Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

TL DR; K lit is slightly harder to understand than econ and warming internal links so we shouldn't have to listen to them at all.

 

I agree that K lit is definitely harder to understand than politics. I cut a bunch of ptx cards in an hour, but I might only cut one k card in an hour. The literature is dense... Dancon was cutting article after article, he's either crazy or a critical professor. (not mutually exclusive)

 

I think it sets a bad precedent." 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. "If you read my post I didn't say all forms of FW are bad. Instead of requiring USFG action, it might be better to have a fw that requires a policy action in the direction of the topic. A discussion about capitalist epistemology isn't a policy. A team saying that we should deconstruct the road system is a method. A CP to have the USFG do that would be competitive. 

") The perm is nigh impossible to answer without offense on limit" Most teams are willing to have a method debate. Some teams have unflinching paradigms, where they won't perm. If you win a better method you win.

 

FW isn't an impact turn or a method. Saying their discussion is bad because it causes inter identity problems or because using identity in politics is bad because it causes x. Those are impact turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do apologize if my discourse was offensive or personally felt as isolating African American debaters. I don't, however, agree with your argument, Ethank. These teams should understand that if they choose to abandon a policy or not defend a hypothetical implementation of a plan, that they're going to hit generic strategies (i.e. state pic, "The pic", Cap, Anthro, F/W, Nietzsche). I don't think it's fair to say that straight up policy teams are personally called out because they want to access the Aff on a different level. 

 

*Now, here is another question for everyone that I don't want to be blown out of proportion." - When is it okay to impact turn Patriarchy? My belief is that it's acceptable only when the K is Fem IR, but a K more cenetered around post-modern feminism (i.e. Butler, Irigaray) shouldn't be impact turned. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL DR; K lit is slightly harder to understand than econ and warming internal links so we shouldn't have to listen to them at all.

 

What?  What in my post even implies that?  I have no problem with people running K affs, i want to know why people who run FW against them are villainized when it often engages the aff better than, say, a generic as hell cap k would

 

 

. "If you read my post I didn't say all forms of FW are bad. Instead of requiring USFG action, it might be better to have a fw that requires a policy action in the direction of the topic

 

I'm not sure of the difference, could you clarify?

 

 

 

 A team saying that we should deconstruct the road system is a method. A CP to have the USFG do that would be competitive. 

 

Wut.  All the lit that i would use for this (and there's plenty of it) says that the USFG doing a pragmatic action to solve racism/sexism/etc. is good, or when it does that in conduction with an epistemic rethinking that's good, not that the USFG sitting and rethinking is good.  Unless you mean to physically deconstruct the road system, which would make for an interesting debate

 

 

") The perm is nigh impossible to answer without offense on limit" Most teams are willing to have a method debate. Some teams have unflinching paradigms, where they won't perm. If you win a better method you win.

 

 

Fair enough

 

 

FW isn't an impact turn or a method. Saying their discussion is bad because it causes inter identity problems or because using identity in politics is bad because it causes x. Those are impact turns.

But isn't that exactly what (a good) framework is saying.  That identity in debate and politics is bad for x,y,z, and the alt/interp is to debate over federal policies?  Ofc you could change your interp to be more flexible (and link out of a lot of their offense) but i think saying "FW isn't an impact turn to a method" is incredibly inaccurate because FW challenges the necessity of rupturing the ground-rules of debate with their K aff, or whether running K affs is the best way to effect a change in the community .  If they make a substantive change in debate (like they claim they do) then FW is their to tell them that that change is bad or that their method for it sucks

 

 

 

I agree that K lit is definitely harder to understand than politics. I cut a bunch of ptx cards in an hour, but I might only cut one k card in an hour. The literature is dense... Dancon was cutting article after article, he's either crazy or a critical professor. (not mutually exclusive)

 

This isn't always true. Marxist and security literature tends to be pretty easy to read (though they constantly repeat themselves and unnecessarily double the length of their books).  Even Foucault i can get a grip on.  

