Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why do kritikal teams sometimes ignore the rez and think that it warrants an aff ballot? Seems pretty cheating to me, agree? Then they get mad when teams engage their aff through the lens of Framework, because it's the only way to effectively debate, unelss they want us to K em up with a generic Cap K. 

Edited by blacksareontology
  • Downvote 33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Then they get mad when teams engage their aff through the lens of Framework, because it's the only way to effectively debate, unelss they want us to K em up with a generic Cap K. 

I realize this is troll, but i do feel like this is a valid point

  • Upvote 12
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say probably a troll but still.
First it's problematic to say "black teams" are the ones "ignoring" the rez. Calling anyone who "ignores" the rez black teams is literally just wrong. 

Not my area of expertise but you are totes wrong. Two good examples being Emporia and OU and how they tie in the rez to the way the debate. 

 

What is the rez?  A topic of discussion. You have your way of approaching it and people will approach the topic differently.

If your only argument is they don't use the Fed gov then you are missing the point of the debate.
And if all you can come up with is FW and Cap you need to really rethink strategies. 

  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) You're just adding more reasons to why they read these kind of K affs. 

2) It is not cheating, I know of many that address the resolution, just NOT the way YOU want them to address it. Pay more close attention to the argument and the ROB that is claimed.

3) FW and Cap are the not the only args that exist, there are many other K that can be read against them. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Just with all K affs go farther left than them - 

Cap and FW, shouldnt be the only ideas in your head 

ideas : Chow , Baudrillirad ( cant spell), and idk a Perfomance/Counter Perfomance 

OOO, are all good ideas 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideologies like this is why Framework gets such a bad rep against non-plan text teams.  

The problem with framework is that it does not substantively engage them on an actual line-by-line level, it is just viewed as a cop-out to shut them up because "everyone must have a plan text!"  

I don't see how they are necessarily cheating because it is a different way to engage (or not) the political sphere, which they see as right.  How is that any different from a traditional plan-text plan.  Its not like if you win a round on HSR that it will actually get passed (throw back to transpo infra, yo).

Just gotta open your mind up to more opportunities, the community is definitely becoming more open to the non-plan text plans, which is a great plus for future and current debaters.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to express my opinions, but I appear to receive a lot of neg rep. Can someone please explain why y'all think that my opinion being expressed is worthy of -7 (and counting) neg rep? I haven't said anything that is offensive or detrimental to the continuation of the program, rather saying that I think it isn't fair that performance/poetry/narrative/aesthetics/kritikal teams get pissed when the neg engages their non-plan text aff through a F/W or Cap style. Would't the rest of the community agree that it's hard to garner offense on these types of aff? I just get sick of hearing these teams continually showing hatred towards teams that will go two off (i.e. F/W Cap, or F/W Anthro). Regardless, I am sorry if I  offended anyone in the debate community through my discourse. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to express my opinions, but I appear to receive a lot of neg rep. Can someone please explain why y'all think that my opinion being expressed is worthy of -7 (and counting) neg rep? I haven't said anything that is offensive or detrimental to the continuation of the program, rather saying that I think it isn't fair that performance/poetry/narrative/aesthetics/kritikal teams get pissed when the neg engages their non-plan text aff through a F/W or Cap style. Would't the rest of the community agree that it's hard to garner offense on these types of aff? I just get sick of hearing these teams continually showing hatred towards teams that will go two off (i.e. F/W Cap, or F/W Anthro). Regardless, I am sorry if I  offended anyone in the debate community through my discourse.

 

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that it was because you said black debaters always cheat. Unless there's some other way we're supposed to interpret this statement:

"Why do black teams always ignore the rez and think that it warrants an aff ballot? Seems pretty cheating to me"

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to express Can someone please explain why y'all think that my opinion being expressed is worthy of -7 (and counting) neg rep?. Would't the rest of the community agree that it's hard to garner offense on these types of aff? 

a) Most of the backlash came from your conflation of black teams and cheating.  They arent the only ones who run these kind of identity of kritikal arguments and, cheating is kind of a harsh way to describe their style.  Style.  They chose not to defend the rez, not as a way to cheat, but as a way to relate their style to debate and that it was they are most comfortable with.  Its not different than if you are more comfortable reading a plan because you see that as the best way to engage.

