Jump to content
BootyWorshiper

I need some random arguments

Recommended Posts

I've never had to run or prepare against a K before, but Im going to a tourney pretty soon and I need A2 to these quick for my blocks. I need it bad, because my case links really hard into these arguments

-Completely blocked A2: Neolib, Euro-centrism, Capitalism, Imperialism 

I'll trade heavily, but I need these arguments to be blocked out and comprehensive. I dont plan to use them as they are, but rather use them as a guideline to replicate mine and/or switch the order around, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read state good, perm, alt dosn't solve, impact turn, framework, and no link to beat most K's if you dont know what to do. If your looking for blocks camp files have cards they should be easy to set up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cap K and Neolib K are basically the same thing. The openev answers to them are pretty weaksauce, that I've seen (have not looked through every file). Seriously, run hardcore capitalism good with moral voters, and run communism bad. (The Black Book of Communism is a great source for some of that). Don't buy into the assumptions of the K unless your plan advocacy is naturally inclined that way, call them out for supporting a philosophy which killed over 100 million people in the 20th century and oppressed over a billion.

 

I assume Eurocentrism is pretty much the Colonialty K on openev. Their authors are all eurocentrists too, writing from a post-modern philosophical position, educated on and rooted in continental (re: european) philosophers, and predominantly teaching at universities in the US or Europe. In short, the K bites itself.

 

Any evidence you have that Mexico, VZ, or Cuba (as appropriate) *wants* your plan goes toward link turning this.

 

Imperialism: Pretty sure this is going to look like one of the two above, depending on how its run. Use CX to figure out which. Also, by speaking for Latin America, their authors are guilty of the same Imperialism they accuse the aff of.

 

-----

 

Also, get some traditional policy debate good cards, and be prepared to argue framework.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cap K and Neolib K are basically the same thing. The openev answers to them are pretty weaksauce, that I've seen (have not looked through every file). Seriously, run hardcore capitalism good with moral voters, and run communism bad. (The Black Book of Communism is a great source for some of that). Don't buy into the assumptions of the K unless your plan advocacy is naturally inclined that way, call them out for supporting a philosophy which killed over 100 million people in the 20th century and oppressed over a billion.

A) Very few of the alts that people read to cap is Communism B ) Any Decent cap team will crush you on the Cap Bad morality debate #ZizekandDaily4 

Edited by MrEragonSaph
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A) Very few of the alts that people read to cap is Communism B ) Any Decent cap team will crush you on the Cap Bad morality debate #ZizekandDaily4

No, their alts really are communism, specifically Marxism. All their authors are invariably marxists.

 

-You should definitely call them out if they won't commit to that, because even if Capitalism is bad, without an alternative proven to work better it might be the best system there is.

 

-Winning Capitalism is moral should be relatively easy against most people running it. Despite only hearing a few Cap good cards from affirmatives, the negative responses to them have been limpid at best.

 

-And Zizek winning a morality debate is laughable. He whitewashes the Soviet Union's mass murders and genocides. Also, 'reject capitalism', but then apparently sell out and license a shoe too... If he can't reject every instance of capitalism personally, why should we trust him when he says we should?

 

A card:

 

Don't trust Zizek on morality: he whitewashes Soviet attrocities.

Vallicella, Bill. 7/23/2013. Slavoj Zizek on the Difference Between Communism and National Socialism. Online:

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/07/slavoj-žižek-on-the-difference-between-communism-and-national-socialism.html

 

My tendency as a conservative is to see moral equivalence between Communism and National Socialism. This equivalentism is reflected in my occasionally calling Communists ‘Commies.’ This offends some, but if National Socialists may be called ‘Nazis,’ then fair play would demand that Communists may be called ‘Commies.’ Note also that if one calls National Socialists ‘Nazis,’ one obscures the fact that they are socialists – which is precisely something they have in common with Communists. Both systems are totalitarian and tend to dissolve the individual into the social whole. And both systems confuse this dissolution with salvation. Genuine salvation, however, is salvation of the individual in his unique individuality, not salvation from the individual by dissolution into the collective.

 

Slavoj Zizek, who is most decidely on the Left, denies the moral equivalence of the two movements. In On Belief (Routledge 2001, p. 39), we read:

...the Communist project was one of common brotherhood and welfare, while the Nazi project was one of domination. So when Heidegger alluded to the ‘inner greatness’ of Nazism betrayed by the Nazi ideological peddlers, he attributed to Nazism something that effectively holds only for Communism: Communism has an ‘inner greatness,’ an explosive liberatory potential, while Nazism was perverted through and through, in its very notion: it is simply ridiculous to conceive of the Holocaust as a kind of tragic perversion of the noble Nazi project – its project WAS the holocaust.

 

The obvious response to this is that there is no difference that makes a moral difference between a movement that calls for genocide –- the extermination of Jews and non-Aryans generally –- and a movement that calls for ‘classicide,’ the extermination of an entire class of people, the bourgeoisie. Extermination is extermination: you are equally dead if you are murdered for belonging to an ethnic group or to a socioeconomic class. Contra Zizek, the Communist project was not one of “common brotherhood†but of the “dictatorship of the proletariat†– a notion that expresses a desire for domination just as surely as Nazi racism does. It is certainly clear that in practice Communism did not promote “common brotherhood†– unless you think that brotherhood is compatible with the murder of 100 million people. (This is the standard figure given for the number of those murdered by Communists in the 20th century. See The Black Book of Communism.) But my main point is that, regardless of practice, Communist theory does not aim at “common brotherhood,†but at the extermination of all who oppose Communist ideas. There is nothing liberal – in the classical sense –about Communism: they will not tolerate a diversity of views, but send you to a gulag for ‘re-education’ – or liquidation.

 

Zizek is aware of something like this objection and addresses it in an endnote which I reproduce verbatim:

So what about the ‘revisionist’ argument according to which the Nazi elimination of the racial enemy was just the repetitive displacement on the racial axis of the Soviet Communist elimination of the class enemy? Even if true, the dimension of displacement is crucial, not just a secondary negligible feature: it stands for the shift from the SOCIAL struggle, the admission of the inherently antagonistic character of social life, to the extermination of the NATURALIZED enemy which, from outside, penetrates and threatens the social organism.†(On Belief, p.154, n.34)

 

Slicing through the obfuscatory Continental verbiage, we may take Zizek to be saying that the moral difference between Commies and Nazis is that the former see the fundamental struggle as a class struggle within society, while the latter see it as a struggle between society and an external natural threat. But this does nothing to show the moral superiority of Commies to Nazis; all it does is reiterate a well-known non-moral difference between the two. Explaining how the two totalitarian systems differ does nothing to show that one is morally superior to the other.

