Jump to content

Recommended Posts

fight

fight

fight

fight

 

framework vdebate right here right now

 

are there any HS teams/schools that are notorious for going 1 off framework and winning often?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha that'd be awesome but you've never beaten me on framework ;).

 

And let's put it this way: I lost a lot more this year when teams had specific strategies then when they went for framework.

I'm pretty confident that I both haven't debated you this year and have never gone for framework against you.  And that last comment says nothing about the efficacy of framework, just peoples' desire to read increasingly obfuscatory or obscure K's (e.g. Consult the Earth, Personal Pronouns PIK, Fernando PIK, etc.).

 

are there any HS teams/schools that are notorious for going 1 off framework and winning often?

Um, yes. Take a look at the finals of the TOC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read a K aff all year and only lost to "framework" once on the nat circuit-- it wasn't even a real framework argument and it was against Niles North OW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because bad HS teams are bad at FW doesn't mean the argument is bad. There's a reason that a lot of the top college teams are going for framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty confident that I both haven't debated you this year and have never gone for framework against you.  And that last comment says nothing about the efficacy of framework, just peoples' desire to read increasingly obfuscatory or obscure K's (e.g. Consult the Earth, Personal Pronouns PIK, Fernando PIK, etc.).

 

Um, yes. Take a look at the finals of the TOC.

That's just Deleuze and Baudrillard; if you have trouble understanding them, then that just means the team reading them didn't do a sufficient job of explaining them which means they deserve the loss, which isn't always the case. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think we want to be throwing K's out of the window just because, in an ironic remark to Snark, some high school debaters don't know how to run them effectively. Harvard BS was able to make it to break rounds of the NDT this year with their Lundberg shenanigans and Symbolic Exchange stuff by being able to explain their arguments in relation to the topic, and affirmative or negative strategy, at hand; albeit they did run some obscure stuff at times (but who doesn't?), they read the same aff at the NDT they'd been reading all year and had similar strategies. When people known you're "that" team who goes for some incantation of Baudrillard, Deleuze, or Nietzsche in the 2NR/2AR (i.e. Caddo Magnet CM, Walter Payton BC, HoFlo LS, Katy Taylor AL, etc.) then they're gonna do their best to prep for them; if that means people decide to read FW in front of some judges, and not read FW in front of others, is up to them; but the idea that reading FW all the time means that you win a lot isn't true; I've never dropped to FW, but I've won some rounds on FW - albeit I ran it vs a K, since I was aff - it's really situational. 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because bad HS teams are bad at FW doesn't mean the argument is bad. There's a reason that a lot of the top college teams are going for framework.

I never said that; what I meant was that these teams have framework read against them 80%+ of rounds while you'll maybe go for framework like %5-%25 at most. They'll have much more experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fight

fight

fight

fight

 

framework vdebate right here right now

 

are there any HS teams/schools that are notorious for going 1 off framework and winning often?

 

I have 0 national fame or recognition for my high-school career, but in Oregon (and southern Washington) I won a lot of rounds against K affs with 1 off framework.

 

This is because we had a lay af judging base and played it out because it would win... but that's what I did.

 

 

... and then I read marx, and then zizek and than baudrillard  and then smoke ganja and life was great. 

 

also y'all are trash db8ers 1v1 me irl you novices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just Deleuze and Baudrillard; if you have trouble understanding them, then that just means the team reading them didn't do a sufficient job of explaining them which means they deserve the loss, which isn't always the case. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think we want to be throwing K's out of the window just because, in an ironic remark to Snark, some high school debaters don't know how to run them effectively. Harvard BS was able to make it to break rounds of the NDT this year with their Lundberg shenanigans and Symbolic Exchange stuff by being able to explain their arguments in relation to the topic, and affirmative or negative strategy, at hand; albeit they did run some obscure stuff at times (but who doesn't?), they read the same aff at the NDT they'd been reading all year and had similar strategies. When people known you're "that" team who goes for some incantation of Baudrillard, Deleuze, or Nietzsche in the 2NR/2AR (i.e. Caddo Magnet CM, Walter Payton BC, HoFlo LS, Katy Taylor AL, etc.) then they're gonna do their best to prep for them; if that means people decide to read FW in front of some judges, and not read FW in front of others, is up to them; but the idea that reading FW all the time means that you win a lot isn't true; I've never dropped to FW, but I've won some rounds on FW - albeit I ran it vs a K, since I was aff - it's really situational. 

I've actually read Deleuze and Baudrillard.  I'm not going to claim any deep understanding, but mine is better than most.  However, you'll notice that the K's I listed earlier go out of their way to disidentify with what they fundamentally are.  Why? It's because people [a lot of the time, albeit not always] read K's to confuse and trip up the other team and get the easy win. I get that winning on framework is hard when every K aff team has spent 100 hours prepping for it, but if you ever actually listened to framework you would understand that that in itself is a better model of that education that you claim to hold so dear.