B) Sure, it is harder to garner offense, but that doesnt mean it is cheating.  Its not different that going against a plan such as the one i ran this year about moving money around to the POE's somehow solve anthro.  You might have a hard time getting a specific link to anthro, but it isnt cheating.  Any type of argumentation has literature for and against it if you research the issue and it is in this research that the best offense can be drawn from.  Just because someone cant get a PTX link to a kritikal aff doesnt necessitate it as cheating

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your only argument is they don't use the Fed gov then you are missing the point of the debate.

I don't want to sound like an old-fashioned person, but the resolution does call for action by the USFG for a reason. I personally think that kritikal teams should have an advocacy statement that uses the state, otherwise it defeats the primary purpose of POLICY debate. Take the final round of the NDT this year. It was a good policy debate round. While I agree that there are a lot of benefits to debating form a different perspective and style (Emporia, OU), I don't think that it's fair to say that negs can't engage the aff through F/W without being called "racist" or "privileged."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say probably a troll but still.

First it's problematic to say "black teams" are the ones "ignoring" the rez. Calling anyone who "ignores" the rez black teams is literally just wrong. 

Not my area of expertise but you are totes wrong. Two good examples being Emporia and OU and how they tie in the rez to the way the debate. 

 

What is the rez?  A topic of discussion. You have your way of approaching it and people will approach the topic differently.

If your only argument is they don't use the Fed gov then you are missing the point of the debate.

And if all you can come up with is FW and Cap you need to really rethink strategies.

 

Says the person who only goes for cap

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to sound like an old-fashioned person, but the resolution does call for action by the USFG for a reason. I personally think that kritikal teams should have an advocacy statement that uses the state, otherwise it defeats the primary purpose of POLICY debate. Take the final round of the NDT this year. It was a good policy debate round. While I agree that there are a lot of benefits to debating form a different perspective and style (Emporia, OU), I don't think that it's fair to say that negs can't engage the aff through F/W without being called "racist" or "privileged."

What does this even mean? There is no set in stone purpose of debate or thing that you are supposed to learn from it. Everyone may take something different out of it. You also assume that making this argument means that the team automatically wins. 

Edited by glg1995
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also assume that making this argument means that the team automatically wins. 

 

This is really important. Making controversial arguments about race and social location isn't the easiest way to win debates; the fact that some teams are doing very well at it now is no more a testament to their arguments' invincibility than is the fact that "traditional" and "policy" arguments are the way to go just because they comprise the majority of debates (not only now but over the entire history of debate as an activity).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>sees title

>thinks "well if this isn't the seed of a shitstorm I don't know what is"

>check thread.  it hasn't devolved to that.

>Good show all.

 

I'm not sure why that post was in 4chan style.  It just felt right.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pos rep to all in the lobby even though y'all neg repped me. And y'all wonder why there is such a division in debate. Thank you for personally secluding and isolating me from expressing my own opinion in a group that is supposed to make me feel secure. 

  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pos rep to all in the lobby even though y'all neg repped me. And y'all wonder why there is such a division in debate. Thank you for personally secluding and isolating me from expressing my own opinion in a group that is supposed to make me feel secure. 

 

harmful opinions should not be expressed and should be unacceptable in any setting, educational or not

you are not the victim here -- you are the oppressor

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not "hating", bro. I just wanted to know why these teams don't like when the opposing side only engages in their aff via Framework or generic K's like Anthro or Cap. You all know very well that there has been a disturbance in the college and high school level of debate because of this issue. Teams that choose to debate based on their self-identity expect the other team to have a counter advocacy and K em up, when F/W could be a viable option. Sorry that you all don't agree with my opinion, but I sure in hell won't say sorry for expressing my belief/thought. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not "hating", bro. I just wanted to know why these teams don't like when the opposing side only engages in their aff via Framework or generic K's like Anthro or Cap. You all know very well that there has been a disturbance in the college and high school level of debate because of this issue. Teams that choose to debate based on their self-identity expect the other team to have a counter advocacy and K em up, when F/W could be a viable option. Sorry that you all don't agree with my opinion, but I sure in hell won't say sorry for expressing my belief/thought. 

