Jump to content
Miro

This

Recommended Posts

Already did. I was trying my hardest to understand the author's view, like they if they don't have debate experience, etc. But then I read that last paragraph. Uncalled for,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is not intended to make friends... but I agree with PARTS of the article, specifically how it critiques the use of performance and simply throwing the resolution out the window. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is not intended to make friends... but I agree with PARTS of the article, specifically how it critiques the use of performance and simply throwing the resolution out the window. 

If that's their choice, that's their choice, sometimes (if you actually are oppressed), you can't afford to be talking about the topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go fuck yourself weekly standard.  While i disagree with most of that article, there's really nothing too wrong with it considering the author probably doesn't understand debate well until those last two paragraphs.  This is exactly what K debaters says is wrong with the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is they made no attempt to understand the argument outside of "The Wiz" references. Like 0 attempt to understand the argument is about exclusion and fear of expression, 0 understanding of anything, including the references to Louisville. They legitimately thought Emporia was pulling some nihilistic nonsense.

 

Ignore it, it's not worth the time or the adspace they get from traffick.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're being deliberately inflammatory to attract views, and all of us just fell for it.

However, this: http://www.weeklystandard.com/comment/716270 does seem worthwhile. Thoughtful critiques only please, let's show them we're better than they are. Ideally, someone would get in touch with Emporia themselves?

Actually, we could also crowdsource a collective complaint, anyone else up for that? Here's what I've got started:



Dear Weekly Standard,

Your article, "Decline of Debate" seems to have been written with little input from actual debaters, and as such may be missing some important context. As the aim of your article is to discuss the nature of the debate community, we think your readers would benefit from some input from those of us who have actually attended debates such as this one. We think this would represent a marked improvement over your previous reliance on secondary sources such as Wikipedia and the Harris ballot, as many of those arguments can only be fully understood within the context of the overall round, or of the debate community at large. As a subcommunity of that community, comprised of current and former debaters, we of cross-x.com would like to provide some additional perspective.
 
First, [something about oversimplifying a complex community - debaters have been divided in their reactions, it was a 3-2 decision, etc.]

Second, [acknowledge insularity as a problem, but mention that debaters often do activism (someone should get a list of awesome former debaters who do stuff like this, please)] [additionally, argue that sometimes a focus on one's own self is important too - we should care about our community and be self reflective sometimes]

Third, [point out their lack of respect and condescending tone, point out how skilled Emporia is]

Fourth, [how their article doesn't engage with Emporia's point, how they misunderstand the Harris ballot]

[maybe add additional points, change the order of the above points, merge some, crosscut others - HELP]

Something like that would be good, I think. Anyone else wanna go for it? I still think Emporia should be contacted directly, also. Suggestions are definitely needed, because I'm not the best at writing letters. I keep coming across as much snarkier than I mean to. I'm currently overusing the word "actual", as well.
Edited by xlii
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Thoughtful critiques only please, let's show them we're better than they are

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's their choice, that's their choice, sometimes (if you actually are oppressed), you can't afford to be talking about the topic. 

Devils advocate: As much as we all love cool k affs, they serve one purpose: To cheat. We've all heard structural violence affs, they're not "trying to make a change in the debate community" they're there to win. Plain and simple.

 

Now then, back on topic: Yea, article was ignorant. It turned from a professional critique of the way k affs work today to just childish insults.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devils advocate: As much as we all love cool k affs, they serve one purpose: To cheat. We've all heard structural violence affs, they're not "trying to make a change in the debate community" they're there to win. Plain and simple.

 

 

tell ryan and elijah that they're not trying to create change, and just trying to cheat...

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that really depends on what you consider "cheating" to be. some people consider Ks in general, or PICs to be "cheating". they are just another kind of and style of argument.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not derail the thread: our focus is to make The Weekly Standard embarrassed they ever published that awful article. I wouldn't be surprised if they published our remarks, if they were well enough written, editors like that kind of thing.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in case it gets deleted, someone should take a screenshot and upload it somewhere. I'm a computer moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in case it gets deleted, someone should take a screenshot and upload it somewhere. I'm a computer moron.

Done

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not derail the thread: our focus is to make The Weekly Standard embarrassed they ever published that awful article. I wouldn't be surprised if they published our remarks, if they were well enough written, editors like that kind of thing.

You don't actually care about this article... why not start focusing on the violence in the Congo instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't actually care about this article... why not start focusing on the violence in the Congo instead?

Because I am an asshole who can't live up to his own ideals. But at least I don't pretend to, and so I still show the ideals themselves some respect by acknowledging they are better than me.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do prefer that K affs that trash the res have something to do with the topic.  E.g., kritikal disabilities, Dancon's latin america aff, etc.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I am an asshole who can't live up to his own ideals. But at least I don't pretend to, and so I still show the ideals themselves some respect.

Please, tell me what my ideals are. I really don't disagree with you up to the point where it becomes nihilistic. 

 

Edit: also, your editing confuses me..

 

Edit: You edited even more :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mom's spaghetti

I don't know what your ideals are. Whatever they are, if you authentically follow them, I'm fine with you. I don't think that you were one of the people pretending that they cried over the bombing in the other thread, so I'm probably mostly fine with you. If you did cry, I would either be upset that you cry so easily or that you are manipulated by the media so easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Articles and arguments like this have made me a lot more open-minded about activities and art forms that I don't know well. I still don't understand what makes this worth $85 million, or why anyone would ever listen to dubstep, but I realize that any problems I have with either of these art forms is as shallow as this article is, and expressing my ideas in as arrogant and sarcastic a way as the author of this article did would be incredibly insulting to the community I was criticizing.

 

I may not agree with everything that Shanara Reid-Brinkley says about debate, but I respect her and her arguments infinitely more than I do this asshole and his "arguments" because she obviously knows the community she is discussing and has put a ton of thought into her criticism.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to raise the issue further; Chunkry already emailed the Weekly Standard, this has been resolved. They apologized profusely and promised [not] to make a hefty donation to a charity of Chunkry's choice. In addition the Weekly Standard promised that when the Triangulum Galaxy aligns with the nearest quasi-stellar radio source in Chunkry's section of the multiverse, they will disavow their neoconservative ideology and publish articles written only by Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews.

 

Good tidings

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...