombs.

3. Rage is not consisent with the accomodationist Wiz or Wizard of Oz metaphor which supposedly guides their aff.

4. when you can PIK the other teams advocacy.  Do everything but the rage.

That's a pretty narrow-minded idea of what constitutes persuasion. You're acting like you can't embody black rage and still debate. They didn't just say the work "fuck" a bunch of times and pretend that it responded to everything. They definitely engaged in discussion. Just because it didn't fit your perfect, narrow-minded idea of what debate is doesn't mean what they were doing wasn't debate. Just because persuasion doesn't "require" rage doesn't mean that it can't be an effective tool.

 

This--if you don't provide magic solutions and systemic change arguments--your change is a "failure" is not only silly but a self-fulfilling prophesy of the philosophy you are engaging in.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

 

Empirically, the Clean Air Act reduced air pollution & saved lives.  I'm pretty sure thats on the EPA website & Congressional testimony.

It's funny that you cite environmental justice literature above and then ignore the entirety of it by saying that the Clean Air Act does stuff. There are plenty of coal plants that don't meet those regulations but aren't shut down because companies would rather pay the penalties than replace the plants. Also, it's funny that you think the EPA wouldn't lie about that.

 

You don't forget the subjectivities, but you do have to at least be topical.  (And remember, you're the one thats bringing up the forced and false either/or) You don't win presidential elections because someone hit you on the playground or raped you.  You win or should win based on qualifications for the office.  Plus, presidential debates would be silly if they were 90% autobiographical, with an addendum "my people suffered the most."  If thats what wins debates in your framework--that also what creates the down-ward spiral of victimhood.

How does one "be topical" and still attend to individual subjectivities (such as quare bodies)? Your Presidential debates example is really silly because we all know they aren't really debates so much as both sides going "nuh uh, I'm right!" and pandering to the dumb masses. They have absolutely nothing to do with collegiate debate rounds or academic discussions generally. Also, the debates don't determine who's best qualified, just who's better at spinning their shit.

 

And the idea that the ballot brings some sort of redemption or safety or reparrasions for victim status is just silly.

It's not about any of those things, it's about changing debate practices. 

 

 

Lets talk about real imperialism.....like people dying in Afghanistan and Iraq......not debate imperialism.  People not winning trophies.

I am. The entirety of the Shaw article (The unfinished global revolution: intellectuals and the new politics of international relations, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/hafa3/unfinished.pdf) is talking about Western academic discussions contributing to the erosion of US imperialism (yes, the "people dying in Afghanistan and Iraq" imperialism). He concludes that we need US imperialism but the point he's making is that academic institutions are instrumental in it's construction and destruction. 

 

Otherwise we start talking about the everyone gets the win & everyone gets the trophy....which dissolves the competitive nature of the activity.  We become drunk on trophies and wins.....while choking out debate, clash, research, and the drive for excellence.

I don't know what part of their advocacy you think leads to this, or why teams can't have methodological debate with them which still preserves "debate, clash, research, and the drive for excellence."
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if i could boo during your posts nathan, i would. did you wanna take a moment from your attempt to argue the NDT/CEDA champion and offer either team a congratulations?

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. We'll they had a choice between rage & debate and the chose the former. (see also empathy link in cross-ex that was downright dismissive)

2. Persuasion certainly doesn't require rage or f-bombs.

3. Rage is not consisent with the accomodationist Wiz or Wizard of Oz metaphor which supposedly guides their aff.

4. when you can PIK the other teams advocacy.  Do everything but the rage.

 

This--if you don't provide magic solutions and systemic change arguments--your change is a "failure" is not only silly but a self-fulfilling prophesy of the philosophy you are engaging in.

 

Empirically, the Clean Air Act reduced air pollution & saved lives.  I'm pretty sure thats on the EPA website & Congressional testimony.

 

You don't forget the subjectivities, but you do have to at least be topical.  (And remember, you're the one thats bringing up the forced and false either/or) You don't win presidential elections because someone hit you on the playground or raped you.  You win or should win based on qualifications for the office.  Plus, presidential debates would be silly if they were 90% autobiographical, with an addendum "my people suffered the most."  If thats what wins debates in your framework--that also what creates the down-ward spiral of victimhood.

 

And the idea that the ballot brings some sort of redemption or safety or reparrasions for victim status is just silly. 

 

 

 

Lets talk about real imperialism.....like people dying in Afghanistan and Iraq......not debate imperialism.  People not winning trophies. 

 

Otherwise we start talking about the everyone gets the win & everyone gets the trophy....which dissolves the competitive nature of the activity.  We become drunk on trophies and wins.....while choking out debate, clash, research, and the drive for excellence.

You really must have sucked at debate...

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really must have sucked at debate..

 

3 Teams to the NDT.  3 Teams in elims of CEDA.  

 

Not a half bad result for someone who did LD in high school and only debated policy for 2 years.

 

This bullying & assorted ad homs in a community of debates speaks volumes about your character and your skills.   And speaking of silencing voices or attempts to silence voices.  Not to mention its a perf con with your overall point--before I told my story--you just labeled me--without any basis except that I questioned what I saw as practices and ideologies which others had been silent on.

 

So much for minority viewpoints & inclusion.  I guess thats a bunch of rhetoric.  

 

So much for thinking outside the box.... this nathan guy must hate performance and Ks and philosophy.

 

My argument is their core argument "The Wiz" is not at all consistent with the more radical components of their argument.  This this an argument Northwestern missed entirely.