The plain truth of the matter is that both totalitarian systems are morally reprehensible. That they are reprehensible in different ways and by different methods is entirely consistent with their moral equivalence. Zizek is committing the elementary mistake of inferring a normative difference from a non-normative one. But our Continental brethren are not known for their clarity of mind.

It is difficult to get lefties to appreciate the moral equivalence of the two totalitarian movements because there is a tendency to think that the Commies had good intentions, while the Nazis did not. But this is false: both had good intentions. Both wanted to build a better world by eliminating the evil elements that made progress impossible. Both thought they had located the root of evil, and that the eradication of this root would usher in a perfect world. It is just that they located the root of evil in different places. Nazis really believed that Judentum ist Verbrechertum, as one of their slogans had it, that Jewry is criminality. They saw the extermination of Jews and other Untermenschen as an awful, but necessary, task on the road to a better world. Similarly with the Commie extermination of class enemies.

 

------------

 

I'm not really hostile to Cap Ks, but I am kind of hostile to the (very poor) way they seem to be run these days.

 

Honestly, the strongest Cap K I can imagine involves an anarcho-syndicalist alt. Not that I expect I'll ever hear that in a round, unless I actually write it. Marxism is too weak to support a moral alternative to anything, but Marxism isn't the only Socialist strain of thought.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, their alts really are communism, specifically Marxism. All their authors are invariably marxists.

 

-You should definitely call them out if they won't commit to that, because even if Capitalism is bad, without an alternative proven to work better it might be the best system there is.

 

-Winning Capitalism is moral should be relatively easy against most people running it. Despite only hearing a few Cap good cards from affirmatives, the negative responses to them have been limpid at best.

 

-And Zizek winning a morality debate is laughable. He whitewashes the Soviet Union's mass murders and genocides. Also, 'reject capitalism', but then apparently sell out and license a shoe too... If he can't reject every instance of capitalism personally, why should we trust him when he says we should?

 

A card:

 

Don't trust Zizek on morality: he whitewashes Soviet attrocities.

Vallicella, Bill. 7/23/2013. Slavoj Zizek on the Difference Between Communism and National Socialism. Online:

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/07/slavoj-%C5%BEi%C5%BEek-on-the-difference-between-communism-and-national-socialism.html

 

My tendency as a conservative is to see moral equivalence between Communism and National Socialism. This equivalentism is reflected in my occasionally calling Communists ‘Commies.’ This offends some, but if National Socialists may be called ‘Nazis,’ then fair play would demand that Communists may be called ‘Commies.’ Note also that if one calls National Socialists ‘Nazis,’ one obscures the fact that they are socialists – which is precisely something they have in common with Communists. Both systems are totalitarian and tend to dissolve the individual into the social whole. And both systems confuse this dissolution with salvation. Genuine salvation, however, is salvation of the individual in his unique individuality, not salvation from the individual by dissolution into the collective.

 

Slavoj Zizek, who is most decidely on the Left, denies the moral equivalence of the two movements. In On Belief (Routledge 2001, p. 39), we read:

...the Communist project was one of common brotherhood and welfare, while the Nazi project was one of domination. So when Heidegger alluded to the ‘inner greatness’ of Nazism betrayed by the Nazi ideological peddlers, he attributed to Nazism something that effectively holds only for Communism: Communism has an ‘inner greatness,’ an explosive liberatory potential, while Nazism was perverted through and through, in its very notion: it is simply ridiculous to conceive of the Holocaust as a kind of tragic perversion of the noble Nazi project – its project WAS the holocaust.

 

The obvious response to this is that there is no difference that makes a moral difference between a movement that calls for genocide –- the extermination of Jews and non-Aryans generally –- and a movement that calls for ‘classicide,’ the extermination of an entire class of people, the bourgeoisie. Extermination is extermination: you are equally dead if you are murdered for belonging to an ethnic group or to a socioeconomic class. Contra Zizek, the Communist project was not one of “common brotherhood†but of the “dictatorship of the proletariat†– a notion that expresses a desire for domination just as surely as Nazi racism does. It is certainly clear that in practice Communism did not promote “common brotherhood†– unless you think that brotherhood is compatible with the murder of 100 million people. (This is the standard figure given for the number of those murdered by Communists in the 20th century. See The Black Book of Communism.) But my main point is that, regardless of practice, Communist theory does not aim at “common brotherhood,†but at the extermination of all who oppose Communist ideas. There is nothing liberal – in the classical sense –about Communism: they will not tolerate a diversity of views, but send you to a gulag for ‘re-education’ – or liquidation.

 

Zizek is aware of something like this objection and addresses it in an endnote which I reproduce verbatim:

So what about the ‘revisionist’ argument according to which the Nazi elimination of the racial enemy was just the repetitive displacement on the racial axis of the Soviet Communist elimination of the class enemy? Even if true, the dimension of displacement is crucial, not just a secondary negligible feature: it stands for the shift from the SOCIAL struggle, the admission of the inherently antagonistic character of social life, to the extermination of the NATURALIZED enemy which, from outside, penetrates and threatens the social organism.†(On Belief, p.154, n.34)

 

Slicing through the obfuscatory Continental verbiage, we may take Zizek to be saying that the moral difference between Commies and Nazis is that the former see the fundamental struggle as a class struggle within society, while the latter see it as a struggle between society and an external natural threat. But this does nothing to show the moral superiority of Commies to Nazis; all it does is reiterate a well-known non-moral difference between the two. Explaining how the two totalitarian systems differ does nothing to show that one is morally superior to the other.

The plain truth of the matter is that both totalitarian systems are morally reprehensible. That they are reprehensible in different ways and by different methods is entirely consistent with their moral equivalence. Zizek is committing the elementary mistake of inferring a normative difference from a non-normative one. But our Continental brethren are not known for their clarity of mind.

It is difficult to get lefties to appreciate the moral equivalence of the two totalitarian movements because there is a tendency to think that the Commies had good intentions, while the Nazis did not. But this is false: both had good intentions. Both wanted to build a better world by eliminating the evil elements that made progress impossible. Both thought they had located the root of evil, and that the eradication of this root would usher in a perfect world. It is just that they located the root of evil in different places. Nazis really believed that Judentum ist Verbrechertum, as one of their slogans had it, that Jewry is criminality. They saw the extermination of Jews and other Untermenschen as an awful, but necessary, task on the road to a better world. Similarly with the Commie extermination of class enemies.