 

If you really want to effectuate change, you read policy on the aff and K's on the neg.  You do that so that you can actually learn how to craft policy that isn't racist, homophobic, classist, etc. rather than reading critiques on all sides, which just indicts a ghost in the room and never does anything.  You should understand that reading K's on the neg and an untopical K aff is absurdly tautological.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually read Deleuze and Baudrillard.  I'm not going to claim any deep understanding, but mine is better than most.  However, you'll notice that the K's I listed earlier go out of their way to disidentify with what they fundamentally are.  Why? It's because people [a lot of the time, albeit not always] read K's to confuse and trip up the other team and get the easy win. I get that winning on framework is hard when every K aff team has spent 100 hours prepping for it, but if you ever actually listened to framework you would understand that that in itself is a better model of that education that you claim to hold so dear.

 

If you really want to effectuate change, you read policy on the aff and K's on the neg.  You do that so that you can actually learn how to craft policy that isn't racist, homophobic, classist, etc. rather than reading critiques on all sides, which just indicts a ghost in the room and never does anything.  You should understand that reading K's on the neg and an untopical K aff is absurdly tautological.

This. This. So much this.

I'm a little curious though, do you read k affs throughout the year? Cause most of your vdebates are with you running a K aff

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little curious though, do you read k affs throughout the year? Cause most of your vdebates are with you running a K aff

Yeah I read a lot of K aff's, although I did read a topical aquaculture aff for about half this year.  I think that debate is a game, and, like all games, I am fully willing to cheat in order to win.  I've made my peace with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I read a lot of K aff's, although I did read a topical aquaculture aff for about half this year.  I think that debate is a game, and, like all games, I am fully willing to cheat in order to win.  I've made my peace with that.

woah where are the morals

please tell me you are joking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

woah where are the morals

please tell me you are joking

 

 

I've actually read Deleuze and Baudrillard.  I'm not going to claim any deep understanding, but mine is better than most.  However, you'll notice that the K's I listed earlier go out of their way to disidentify with what they fundamentally are.  Why? It's because people [a lot of the time, albeit not always] read K's to confuse and trip up the other team and get the easy win. I get that winning on framework is hard when every K aff team has spent 100 hours prepping for it, but if you ever actually listened to framework you would understand that that in itself is a better model of that education that you claim to hold so dear.

 

If you really want to effectuate change, you read policy on the aff and K's on the neg.  You do that so that you can actually learn how to craft policy that isn't racist, homophobic, classist, etc. rather than reading critiques on all sides, which just indicts a ghost in the room and never does anything.  You should understand that reading K's on the neg and an untopical K aff is absurdly tautological.

 

 

This. This. So much this.

I'm a little curious though, do you read k affs throughout the year? Cause most of your vdebates are with you running a K aff

Beyond morals, this is just incorrect. I'm not gonna spend the time explaining all of the reasons it's incorrect, I'm just gonna leave an article: http://issuu.com/speechanddebate/docs/2015_winter_rostrum_web?e=11541328/11449225 page 88

 

Edit: How does spreading through an aquaculture aff at 400 WPM with impacts like nuke war teach us how we can reform the state to not be racist/sexist?

Edited by BobbyS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually read Deleuze and Baudrillard.  I'm not going to claim any deep understanding, but mine is better than most.  However, you'll notice that the K's I listed earlier go out of their way to disidentify with what they fundamentally are.  Why? It's because people [a lot of the time, albeit not always] read K's to confuse and trip up the other team and get the easy win. I get that winning on framework is hard when every K aff team has spent 100 hours prepping for it, but if you ever actually listened to framework you would understand that that in itself is a better model of that education that you claim to hold so dear.

 

If you really want to effectuate change, you read policy on the aff and K's on the neg.  You do that so that you can actually learn how to craft policy that isn't racist, homophobic, classist, etc. rather than reading critiques on all sides, which just indicts a ghost in the room and never does anything.  You should understand that reading K's on the neg and an untopical K aff is absurdly tautological.

I don't understand why that's necessarily tautological 

 

Also - no reason why criticism doesn't serve as a precedent to actual political engagement. 