 

ON the other hand, i admit my brain hurts every time i (attempt to) read DnG or Baud.  Of course, reading about the nuances of the effects of debt upon the economy or other "policy" related areas is often very dense and complicated, so i'd say its unfair to essentialize policy stuff as "easy to understand"

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What?  What in my post even implies that?  I have no problem with people running K affs, i want to know why people who run FW against them are villainized when it often engages the aff better than, say, a generic as hell cap k would

This. This exactly is the point that I am trying to make. I don't understand how teams that run Framework are seen as "unwilling to engage" or "lazy", when Framework half the times is a viable option. Feldsy explained my exact thoughts on this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have butchered the LBL with the reply sorry

What?  What in my post even implies that?  I have no problem with people running K affs, i want to know why people who run FW against them are villainized when it often engages the aff better than, say, a generic as hell cap k would

Sorry, I misread it. That TL DR was honestly rude.

I'm not sure of the difference, could you clarify?

You say that some people say that the res is bad. A legit FW arg by their standards would be a plan (not necessarily by the USFG) that rejects something the rez requires. 

Plan Text: We as debaters should invest our time in a destruction of the U.S.' ableist T.I. structure.

 

Wut.  All the lit that i would use for this (and there's plenty of it) says that the USFG doing a pragmatic action to solve racism/sexism/etc. is good, or when it does that in conduction with an epistemic rethinking that's good, not that the USFG sitting and rethinking is good.  Unless you mean to physically deconstruct the road system, which would make for an interesting debate 

 

Yes. Exactly. If you want a USFG good debate, have the USFG do something that would solve the aff. The USFG should interrogate antiblackness or something.

Fair enough

 

But isn't that exactly what (a good) framework is saying.  That identity in debate and politics is bad for x,y,z, and the alt/interp is to debate over federal policies?  Ofc you could change your interp to be more flexible (and link out of a lot of their offense) but i think saying "FW isn't an impact turn to a method" is incredibly inaccurate because FW challenges the necessity of rupturing the ground-rules of debate with their K aff, or whether running K affs is the best way to effect a change in the community .  If they make a substantive change in debate (like they claim they do) then FW is their to tell them that that change is bad or that their method for it sucks

 

The FW text that consistently comes out of camps is "

1.    Interpretation: The aff should defend the hypothetical enactment of a topical plan"

forcing people to roleplay and saying that certain arguments are outside normal debate are silencers.

 

This isn't always true. Marxist and security literature tends to be pretty easy to read (though they constantly repeat themselves and unnecessarily double the length of their books).  Even Foucault i can get a grip on.  

 

ON the other hand, i admit my brain hurts every time i (attempt to) read DnG or Baud.  Of course, reading about the nuances of the effects of debt upon the economy or other "policy" related areas is often very dense and complicated, so i'd say its unfair to essentialize policy stuff as "easy to understand"

Not really that important to the discussion. But Uniqueness for CIR is obviously easier and more readily available than whatever Žižek is saying. Not everyone has access to those subscriptions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But as for the original post controversy, I agree with what you've said, except the bastardization of teams who do this type of thing. As a person who did this type of argument, was moderately successful on it, and whom, along with my partner did not get mad at people reading framework (we actually got more angry at people who tried to "engage" and either constantly read non applicable arguments even after being told they didn't apply, or read things like the Bankey thesis paper against us.)

 

*Now, here is another question for everyone that I don't want to be blown out of proportion." - When is it okay to impact turn Patriarchy? My belief is that it's acceptable only when the K is Fem IR, but a K more cenetered around post-modern feminism (i.e. Butler, Irigaray) shouldn't be impact turned. 

 

who knows. I feel like any K can be "Impact turned" because there are impact turns that don't say that Patriarchy/Racism is good. Maybe those are closer to internal link turns. Also, The debate community, maybe it's in a good way that's still bad because it's why certain topics won't ever be debated. Our community is too liberal to accept certain types of arguments. Patriarchy good is still not in those types of arguments because even the most hardline policy people in this day and age would not vote on Patriarchy good. Even those who are "Tab" not only because it's a bad argument but they don't want the backlash of being the guy/girl who voted on "patriarchy k2 heg" But then again I have admittedly said some well, terrible things when answering feminism K's in the past, but never to the extent of patriarchy good. Also there is no "non-impact turnable K" While you'll lose badly by saying Patriarchy good in the 2AC/1NC, you'd have a good shot at winning by reading x form of feminism/that author's idea is bad instead. It's still offense but something that people would vote/consider.