1) Have you ever Heard off Psycho-Analysis alts alts , Identity Alts , Social Movements alt , Anarchy alts , Bottom Up Approaches . Generic Reject the aff alts ? Very few K teams will defend Marxism at all .And don't you even try to tell me people like Baudrillard is a Marxist. 2) I Don't know what Cards that you are talking about are , But the Evidence indicating that Current Government and Modes of thought glossover ongoing and past genocides of people because we see people as disposable is really fucking good. 3) I was being Sarcastic about Zizek . It was me making fun of everyone reading that card. 4) I'm pretty sure most k teams will win A) That your Authors gloss over the atrocities of capitalism  B ) That Certain Aspects of they way Russia tried to break away from capitalism was flawed B ) Ad Hom Attacks don't answer the question of whether the system you advocate is flawed and rejected 5

Edited by MrEragonSaph
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, their alts really are communism, specifically Marxism. All their authors are invariably marxists.

 

-You should definitely call them out if they won't commit to that, because even if Capitalism is bad, without an alternative proven to work better it might be the best system there is.

 

-Winning Capitalism is moral should be relatively easy against most people running it. Despite only hearing a few Cap good cards from affirmatives, the negative responses to them have been limpid at best.

 

-And Zizek winning a morality debate is laughable. He whitewashes the Soviet Union's mass murders and genocides. Also, 'reject capitalism', but then apparently sell out and license a shoe too... If he can't reject every instance of capitalism personally, why should we trust him when he says we should?

 

A card:

 

Don't trust Zizek on morality: he whitewashes Soviet attrocities.

Vallicella, Bill. 7/23/2013. Slavoj Zizek on the Difference Between Communism and National Socialism. Online:

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/07/slavoj-žižek-on-the-difference-between-communism-and-national-socialism.html

 

My tendency as a conservative is to see moral equivalence between Communism and National Socialism. This equivalentism is reflected in my occasionally calling Communists ‘Commies.’ This offends some, but if National Socialists may be called ‘Nazis,’ then fair play would demand that Communists may be called ‘Commies.’ Note also that if one calls National Socialists ‘Nazis,’ one obscures the fact that they are socialists – which is precisely something they have in common with Communists. Both systems are totalitarian and tend to dissolve the individual into the social whole. And both systems confuse this dissolution with salvation. Genuine salvation, however, is salvation of the individual in his unique individuality, not salvation from the individual by dissolution into the collective.

 

Slavoj Zizek, who is most decidely on the Left, denies the moral equivalence of the two movements. In On Belief (Routledge 2001, p. 39), we read:

...the Communist project was one of common brotherhood and welfare, while the Nazi project was one of domination. So when Heidegger alluded to the ‘inner greatness’ of Nazism betrayed by the Nazi ideological peddlers, he attributed to Nazism something that effectively holds only for Communism: Communism has an ‘inner greatness,’ an explosive liberatory potential, while Nazism was perverted through and through, in its very notion: it is simply ridiculous to conceive of the Holocaust as a kind of tragic perversion of the noble Nazi project – its project WAS the holocaust.

 

The obvious response to this is that there is no difference that makes a moral difference between a movement that calls for genocide –- the extermination of Jews and non-Aryans generally –- and a movement that calls for ‘classicide,’ the extermination of an entire class of people, the bourgeoisie. Extermination is extermination: you are equally dead if you are murdered for belonging to an ethnic group or to a socioeconomic class. Contra Zizek, the Communist project was not one of “common brotherhood†but of the “dictatorship of the proletariat†– a notion that expresses a desire for domination just as surely as Nazi racism does. It is certainly clear that in practice Communism did not promote “common brotherhood†– unless you think that brotherhood is compatible with the murder of 100 million people. (This is the standard figure given for the number of those murdered by Communists in the 20th century. See The Black Book of Communism.) But my main point is that, regardless of practice, Communist theory does not aim at “common brotherhood,†but at the extermination of all who oppose Communist ideas. There is nothing liberal – in the classical sense –about Communism: they will not tolerate a diversity of views, but send you to a gulag for ‘re-education’ – or liquidation.

 

Zizek is aware of something like this objection and addresses it in an endnote which I reproduce verbatim:

So what about the ‘revisionist’ argument according to which the Nazi elimination of the racial enemy was just the repetitive displacement on the racial axis of the Soviet Communist elimination of the class enemy? Even if true, the dimension of displacement is crucial, not just a secondary negligible feature: it stands for the shift from the SOCIAL struggle, the admission of the inherently antagonistic character of social life, to the extermination of the NATURALIZED enemy which, from outside, penetrates and threatens the social organism.†(On Belief, p.154, n.34)

 

Slicing through the obfuscatory Continental verbiage, we may take Zizek to be saying that the moral difference between Commies and Nazis is that the former see the fundamental struggle as a class struggle within society, while the latter see it as a struggle between society and an external natural threat. But this does nothing to show the moral superiority of Commies to Nazis; all it does is reiterate a well-known non-moral difference between the two. Explaining how the two totalitarian systems differ does nothing to show that one is morally superior to the other.

The plain truth of the matter is that both totalitarian systems are morally reprehensible. That they are reprehensible in different ways and by different methods is entirely consistent with their moral equivalence. Zizek is committing the elementary mistake of inferring a normative difference from a non-normative one. But our Continental brethren are not known for their clarity of mind.

It is difficult to get lefties to appreciate the moral equivalence of the two totalitarian movements because there is a tendency to think that the Commies had good intentions, while the Nazis did not. But this is false: both had good intentions. Both wanted to build a better world by eliminating the evil elements that made progress impossible. Both thought they had located the root of evil, and that the eradication of this root would usher in a perfect world. It is just that they located the root of evil in different places. Nazis really believed that Judentum ist Verbrechertum, as one of their slogans had it, that Jewry is criminality. They saw the extermination of Jews and other Untermenschen as an awful, but necessary, task on the road to a better world. Similarly with the Commie extermination of class enemies.

 

------------

 

I'm not really hostile to Cap Ks, but I am kind of hostile to the (very poor) way they seem to be run these days.

 

Honestly, the strongest Cap K I can imagine involves an anarcho-syndicalist alt. Not that I expect I'll ever hear that in a round, unless I actually write it. Marxism is too weak to support a moral alternative to anything, but Marxism isn't the only Socialist strain of thought.

 

This post makes no sense. Just...no.

1. Rejecting capitalism doesn't mean advocating marxism, just like how rejecting vanilla ice cream doesn't mean advocating chocolate ice cream

 

2. If the neg wins an alt or that capitalism is unsustainable, it doesn't really matter what you say about capitalism

 

3. Capitalism is immoral - read a history textbook. Any "alt fails" questions were answered above

 

4. Zizek doesn't endorse footwear? I have no idea what you're even saying.

 

5. This card is garbage:

 

A. It compares Nazi ideology to communism as practice - that is by definition a flawed comparison - you logically cannot compare a theory to something in practice. If you look at communism as theory then it's pretty obvious that it was better. Also, communism didn't advocate killing everyone who disagreed with the system, or genocide, or interventionism, or a police state, it just said make people discard ideas of elitism

 

B. Your card clearly starts off by saying that the article has a conservative bias - you know, those people who hate everything that isn't capitalism by default?