 

I'm all for the K....but debates like this aren't particularly educational in a way that telling his story after the debate in 3 minutes couldn't have been--or having some sort of storytelling

roundtable wouldn't have been.

 

I am. The entirety of the Shaw article (The unfinished global revolution: intellectuals and the new politics of international relations, http://www.sussex.ac.../unfinished.pdf) is talking about Western academic discussions contributing to the erosion of US imperialism (yes, the "people dying in Afghanistan and Iraq" imperialism). He concludes that we need US imperialism but the point he's making is that academic institutions are instrumental in it's construction and destruction. 

 

I don't think Shaw is concerned about 1 debate round versus a day or month or year of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The two simply don't compare.

 

And I'm saying debate imperialism is different.

 

Forcing people to read auto-biographies of victimhood to win is another form of imperialism--in terms of subjectivity which internally turns the ultimate impact of the 1ac.

 

Just scratching the surface....but what stories of oppression would you be able to tell which trumped the stories they told?

 

Jeremiah,

 

 

 

 

And the idea that the ballot brings some sort of redemption or safety or reparrasions for victim status is just silly.

It's not about any of those things, it's about changing debate practices. 

 

I think you missed the point then.  Thats the whole point of the metaphor and methodology.

 

Four problems in a nutshell:

1. Dropping f-bombs is not consistent with the Wiz or creating a "home" for other people.  F-bombs signify a violent household (literally rhetorical violence).

2. The anger and power-over dynamic exhibited by the aff in cross-ex is pretty deplorable....turbo charges the empathy claims & pretty much that empathy is the gateway to solving societal problems like the aff and solving them in the real world for the rest of our lives.

3. The framework arguments make by the affirmative were not "Wiz-llke" or accomodationist--they were exclusionary--they prefigured the result of the debate.

4. The neg allowed a place for the neg, but the neg didn't allow a place for the neg.  The UDL example as well as the overall demeanor in the debate.  This was the UDL example.  (it certainly provides a "home" for many, many students without being explicitly exclusionary)

 

I realize #4 is fairly debatable.  I think 1 though 3 are pretty clear.

 

You said:

How does one "be topical" and still attend to individual subjectivities (such as quare bodies)? Your Presidential debates example is really silly because we all know they aren't really debates so much as both sides going "nuh uh, I'm right!" and pandering to the dumb masses. They have absolutely nothing to do with collegiate debate rounds or academic discussions generally. Also, the debates don't determine who's best qualified, just who's better at spinning their shit.

 

 Yeah.  Thats not relevant.  Whatever value they have now....they would have less in that world (aka 90% autobiography).

 

And your point about the Clean Air Act, while proving my argument paradoxical--doesn't disprove the historical issue I pointed to.....or the ability to use eco-racism as an argument on the topic.

In fact, I can envision an aff for Eco-Racism which leveraged the Clean Air Act as an empirical example of how controls do actually stop pollution--so leveraging the "letter of the law" against itself

we can in fact decrease the pollution & its effects in African American, minority, & poor communities.

 

It's not about any of those things, it's about changing debate practices.

 

Thats debatable.  I think the "steal the stage" or non-accomodationist model proves that its more about ballots and trophies.

 

If you want debate 100% like you want it......make your own league.   You can't expect any sport to transform their practices 180 degrees.  Thats also a more effective strategy.

 

And they would be protesting academia itself rather than debate.  Its far more fundamental--than debate.  Its intitutional norms & hiring criteria--but you could have an event in the

space with institutional support--but you aren't going to magically change 200+ years of debate practice much less the institutional -isms with a ballot.  In fact, I would argue

that it goes back to Aristotle and the notion of ethos & what constitutes credibility.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forcing people to read auto-biographies of victimhood to win is another form of imperialism--in terms of subjectivity which internally turns the ultimate impact of the 1ac.

 

Just scratching the surface....but what stories of oppression would you be able to tell which trumped the stories they told?

 

this proves brian's point, that you are bad at debate. this argument was made in the round, flagged by the 2ac, and beaten in not only this round. had you listened, you'd know that this isn't in any way responsive. perhaps this also explains why in this thread about the same round = http://www.cross-x.com/topic/54976-strat-help/page-2 = you openly question "which uniqueness arguments" are impacted by the presence of ryan and elijah and yet...that's explicitly addressed in the round too!

 

and you still haven't stopped grandstanding to congratulate them (although you did manage to list your own comparatively meager accomplishments). for someone lecturing about etiquette and character whatnot...you're kind of lacking. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

and you still haven't stopped grandstanding to congratulate them (although you did manage to list your own comparatively meager accomplishments). for someone lecturing about etiquette and character whatnot...you're kind of lacking. 

 

Dylan, you didn't read the third post apparently.

 

But congrats to both teams...and congrats to them for making all the historical strides Aubtin points out. 

 

You were saying.....

 

And you still haven't answered my question.  You just said "you should have heard it in the round."

I'm sorry I watched the debate online and didn't flow (online means that I get extra room noise, sometimes including an echo).  

Also, I didn't have 100% of my focus on it.  I knew most of what was going on--that I could hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Dropping f-bombs is not consistent with the Wiz or creating a "home" for other people.  F-bombs signify a violent household (literally rhetorical violence).

 

 

"Debate needs to be a flip-floppin' home!" just doesn't sound as good as "fuck racism."

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's quite a bit of name-calling going on, instead of responding to actual warrants.  While I disagree with a large part of Nathan's analysis, I expect better of the debate community when it comes to critically analyzing dissenting opinions.

  • Upvote 9

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...