 

What?  What in my post even implies that?  I have no problem with people running K affs, i want to know why people who run FW against them are villainized when it often engages the aff better than, say, a generic as hell cap k would

 

Pretty much I feel it, I think that Framework/T is still a valuable option versus teams who read this type of argument, and even then, I've seen teams get mad when you have a competing method and still read FW/T. I've even had people ask me about "why did you read T and your whiteness argument in the 1NC?" when we were neg against a questionably topical K aff (they defended a plan but it wasn't topical in most senses of the word) I actually fully agree with this sentiment- If T's the best option you go for T. Sure it's more likely to be answered, but it's the better option in a lot of cases.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do apologize if my discourse was offensive or personally felt as isolating African American debaters. I don't, however, agree with your argument, Ethank. These teams should understand that if they choose to abandon a policy or not defend a hypothetical implementation of a plan, that they're going to hit generic strategies (i.e. state pic, "The pic", Cap, Anthro, F/W, Nietzsche). I don't think it's fair to say that straight up policy teams are personally called out because they want to access the Aff on a different level. 

 

*Now, here is another question for everyone that I don't want to be blown out of proportion." - When is it okay to impact turn Patriarchy? My belief is that it's acceptable only when the K is Fem IR, but a K more cenetered around post-modern feminism (i.e. Butler, Irigaray) shouldn't be impact turned. 

whut

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do apologize if my discourse was offensive or personally felt as isolating African American debaters. I don't, however, agree with your argument, Ethank. These teams should understand that if they choose to abandon a policy or not defend a hypothetical implementation of a plan, that they're going to hit generic strategies (i.e. state pic, "The pic", Cap, Anthro, F/W, Nietzsche). I don't think it's fair to say that straight up policy teams are personally called out because they want to access the Aff on a different level. 

 

*Now, here is another question for everyone that I don't want to be blown out of proportion." - When is it okay to impact turn Patriarchy? My belief is that it's acceptable only when the K is Fem IR, but a K more cenetered around post-modern feminism (i.e. Butler, Irigaray) shouldn't be impact turned. 

 

Are you confused about what an impact turn it, buddy? Or do you not know what Pat-ria-chy is?

CONFIRMED TROLL, DO NOT ENGAGE

Edited by Zuul
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CONFIRMED TROLL, DO NOT ENGAGE

what about me clarifying an issue on a post makes me a troll? Everyone on this website is quick to throw around the label "troll" without actually having substantial proof to back up their argument. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to give this thread a miss, because ug.  I'm rejecting this threads "1AC" representations.

 

But if there really are teams that get mad at negatives for running framework and actually expect every negative team to have specific answers to their special snowflake affirmative, wtf.  The whole point of a limits standard (you know, that thing that probably got read on framework) is the negative can't predict random things which aren't topical.  Just because the aff wants to be a special snowflake doesn't mean everyone else magically knows what they're going to run.  If they aren't topical, of course no one did research against their case - what are they smoking?

 

Policy teams get tired of running framework against this nonsense too.  But the solution isn't 'lololol do research against this totally unpredictable case', its 'be topical and they won't run framework'.  Because no one is going to do research against a case they had no idea existed.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the term "special snowflake" is used to condescend to and marginalize difference, while defending norms from question or criticism. I've never heard someone use the term "special snowflake" to describe a unique IR theory (there are literally thousands), so I'm not sure why it should describe critical race theory. 

 

It's also funny (or awful?) that the clearly trolling, obviously racist user "blacksareontology" can find agreement in opinion, as long as that agreement is phrased suitably. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the term "special snowflake" is used to condescend to and marginalize difference, while defending norms from question or criticism. I've never heard someone use the term "special snowflake" to describe a unique IR theory (there are literally thousands), so I'm not sure why it should describe critical race theory. 

 

It's also funny (or awful?) that the clearly trolling, obviously racist user "blacksareontology" can find agreement in opinion, as long as that agreement is phrased suitably. 