 

C. The article also assumes Zizek advocates a return to leninist policies - Zizek has said this would be a bad idea on several occasions

 

6. I'm pretty sure you're hostile to capitalism critiques

 

7. First, the fact that you gave an alt that isn't marxism probably proves that there are alts that aren't marxism. Second, your alt is probably the worst possible action

 

A. It destroys nation states. All state good offense applies here.

 

B. It's more impossible than Marxism - people won't come together in unions and overthrow the state in one go. I think Phantom707 has a lot more to say about this than me, if he finds this thread.

 

 

I'm also quite sure you're not the only person who can write good files. Also, just because you want to hear something in a round doesn't automatically make it good.

Edited by ARGogate
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post makes no sense. Just...no.

1. Rejecting capitalism doesn't mean advocating marxism, just like how rejecting vanilla ice cream doesn't mean advocating chocolate ice cream

And yet, so many of the authors are obviously Marxists, or at least openly sympathetic to Marxism. Anyone who uses phrases like Historical Materialism or Dialectical Materialism is a Marxist, they've accepted the Marxist analytical toolbox and basic assumptions about the progress of history.

 

To quote Wikipedia "Marxism is a method of socio-economic analysis and worldview based on a materialist interpretation of historical development, a dialectical view of social transformation."

 

Or we can look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Historical materialism — Marx's theory of history — is centered around the idea that forms of society rise and fall as they further and then impede the development of human productive power. Marx sees the historical process as proceeding through a necessary series of modes of production, characterized by class struggle..."

 

(There are several other word cues you can notice, like use of the word bourgeois as a perjorative is pretty much exclusive to marxists too.)

 

Meszaros '12: "we cannot disregard the promise to realize the highest phase of socialism (by Stalin and others) through the overthrow and abolition of capitalism."

 

Zizek's demonstrated defense of the Soviet Union. Also, from The Borrowed Kettle (2004):

"Apropos of the disintegration of ‘state socialism’ two decades ago, we should not forget that, at approximately the same time, Western social-democratic welfarist ideology was also dealt a crucial blow, that it also ceased to function as the Imaginary able to arouse a collective passionate following. The notion that ‘the time of the welfare state has past’ is a piece of commonly accepted wisdom today. What these two defeated ideologies shared was the notion that humanity as a collective subject has the capacity somehow to limit impersonal and anonymous sociohistoric development, to steer it in a desired direction. Today, such a notion is quickly dismissed as ‘ideological’ and/or ‘totalitarian’: the social process is perceived as dominated by an anonymous Fate which eludes social control. The rise of global capitalism is presented to us as such a Fate against which we cannot fight — either we adapt to it or we fall out of step with history, and are crushed. The only thing we can do is to make global capitalism as human as possible, to fight for ‘global capitalism with a human face’ (this, ultimately, is what the Third Way is – or, rather, was – about)."

 

Phrases like 'fall out of step with history' are indelibly Marxist, and his tone is dismissive of the 'consensus' with respect to state socialism.

 

Lebowitz '12: "Those who conclude that the working class is not a revolutionary subject because capitalism has changed the working class reveal that they do not understand the ABCs of Marxism."

 

That's half the alternative cards I looked at quickly just now. One would suspect that if I read the entire papers (or books) of the other authors, a substantial number of them would also reveal themselves to be Marxists. The alternative authors tend to overwhelmingly be Marxists for 'Reject' alts.

 

2. If the neg wins an alt or that capitalism is unsustainable, it doesn't really matter what you say about capitalism

Since we obviously have a difference in opinion as to what qualifies as an alt, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'wins an alt'. Further, if the Aff wins Cap Good, an alt like Reject Cap seems to lose outright. The Cap Good debate directly contributes to the Alt debate.

 

Even if Capitalism is unsustainable, it might still be better than any other system. That only makes it more crucial that the negative try to articulate a framework which is better. (In the same way that oil use is unsustainable, but that's not an offensive argument. A negative arguing against an oil case would want to advocate in favor of something, like renewables, or otherwise generate unique offense).

 

And the unsustainable argument presupposes that there is some sustainable alternative. That would need to be demonstrated. If the alternatives are also unsustainable, then unsustainability is not a discriminatory criterion for choosing a system.

 

3. Capitalism is immoral - read a history textbook:

I'm going to need more analysis here, cause I've read a lot of history, and last I checked Capitalism and the associated human rights advocacy had done more to fight poverty than any other activity in human history. Which doesn't mean its ideal, but it certainly suggests that the immorality of Capitalism is more debatable than you make it out to be.

 

Also, you're going to probably need to define what you mean by Capitalism, since some of the policies criticized as 'capitalist' by socialists... well... aren't. Mercantilism is alive and well in foreign policy analysis, and it is just as divorced from capitalism as it is from communism.

 

Of course, this is the same error you accused me of making in reverse when I accused most Cap K alts of being Marxist - that everything socialists (of any stripe) hate seems to automatically be labeled capitalism. (Heck, even some things that get called 'capitalism', like "crony capitalism", aren't really capitalism, and no reasonable definition or defense of capitalism would legitimately include them. Look at what the philosophical defenders of capitalism actually defend, don't just attack strawmen).

 

I'd look at Acemoglu and Robinson's book Why Nations Fail. One conclusion, backed up by substantial historical analysis, is that economic prosperity requires the protection of rights, most explicitly liberty and property (pretty much sensu Locke), which is a fundamental part of true capitalist systems. Systems which don't protect those rights are not capitalist, and conflating them with capitalist systems only makes the K confused.

 

Now, is there a real debate to be had about the value of Capitalism compared to some other system? Sure. But you do have to own up to another specific system to have that debate. It isn't immediately obvious that Capitalism loses.

 

On Footwear:

Its entirely possible I got trolled by a meme, I don't have time to fact-check every stupid thing I see. Although it would be hilarious to read http://zizekfashion.tumblr.com/post/69703829115/horriblegif-preview-of-the-arts-in-2014 in a round. (And things like that are disturbingly plausible, its not like being stupid means something is false. I didn't assign it enough consequence to make it worthwhile caring one way or another).

 

Even if Zizek doesn't endorse footwear - his writings are still commercial and academic products which are only available behind a paywall. I'm sure he gladly accepts his royalty checks for the sales of his books.

 

And I can still stick with Zizek whitewashing communist attrocities to demonstrate bad moral framework.