 

And - I think a reasonable team is able to explain why political engagement necessarily replicates the same thing they're criticizing; for instance, in a Widlerson debate, political reformation, although helpful at first, inevitably reinscribes violence against groups. This is because Wilderson explains how the political always already needs a body in a position of absolute direction to develop itself; means any form of political engagement is bad. It's really a question of how you debate it and I don't think this idea that political engagement = social transformation is necessarily true, all Bryant '12's aside. 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest, debate's a game. Some people might play it to learn, some might play it to test their wit, but most of us just like it as an activity. Like all games, I think it's best to play by the rules -- the Aff affirms the resolution, and the Neg negates it. Regardless if you think that the USFG is good or is bad, read some kind of plan -- exploring the ocean isn't 100% intrinsically bad. If you sincerely believe the govt is 100% bad and you can't even hypothetically defend it, then either you should (IMO) concede all your aff rounds or enter another kind of debate more geared towards non-policy methods of resolving a problem.

 

However Marty, the "It's a game, I know that, and I'm cheating just to win" makes no sense to me. You talk about how debate helps you craft better, non-racist (as an example) actions. Yet in real life, if you cheat, you get punished. You don't travel in basketball just to win, you don't call every shot out in tennis just to win. That destroys the game! I just can't see how you don't get out of this without facing the times you contradict yourself.

Edited by deb8lover
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main difference between the games you're identifying and debate is that debate has a strongly established precedent of determining large subsets of the rules within the round (things like counterplan theory and conditionality, for example, even before questions of framework became a thing).  As such, it's only "cheating" in the sense of being theoretically questionable, and not in the sense of being a violation of the ethics of gaming (I doubt, for example, that Marty would condone clipping cards, even in instances in which one won't be caught).  This also checks back against destroying the game, because anything that's unfair enough to do so also is likely to place itself on the wrong side of theory debates (also, teams can and have adapted strategies to address many K affs; the need to preempt framework places substantial constraints on the literature that affs will draw on).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest, debate's a game. Some people might play it to learn, some might play it to test their wit, but most of us just like it as an activity. Like all games, I think it's best to play by the rules -- the Aff affirms the resolution, and the Neg negates it. Regardless if you think that the USFG is good or is bad, read some kind of plan -- exploring the ocean isn't 100% intrinsically bad. If you sincerely believe the govt is 100% bad and you can't even hypothetically defend it, then either you should (IMO) concede all your aff rounds or enter another kind of debate more geared towards non-policy methods of resolving a problem.

 

However Marty, the "It's a game, I know that, and I'm cheating just to win" makes no sense to me. You talk about how debate helps you craft better, non-racist (as an example) actions. Yet in real life, if you cheat, you get punished. You don't travel in basketball just to win, you don't call every shot out in tennis just to win. That destroys the game! I just can't see how you don't get out of this without facing the times you contradict yourself.

The entire point of debate is to debate the rules themselves. Declaring something as "you can't do this because it's cheating" removes on of the valuable areas to actually debate.

If all of your arguments about how affs should always lose if they don't defend the rez were intrinsically true, then the negative should always win on framework. (Spoiler alert, they don't)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because white judges

 

Y'all are ridiculous. Reid-Brinkley will vote neg on framework. Acting like only racist people (and that's the implication there) vote on FW is ridiculously essentializing.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha that'd be awesome but you've never beaten me on framework ;).

 

And let's put it this way: I lost a lot more this year when teams had specific strategies then when they went for framework.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha that'd be awesome but you've never beaten me on framework ;).

 

And let's put it this way: I lost a lot more this year when teams had specific strategies then when they went for framework.

Unless its the pirates pic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To who????

Seaholm - their argument was like romantizing the pirate is what allows for the sovereign to enact violence.

It didn't make much sense and I'm still kinda confused about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seaholm - their argument was like romantizing the pirate is what allows for the sovereign to enact violence.

It didn't make much sense and I'm still kinda confused about it

Romantizing the pirate allows the pirate to enact violence.  Idk how it does anything to help the sovereign...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

woah where are the morals

please tell me you are joking

Not joking.  I would call myself a cheater, I just don't think that it's as derogatory a term as you seem to think it is.  I'll explain that later. 

 

Also, way to go, asking the Nietzschean where his morals are.  I would have to say: beyond.

 

How does spreading through an aquaculture aff at 400 WPM with impacts like nuke war teach us how we can reform the state to not be racist/sexist?

Is it the spreading that you take issue with? I can slow it down if you really want.  Is it the nuke war that offends you? I didn't read terminal impacts in that aquaculture aff.  What really offends you is that you can't talk about how racist/sexist status quo politics is, but what you forget is that forecloses actually reading good policies.  I think a really good articulation of that idea can be found here

where Northwestern critiques Trinity's Satire Aff because all they did was rant about teams reading islamophobic impacts rather than making an Aff themselves that was better.  What I'm trying to say is that these K's have an end goal.  In the instance of the Satire aff, it could be to have policies that aren't built on racist premises.  SO MAKE A POLICY THAT ISN'T RACIST!

 

I don't understand why that's necessarily tautological 

 

Also - no reason why criticism doesn't serve as a precedent to actual political engagement. 