I don't think he's being racist at all.  He's using "special snowflake to refer to all K affs, not just race one (there isn't a mention of race in that entire post).  He's just using it as a metaphor since all snowflakes are unique and not alike

 

It's also funny (or awful?) that the clearly trolling, obviously racist user "blacksareontology" can find agreement in opinion, as long as that agreement is phrased suitably. 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he's being racist at all.  He's using "special snowflake to refer to all K affs, not just race one (there isn't a mention of race in that entire post).  He's just using it as a metaphor since all snowflakes are unique and not alike

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

I don't think I called him racist...I think I suggested that his terminology (like his position) had intellectual limits and marginalized difference. I used CRT as an example because it's the subject of the thread - maybe you jumped the gun a bit? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Does anyone know if there are debate schools near [EXPLETIVE DELETED]? This person's IP address - [EXPLETIVE DELETED] - traces back to there. I couldn't find any of Tyrone's posts to compare but I wouldn't be shocked to find congruity.

 

 

[PICTURE DELETED]

 

 

[EXPLETIVE DELETED]

Edited by Phantom707
Personal Information
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the term "special snowflake" is used to condescend to and marginalize difference, while defending norms from question or criticism. I've never heard someone use the term "special snowflake" to describe a unique IR theory (there are literally thousands), so I'm not sure why it should describe critical race theory. 

 

It's also funny (or awful?) that the clearly trolling, obviously racist user "blacksareontology" can find agreement in opinion, as long as that agreement is phrased suitably. 

 

On one level, yeah, I'm condescending to difference - but not personal difference, i'm condescending to excessive difference in case construction.  In particular, I'm intentionally and strategically being condescending toward the idea that the negative should have case specific offense for any random affirmative a team can imagine.  Because that's nonsense.  No one has the time to research case specific offense for everything, assuming they can even imagine the same case the affirmative did.  We're all different - in a sense we're all special snowflakes.  But to complain that you get hit by generic strategies when you did something unique and unpredictable is to forget that not everyone thinks like you do - you're forgetting you emphasized your special-snowflakeness.  When you run something outside the box, expect to get hit with generic arguments.  The farther outside the box, the more generic the arguments.  If you're going to embrace your inner special snowflake, you have no right to complain people respond with generic arguments.  Your opponents have their own inner special snowflakes, and had no reason to prepare to argue against yours.

 

I'm not criticizing being a special snowflake.  I'm criticizing being a special snowflake and then ignoring that you did that and demanding people have researched your argument specifically.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if there are debate schools near [EXPLETIVE DELETED]? This person's IP address - [EXPLETIVE DELETED] - traces back to there. I couldn't find any of Tyrone's posts to compare but I wouldn't be shocked to find congruity.

 

 

[PICTURE DELETED]

 

 

[EXPLETIVE DELETED]

 

How did you do that?

 

And why?

Edited by Phantom707
Personal Information
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you do that?

 

And why?

He used his moderator abilities to look up the persons IP which can be used to identify the persons general location.

 

He wants to find out if there are a line of trolls coming from this location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He used his moderator abilities to look up the persons IP which can be used to identify the persons general location.

 

He wants to find out if there are a line of trolls coming from this location.

Oh okay. I wasn't aware that it was a mod thing. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't their rules about posting the personal information of users without their permission?  I feel like someone's personal address that should be confined to the mod forums or taken up with an admin, not posted for everyone to see (including people who don't have accounts)

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya I personally don't think this should happen.  Even if he's trolling, that doesn't mean we toss his personal information out for everyone to see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now im just really curious - if you are doing this to really 

 btw on the Debate schools in [EXPLETIVE DELETED] - the [EXPLETIVE DELETED] is one 

 

 

[EXPLETIVE DELETED]

 

 

uggh i feel really wrong for googling this - why did you need to post the exact location - using the IP ? You could have got the same result just asking Debate schools in Wichita ?

Edited by Phantom707
Personal Information
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that personal information such as IP addresses should not be posted, but to assuage at least some fears, they're not extremely accurate and can't (nor shouldn't) be used to pinpoint a particular address or individual. It gives a range of area.

 

So yeah, we can't find out exactly where this person lives, but it's still problematic.

 

I'm retroactively editing other people's posts to remove the information.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...