 

5. This card is garbage:

 

A. It compares Nazi ideology to communism as practice - that is by definition a flawed comparison - you logically cannot compare a theory to something in practice. If you look at communism as theory then it's pretty obvious that it was better. Also, communism didn't advocate killing everyone who disagreed with the system, or genocide, or interventionism, or a police state, it just said make people discard ideas of elitism

It compares communism as practiced to Naziism as practiced.

 

It argues back to the justifications used by both, so reciprocally advocated ideology on each side.

 

Zizek clearly makes the argument that Communism as practiced wasn't morally repugnant, because they had good ends. So its not like the author is putting words in his mouth.

 

B. Your card clearly starts off by saying that the article has a conservative bias - you know, those people who hate everything that isn't capitalism by default?

It starts off with saying the *author* tends to have a conservative viewpoint, not the article. That doesn't let us ignore the argument he makes. That's an illegitimate ad hominem.

 

Indicting Zizek's moral framework because of how he reasons about morality, on the other hand, is completely legitimate. That's attacking the arguments he makes by looking at the way he makes those arguments.

 

C. The article also assumes Zizek advocates a return to leninist policies - Zizek has said this would be a bad idea on several occasions

No, the article assumes Zizek means exactly what he wrote, and criticizes his reasoning.

 

6. I'm pretty sure you're hostile to capitalism critiques

I'm not hostile to any K which gives a real alternative. Reject is only a real alternative if the K is unique to plan. I would love to judge an honest stand-up fight between Capitalism and some specified alternative on the merits of their positions.

 

7. First, the fact that you gave an alt that isn't marxism probably proves that there are alts that aren't marxism. Second, your alt is probably the worst possible action.

 

A. It destroys nation states. All state good offense applies here.

I know there are alternatives to Marxism. But I've never heard one articulated in a debate round. Ever. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.

 

And there's plenty of state bad evidence opposed. The real question is: how much of that state good evidence makes assumptions which link to and are therefore indicted by the K?

 

Fundamentally, defense of the state as good + socialism is a defense of Marxism, because one of the key and defining tenants of Marxism was rule by a communist political party.

 

B. It's more impossible than Marxism - people won't come together in unions and overthrow the state in one go. I think Phantom707 has a lot more to say about this than me, if he finds this thread.

Empirically denied. Anarcho-syndicalists defeated the Spanish Fascists in ~1935, and were only defeated by the immediate outside intervention of multiple governments and corporations. With the same neglect afforded the marxist-leninist revolution in Russia, they would have won.

 

I'm also quite sure you're not the only person who can write good files. Also, just because you want to hear something in a round doesn't automatically make it good.

I'm sure I'm not. I've seen plenty of quality files. Even the link and impact evidence in many Cap K files varies from decent to good (the dominant issue being a willingness to take authors at face value when they make claims rather than making sure their claims are supported by the warrants they provide in the card, but that doesn't just apply to Cap K files - people cutting evidence do need to be less trusting of their authors). That doesn't mean I've seen a good Cap K alt, in round, or in the K files I've looked at on Open Evidence (which is not all of them yet, but I've looked through at least 8 Neolib/Cap K files).

 

And no, wanting to hear something in round doesn't make it good. Sturgeon's Law pretty much assures that 99% of everything is bad - even great positions will be presented poorly most of the time.

 

As to the desirability of hearing an anarcho-syndicalist claim specifically? Maybe it wouldn't be as great in practice as it sounds in theory. Maybe it would be. But it immediately gains credibility over 'reject' alts for me because it actually advocates something, which is why I'd love to hear it (or any other alt which had positive advocacy on a Cap K).

 

 

Oh, and do keep downvoting all my comments ever just because you disagree with me about how Cap Ks should be structured. Its a very mature attitude to take, and is exactly what the reputation system is for, I'm sure. But I'm not vindictive, if I ever judge you (or your students if you're a coach), I won't hold it against you. I think you'll find that I'm not the only judge/coach who believes these things though, especially about the nature of 'reject' alts on non-u Ks.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and do keep downvoting all my comments ever 

Boy you're not kidding. ARRogate and liampirate really have downvoted pretty much everything you write. 

 

Impressive dedication.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the vote of confidence, ARRogate. I guess that I can try my best, but my Internet connection is really, really bad right now, so I can't really quote and go line by line. I will definitely miss things, but really, right now, I can't do more.

 

I'm just going to go through the easy points first and then increase in difficulty.

 

First off, I'm not going to support Zizek. Just, just no for me. I will, however, say that that card indicting him was rather flawed for reasons that I'll get to in a bit.

 

On the Marxism bit, I would disagree that anyone who uses particular terms is fundamentally a Marxist. What about the people who criticize those terms and thus have to reference the words? Are they Marxists? Of course not. There's something bout the ideology that one has to subscribe to in order to be a "proper" Marxist.

 

Going further, those terms, even when used in serious critique, may just be part of a shared terminology of anti-capitalist writers. All of this is building up to something so bear with me for a bit.

 

Before going further into the whole "Is she/isn't she a Marxist" debate, I'd appreciate a definition of what you consider Marxism to be. After that, we could see if particular authors are "invariably Marxists".

 

Here's where things get more contentious. Debaters often have impact cards with authors who are different than their alt authors. I'm really not trying to belittle anyone here (can't with my bandwidth), but it's possible to say that part of one person's cap K is Marxist while the alt is not. The desirability of this debate practice is more open. Does having a Marxist impact card tie your alt to Marxism even if it's not supposed to be Marxist?

 

Briefly defending reject alts. I'll admit that I'm no fan of reject alts. Just briefly saying, however, that for some authors *cough*Zizek*cough*, this is the only option. Any call for a definite alternative will be co-opted by the capitalist machine. Yes, yes, I know that that sounds like a cop-out. I'm not going to go further defending it.

 

On the impact level, there's something to be said about the "invisible" violence committed by capitalism. This is my main point in this response. You specifically said that certain things labelled as capitalism, like crony capitalism, are not properly capitalism and that no serious theorist would defend it. However, you bound communism/socialism (there's a conflation between the two for you, but I won't go into that) to its material effects. This is a massive double standard. You keep claiming that there is a moral equivalence between Naziism and Communism even though you won't own up to an equivalence between such things as crony capitalism being the product of capitalism. "True" socialists probably don't advocate ruthless killings in the same way that "true" capitalists probably don't defend wanton environmental destruction and slave labor and all.

 

You make the point of mercantilism being alive and well, but I would say that that's a result of the capitalist system. I'll give my definition of capitalism here. "The basic definition of capitalism is the private ownership of productive capital." However, "it would make Fascist Corporatism synonymous with Capitalism because, even with the controlling hand of government, the productive capital in a Fascist Corporatist economy is still privately owned". What, then, can we call capitalism?