This isn't the problem (or at least it wasn't for me).  The problem is that you refer to those teams as "cheating" (those debates may/not be good for education, but they certainly don't cheat) and you specifically target blacks as the ones who are cheating.  Not only does this ignore the black debaters who do policy, but it also homogenizes the various races, sexualities, etc. who make up K teams and who are criticizing traditional policy debate for a multitude of reasons.  Saying "blacks are cheating" is pretty damn offensive and legitimizes the reasons these sort of affs exist in the first place.

 

 

 I just wanted to know why these teams don't like when the opposing side only engages in their aff via Framework or generic K's like Anthro or Cap. 

I think this is a very valid question as well, and i want to know why a couple people neg-repped me for saying as much earlier.  I mean, isn't the point to have a debate on whether or not the 1ac was a good idea, and since most k affs criticize debate in some way, isn't framework a direct impact turn to the aff.  Would love to hear a rebuttal to this

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not "hating", bro. I just wanted to know why these teams don't like when the opposing side only engages in their aff via Framework or generic K's like Anthro or Cap. You all know very well that there has been a disturbance in the college and high school level of debate because of this issue. Teams that choose to debate based on their self-identity expect the other team to have a counter advocacy and K em up, when F/W could be a viable option. Sorry that you all don't agree with my opinion, but I sure in hell won't say sorry for expressing my belief/thought. 

Maybe, just maybe, they don't like having the same debate over and over again. These teams might want to learn about different literature than  humans and their relationship to other animals or economics.

It's like having the same PTX scenario every week. Maybe they want to discuss something else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a very valid question as well, and i want to know why a couple people neg-repped me for saying as much earlier.  I mean, isn't the point to have a debate on whether or not the 1ac was a good idea, and since most k affs criticize debate in some way, isn't framework a direct impact turn to the aff.  Would love to hear a rebuttal to this

I may not be the right person to answer this request, but I'll try. 

Framework in the traditional sense of 

1.    Interpretation: The aff should defend the hypothetical enactment of a topical plan 2.    “United States Federal Government should†means the debate is solely about the outcome of a policy established by governmental means #ericson

says that the 1ac isn't a worthy proposal. "They should defend vs. it'd be better if." I think K teams would rather have teams question the actor: debaters vs. USFG actor. There was a FB post in High School Policy about how some people would prefer to have the neg stand up and say the USFG should do the plan and discuss the implications of having a racist structure doing "anti-racist" things. (sorry couldn't think of a better word). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Naa, its allows for an intresting debate : 

not saying PTX isnt intresting 

FW might not be - that is an ish . But all then a more intresting one could be like a lego movie OOO/introna counteradvocacy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may not be the right person to answer this request, but I'll try. 

Framework in the traditional sense of 

1.    Interpretation: The aff should defend the hypothetical enactment of a topical plan 2.    “United States Federal Government should†means the debate is solely about the outcome of a policy established by governmental means #ericson

says that the 1ac isn't a worthy proposal. "They should defend vs. it'd be better if." I think K teams would rather have teams question the actor: debaters vs. USFG actor. There was a FB post in High School Policy about how some people would prefer to have the neg stand up and say the USFG should do the plan and discuss the implications of having a racist structure doing "anti-racist" things. (sorry couldn't think of a better word). 

A couple of problems with this. a) it completely ignores the importance of limits (which are NOT inherently fascist).  Its hard enough for debaters to cut case negs to policy affs.  To imagine debaters (especially ones that don't go to rich schools) could cut policy Counterplans for every single K aff that exists on the topic is insane. B) A lot (maybe even most) K affs aren't conducive to this sort of strat.  Examples: aff that says rez is capitalist and cap is bad, or the ruralism aff from the TI topic.  They're criticizing the elitism of debate, so how is saying "CP: USFG should build some roads for them" solving in any sort of way.  FW in this instance would actually engage the substance of the aff much better than a policy CP, but i guess that's just fascist.  c) The perm is nigh impossible to answer without offense on limits. d) This is going to essentialize and i apologize, but when many  are saying SSD bad and are running the same arguments almost every round on neg and as their aff,i think saying "stop just reading FW" or "stop reading cap every time" is a bit hypocritical

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...