 

As an operational definition, let's say that it's free trade. I'll even spot you that we can get to such a situation. In a world of free trade, however, we won't have a free market, and that's a major problem. Certain people will inevitably be more clever, faster, stronger, blah, blah, blah, and they'll accumulate more resources. Let's even say that they do this legitimately (as in not stealing from others). Over some time, a small group of individuals will own the majority of some resource, and if the resource is necessary for life, then all others would be dependent on those individuals. This can be compared to modern corporations. The unregulated trade of capitalism inevitably leads to crony capitalism as those corporations (they don't have to specifically be corporations, but I'm using them as an analogue) would then influence the government through some kind of coercive means.

 

This coercion can still be in line with capitalism qua capitalism. Insofar as capitalism is about free trade, the government's duty is to protect free trade. As such, the government will pass policies that promote the protection of these vast holdings of wealth, protecting the corporations. This ensures that no one can sue the corporation or other such things. This is still in line with capitalism yet can be classified as crony capitalism.

 

Here I delve into the Marxist stuff myself. This is a more insidious form of oppression than outright slave labor. Corporations will say "You workers are free to work anywhere else that you want to. We're not going to stop you." The problem is that there's no where else to work. They have become wage slaves. The question is which is better: being an outright slave or having false options? This is something that's debatable. I'm not going to take a stance here. Obviously, the best situation would be to not be a slave and to not have false options.

 

Then there's the media issue.The statistics that you cite are true, yes. However, it's a question of true in what sense. Again, I can't really go line by line, so I'm not indicting you specifically. However, a lot of people define certain things arbitrarily. Think of the poverty line. It's decreased by politicians in order to make it look like they've solved poverty. In the same vein, capitalism may close off certain questions. It takes property rights as fundamental. That doesn't tell us anything about quality of life, however. A person may, theoretically, live a fulfilling life without any property (asceticism, for instance), but capitalism would call them impoverished. Imagine an entire country of such people. Objectively, according to capitalism, that would be a bad country. Now imagine a capitalist country where some own property and others do not. On the whole it's "better" than the ascetic country because there's more property ownership, despite how the bottom people are suffering more than the ascetics.

 

This isn't even getting into the more direct violence that may or may not be committed by capitalism. A family may not have enough resources to climb the socioeconomic ladder and die young each generation. That can't be classified as a death "due to capitalism" because they died of malnutrition or birth defects. Contrast the overt firing squad that executes political dissidents. Well, death is death, according to your card. Capitalism's killing is equivalent to Naziism's and Socialism's killings.

 

I can't get into my own alternative here. I don't know how you'd feel about it, and it's not the main point of this discussion. I'll just say that it's a positive action.

 

I'll say that I still respect you for offering those arguments even though I disagree with them. As such, I'll still upvote you. I wish I could've made a more filling post, but again, my Internet connection is bad. There are definitely holes, so feel free to ask.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy you're not kidding. ARRogate and liampirate really have downvoted pretty much everything you write. 

 

Impressive dedication.

 

you say, on a thread I haven't down voted anyone on.

 

but thanks for the random shout out. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and do keep downvoting all my comments ever just because you disagree with me about how Cap Ks should be structured. 

So going through all the threads of Cross-X, I've noticed you've been downvoted quite a bit.  Even on posts that aren't anything approaching agressive.  So while I disagree with a fair bit,maybe even most, of what you've been posting (though I've found a few points i rather agree with) I've been making an effort to systematically randomly upvote you.  There's no way someone who's actually trying to contribute constructive criticism should have that rep level. Its disheartening to see a place filled with probably some of the smartest people in highschool/college (or so we'd like to think :P)  just flat out try to bully someone with opposite views to their's to leave

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me sad that Squirrelloid is getting randomly downvoted on things that add to a discussion, especially by mods. I traded some evidence with squirrelloid, and the whole time he was kind, totally not deserving of a -67 rep.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Marxism bit, I would disagree that anyone who uses particular terms is fundamentally a Marxist. What about the people who criticize those terms and thus have to reference the words? Are they Marxists? Of course not. There's something bout the ideology that one has to subscribe to in order to be a "proper" Marxist.

I grant that one may use terms to criticize without subscribing to them. I intended to mean use in a positive sense xP

 

But I believe I quoted at least one instance of it being advocated specifically, and I'm sure we've all read or heard cards that urge use of Historical Materialism. Similarly, 'bourgeois' is a technical term pretty much unique to Marxist thought, especially when used as a perjorative (ie, as an adjective that doesn't really add any description other than 'and the associated noun does stuff we, marxists, don't like.')

 

Anyway, I could go into more detail about what makes them a Marxist. 'Reject' authors should tend to be marxists some rather specific reasons based on things Marx said and advocated. Marx said we couldn't necessarily predict the specific socialist outcome, for example, so advocating 'reject' is in line with a failure to make predictions. The major issue with stopping at 'reject' is that just because Marx believed we couldn't be specific, doesn't mean there wasn't a particular shape he saw to the solution. He believed strongly in the rule of a communist party (hence the division between Marx/Engels and Bakunin at the First International). Now, is Zizek's (or others') refusal to go beyond saying 'reject' (1) complete agnosticism on the nature of post-capitalism, (2) unwillingness to voice key parts of the ideal shape of things because the 20th century wasn't good publicity for things he believes, and he doesn't care to defend them right then, or (3) not the specific focus of those works, but he lays out his beliefs elsewhere.

 

In Zizek's case, I think the case for him being a Marxist (although clearly not a Leninist) is pretty strong. He's actively sympathetic to the Soviet Union, and he does defend at least some 'authoritarianism' in other works. I have not exhaustively read him, so there's probably more.

 

Making specific diagnoses requires time, but I'd guess at least 75% of 'reject' alt authors are Marxists or at least schooled in and sympathetic to Marxist thought.

 

And the real issue here is that reject alts don't specify, which means the Aff is left defending their capitalism against a nebulous and unspecified foe. If the neg won't say, its only reasonably to assume they're defending any not-capitalism, and the Aff should be allowed to count any attacks against non-Capitalist systems as offense for them.

 

Going further, those terms, even when used in serious critique, may just be part of a shared terminology of anti-capitalist writers. All of this is building up to something so bear with me for a bit.

Except it isn't. As an advocated method, its pretty much unique to writers within or at least trained in the Marxist school of thought.

 

Libertarian Socialism, such as schools of thought descending from Bakunin, don't seem to use the term. (They tend to not be academics with continental philosophy backgrounds, and terms like 'Dialectical' is far too presumptuous for most of their writing styles, in my experience. A lot of these writers say what they mean in plain language).

 

Before going further into the whole "Is she/isn't she a Marxist" debate, I'd appreciate a definition of what you consider Marxism to be. After that, we could see if particular authors are "invariably Marxists".

 

Here's where things get more contentious. Debaters often have impact cards with authors who are different than their alt authors. I'm really not trying to belittle anyone here (can't with my bandwidth), but it's possible to say that part of one person's cap K is Marxist while the alt is not. The desirability of this debate practice is more open. Does having a Marxist impact card tie your alt to Marxism even if it's not supposed to be Marxist?

 

I specifically quoted Alt authors only, fwiw. I'm not going to hold Cap Ks to having completely unified philosophical positions across all their cards, since that comes close to limiting you to only 1-3 authors for a given K instance, and even requiring more general agreement doesn't seem strictly necessary for links/impacts. (Pro-capitalism advocates usually have similar issues, fwiw). Various strains of socialist thought tend to have similar objections to Capitalism, even when they differ in solutions, after all.

 

But the alternative should be substantially unified in philosophy, and I focused on the alt authors because they're the heart of the K advocacy - what gives the K teeth to make it a voting issue. And because its an advocacy and not just stuff that's wrong with the Aff worldview, it needs to advocate towards something, so if your authors disagree on what that something is, you have a problem. So, my standard is that your alt should be Marxist, or Syndicalist, or (whatever flavor of not capitalism you choose that is at least generally congruent with the philosophy of your link/impact story); it needs to choose one and advocate that.

 

And see above on issues I have with the unfair burden the negative puts on the Affirmative when running a reject Alt.

 

Briefly defending reject alts. I'll admit that I'm no fan of reject alts. Just briefly saying, however, that for some authors *cough*Zizek*cough*, this is the only option. Any call for a definite alternative will be co-opted by the capitalist machine. Yes, yes, I know that that sounds like a cop-out. I'm not going to go further defending it.

It is a cop out. Sure, that may be what Zizek or other authors say, but we don't have to blindly follow authors into bad arguments.

 

And 'reject capitalism' is just as easily coopted by the capitalist machine. Extend Zizek sells his books through a capitalist publisher. Its already been coopted. It was probably coopted before he finished.

 

Anyway, we both agree they're not very good, so lets move on.

 

On the impact level, there's something to be said about the "invisible" violence committed by capitalism. This is my main point in this response. You specifically said that certain things labelled as capitalism, like crony capitalism, are not properly capitalism and that no serious theorist would defend it. However, you bound communism/socialism (there's a conflation between the two for you, but I won't go into that) to its material effects. This is a massive double standard. You keep claiming that there is a moral equivalence between Naziism and Communism even though you won't own up to an equivalence between such things as crony capitalism being the product of capitalism. "True" socialists probably don't advocate ruthless killings in the same way that "true" capitalists probably don't defend wanton environmental destruction and slave labor and all.

 

You make the point of mercantilism being alive and well, but I would say that that's a result of the capitalist system. I'll give my definition of capitalism here. "The basic definition of capitalism is the private ownership of productive capital." However, "it would make Fascist Corporatism synonymous with Capitalism because, even with the controlling hand of government, the productive capital in a Fascist Corporatist economy is still privately owned". What, then, can we call capitalism?

 

As an operational definition, let's say that it's free trade. I'll even spot you that we can get to such a situation. In a world of free trade, however, we won't have a free market, and that's a major problem. Certain people will inevitably be more clever, faster, stronger, blah, blah, blah, and they'll accumulate more resources. Let's even say that they do this legitimately (as in not stealing from others). Over some time, a small group of individuals will own the majority of some resource, and if the resource is necessary for life, then all others would be dependent on those individuals. This can be compared to modern corporations. The unregulated trade of capitalism inevitably leads to crony capitalism as those corporations (they don't have to specifically be corporations, but I'm using them as an analogue) would then influence the government through some kind of coercive means.

 

This coercion can still be in line with capitalism qua capitalism. Insofar as capitalism is about free trade, the government's duty is to protect free trade. As such, the government will pass policies that promote the protection of these vast holdings of wealth, protecting the corporations. This ensures that no one can sue the corporation or other such things. This is still in line with capitalism yet can be classified as crony capitalism.

And this is of course why I would love to see a debate of specific capitalism vs. a specific alternative. I don't think the question is settled, but it will never be settled just by indicting capitalism as bad. I'm reminded of a quote by, I believe, Churchhill, to the effect of "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." The metaphor is obvious, and proving capitalism is undesirable requires not only showing there are harms, but that something better is possible. (And as no one else seems to want to defend capitalism, that puts me in the position of at least sketching a defense of it to show its not totally one-sided).

 

Affs defending Capitalism should make distinctions between various types of 'capitalism', and explain why the K's links/impacts don't apply to capitalism as supported by plan. There are good Cap K link cards, but there are also bad Cap K link cards. And a Free Trade Aff is a lot different in the way it approaches Capitalism than something like the Mexico Security Aff. While Mexico Security may be a consequence of some type of 'capitalism' (as broadly interpreted by anti-capitalists), the 'capitalism' that leads to Mexico Security type Affs is not at all the same as the capitalism espoused by a Free Trade Aff. (No one said our current government was consistently capitalist, or consistent in what it meant by capitalism). Aff should be able to say "'good capitalism' works like x, and plan supports 'good capitalism'".

 

So ideally, both teams would argue an ideological advocacy. Both could generate defense and offense. Surely that's a more interesting debate than the Aff figuring out how it can best apologize for capitalism.

 

Yeah, I didn't go through point by point. I'd like to avoid writing a book, and my goal here is to prove that having this debate is desirable, not that capitalism is clearly better.

 

Here I delve into the Marxist stuff myself. This is a more insidious form of oppression than outright slave labor. Corporations will say "You workers are free to work anywhere else that you want to. We're not going to stop you." The problem is that there's no where else to work. They have become wage slaves. The question is which is better: being an outright slave or having false options? This is something that's debatable. I'm not going to take a stance here. Obviously, the best situation would be to not be a slave and to not have false options.

But what's the Marxist alternative? (Or any flavor of Socialism's alternative?) Most forms of socialism I'm aware of still expect people to work. Compulsory is compulsory.

 

Capitalist advocacy would say 'they can find work they enjoy, and/or they can start their own business'. One of the problems that Capitalism has historically solved is freeing workers from being compelled into a particular trade by birth. (There's great evidence on teh conflict between early capitalists and aristocracy in Britain over serfdom and the manorial system - the capitalists needed workers for their factories and were prepared to offer better wages, but the serfs were legally compelled to farm for the land-owning aristocracy and couldn't move).

 

Then there's the media issue.The statistics that you cite are true, yes. However, it's a question of true in what sense. Again, I can't really go line by line, so I'm not indicting you specifically. However, a lot of people define certain things arbitrarily. Think of the poverty line. It's decreased by politicians in order to make it look like they've solved poverty. In the same vein, capitalism may close off certain questions. It takes property rights as fundamental. That doesn't tell us anything about quality of life, however. A person may, theoretically, live a fulfilling life without any property (asceticism, for instance), but capitalism would call them impoverished. Imagine an entire country of such people. Objectively, according to capitalism, that would be a bad country. Now imagine a capitalist country where some own property and others do not. On the whole it's "better" than the ascetic country because there's more property ownership, despite how the bottom people are suffering more than the ascetics.

Quality of life, what determines it, and what best maximizes it is of course something that can and should be argued about in round. I can think of four separate positions off the top of my head on various sides of the cap debate.

 

This isn't even getting into the more direct violence that may or may not be committed by capitalism. A family may not have enough resources to climb the socioeconomic ladder and die young each generation. That can't be classified as a death "due to capitalism" because they died of malnutrition or birth defects. Contrast the overt firing squad that executes political dissidents. Well, death is death, according to your card. Capitalism's killing is equivalent to Naziism's and Socialism's killings.

Extermination is more than just death. I'm pretty sure the card's author would say that it was the intentional killing of entire classes of people which was specially morally reprehensible, and that's true regardless what those classes were. That doesn't deny that death is bad, or that capitalism may in some way contribute to some deaths, but the culpability is not at all the same. The capitalism case is a failure to save, not pulling the trigger. (And I'm sure Nazi Germany and the USSR had similar failures in addition to the exterminations).

 

A more interesting question in the Cap case would be: given some other system of economics, would fewer people die of malnutrition or birth defects? When it comes to failure to save, the question is which systems fail least often. The standard 'no death allowed' is ridiculously utopian.

 

----------

 

Bottom line: specific alts good, they lead to much more interesting and more fair debates.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not going to make this convo any more of a rep discussion, but i feel obligated, having now being mentioned explicitly and implicitly on this thread, to say

 

1. neg rep =/= "i don't respect you"

 

2. Much of my neg repping of squirroloid has been not because of my disagreement with his* posts but instead the lack of engagement he has provided in many of his posts. Engagement is critical in open discussions, and I often don't think that squirroloid posts in a way that makes it clear he has even thought about another persons post. This thread might not be an example of it--i don't know, i usually don't read threads in this forum, and only opened up this one once someone told me I was mentioned. 

 

Rep is meant to provide a general quantification of how credible someone is as a part of cross-x discussions. That's why it's called reputation. This doesn't mean rep is how credible an answer is, but rather how credible someone is in terms of how they engage in a discussion on cross-x. 

 

3. Solax10 is probably right that moderators should probably have to set examples in terms of rep (even though i don't know why he chose to neg rep my above post about snarf bringing me into this convo in a strange way)--thus, I am happy to justify any and all neg rep I have given over PM to the person I have neg rep'd. Just ask, instead of making blanket assumptions about why I have chosen to neg rep someone. 

Edited by liampirate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not going to make this convo any more of a rep discussion, but i feel obligated, having now being mentioned explicitly and implicitly on this thread, to say

 

1. neg rep =/= "i don't respect you"

 

2. Much of my neg repping of squirroloid has been not because of my disagreement with his* posts but instead the lack of engagement he has provided in many of his posts. Engagement is critical in open discussions, and I often don't think that squirroloid posts in a way that makes it clear he has even thought about another persons post. This thread might not be an example of it--i don't know, i usually don't read threads in this forum, and only opened up this one once someone told me I was mentioned. 

 

Rep is meant to provide a general quantification of how credible someone is as a part of cross-x discussions. That's why it's called reputation. This doesn't mean rep is how credible an answer is, but rather how credible someone is in terms of how they engage in a discussion on cross-x. 

 

3. Solax10 is probably right that moderators should probably have to set examples in terms of rep (even though i don't know why he chose to neg rep my above post about snarf bringing me into this convo in a strange way)--thus, I am happy to justify any and all neg rep I have given over PM to the person I have neg rep'd. Just ask, instead of making blanket assumptions about why I have chosen to neg rep someone. 

I made a blanket assumption based on the fact that 99% of post that received neg rep you gave it to him even on threads where you don't post anything

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread would've been super productive without the antagonistic language, ad homs and immaturity regarding the repping on both sides.

 

Please be civil and remember that a big part of policy debate is being able to debate about issues, sometimes very personal ones, while respecting one another and remembering ultimately the purpose of dialogue is for the betterment of everyone.

 

- the mod of this subforum

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a blanket assumption based on the fact that 99% of post that received neg rep you gave it to him even on threads where you don't post anything

I have neg rep'd him exactly 4 times in threads that I didn't post anything. You will notice that he's received a lot of neg rep by other people. I am certainly not close to "99%" of his neg rep--I am less than a twentieth of the total neg rep he has received, by my count. I have also neg rep'd less than a third of his posts. Is this significant? sure. I can and have justified it. Is this so significant that I should be drawn into a thread I was never a part of in the first place because of a discussion of squirroloid's 2 posts getting downvoted by 9 people each? I don't see why the two things are even related. 

 

Moreso, your "blanket assumption" is still a blanket assumption. Just because I have neg rep'd squirroloid a lot doesn't mean that I do it because i disagree with him. I gave a general reason why it may seem like I neg rep squirroloid frequently above. I can discuss more specific posts that I have NR'd via PM if you really want to get into it. I would just prefer you didn't notice a trend in neg rep'ing and then assume the worst in someone's intentions. 

 

This much discussion/thought need not go into the rep system. I neg rep posts that I feel detract from the communal value of cross-x. If you wish to inquire why I thought that a specific post did so, PM me. I encourage anyone to do this. I'd be happy to explain why a post doesn't seem to create a safe, sound, and productive space for a discussion to anyone. 

 

To clarify, I really don't think that neg rep/pos rep means no respect/respect for the person or their viewpoints. Of course, I respect squirroloid and his viewpoints. Everyone on these forums should respect everyone else simply because we're willing to spend time posting things here instead of doing other stuff like eating and browsing reddit. Thus, to make the rep system about "respect" of viewpoints would make the rep system inevitably useless. 

Edited by liampirate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh Liam, I didn't do a study of your neg repping habits - just looked at his last few rep and saw you on each of them. Was an observation, not a call out :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's literally reputation points in an online debate forum. Just don't be abusive about it and continue discussion...

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...