 

And - I think a reasonable team is able to explain why political engagement necessarily replicates the same thing they're criticizing; for instance, in a Widlerson debate, political reformation, although helpful at first, inevitably reinscribes violence against groups. This is because Wilderson explains how the political always already needs a body in a position of absolute direction to develop itself; means any form of political engagement is bad. It's really a question of how you debate it and I don't think this idea that political engagement = social transformation is necessarily true, all Bryant '12's aside. 

First thing:

Looking over what I said earlier, it was probably not the best way to phrase what I was trying to articulate. I am trying to say that K's have a reference point, i.e. the 1AC. Lets say that the 1AC says something racist.  In their speech the 1NC can stand up, call them racist, and if the neg wins that the Aff is racist then they win.  That makes sense to me, and that's how policies are improved over time, because people realize they are racist and so they come up with a policy for the next round/tournament that is not racist.  With K affs, there is no referent.  You go out of your way to find some type of inequality and then you decide to talk about that instead of that really cool, not racist aquaculture aff that you just wrote. Graham Harman puts it really well when he calls this the "sneer from nowhere." What happens when there isn't an in-round referent for critique is that you end up intoxicated by it, and you proceed to tear down everything you see until you are convinced that there is nothing that can be good out there because there IS nothing good out there.  But how can you say that when you never even bothered to try to fix anything.  Your focus on non-topical aff's is always destructive rather than productive; it can tear down existing systems [maybe, probably not, but at least it can do so theoretically], but it can never build new, better one.  That's why topical aff's are important.  Now I want to be very clear here: I am not saying that things like structural violence are not important; I am not even saying that structural violence is not the MOST important issue.  However, in a setting in which we are supposed to talk about policy, we should talk about policy.  That can include things like philosophy and structural violence, but it needs to be both referential and productive, and that cannot happen without being topical (or at least affirming a policy, I can be pretty lenient on what exactly constitutes a topical plan).

 

Second thing:

Great, I'll concede that.  Have political engagement then.  Kritiks are the catalyst, good, topical aff's are the result.

 

Third thing:

Then why are you here? What are we supposed to do? I'm Mexican sure, but I'm still definitely a part of white Civil Society. Wilderson would agree. So, if you want me to accept such a Manichean view of the world, if it's really true that there is a structural antagonism between me and my friend KJ, then what am I supposed to do? That's what I mean when I say that your philosophy isn't productive.  It cannot be productive.  It illustrates a problem, but no way to get out of it. That's why political engagement is so crucial: maybe it's not perfect, but to me it seems like the only way to consistently produce positive change.  History is a pretty good indicator in regards to this.

 

 

Let's be honest, debate's a game. Some people might play it to learn, some might play it to test their wit, but most of us just like it as an activity. Like all games, I think it's best to play by the rules -- the Aff affirms the resolution, and the Neg negates it. Regardless if you think that the USFG is good or is bad, read some kind of plan -- exploring the ocean isn't 100% intrinsically bad. If you sincerely believe the govt is 100% bad and you can't even hypothetically defend it, then either you should (IMO) concede all your aff rounds or enter another kind of debate more geared towards non-policy methods of resolving a problem.

 

However Marty, the "It's a game, I know that, and I'm cheating just to win" makes no sense to me. You talk about how debate helps you craft better, non-racist (as an example) actions. Yet in real life, if you cheat, you get punished. You don't travel in basketball just to win, you don't call every shot out in tennis just to win. That destroys the game! I just can't see how you don't get out of this without facing the times you contradict yourself.

Do you know that the politics DA was born after the creation of policy debate.  And when that happened, people were like "Woah, you can't talk about stuff that happens BEFORE the plan up in here!" and then they read intrinsicness.  No one reads intrinsicness anymore. A whole bunch of different CP's around now didn't exist not so long ago. When they would pop up, various theory arguments were created as a backlash against them, e.g. international fiat bad, 50 states fiat bad, etc.  Then the Kritik arrived, and people created framework (the original framework) which was all like "Woah, you can't talk about PHILOSOPHY up in here!" No one reads framework against K's anymore.  Then the Kritkal Aff arrived...

 

My point is that debate is not static. You have all of these "rules" that you so desperately cling to, but really its just reactionary.  You hate stuff that's new and so you try to reject it. The bad part is that you pretend like your rules are THE rules, like they have existed for eternity.  My little genealogy of debate up there proves that such a notion is just false.  That's why I call myself a cheater.  Your rules do exist, and I definitely don't try to follow them.  But rather than the death of debate, I think that this is the birth of debate.

 

Now, you're totally right that there's a bit of a contradiction here.  If it makes you feel any better, all my aff's next year will be topical.  If it doesn't make you feel any better, I don't particularly care.  #iconoclasm

 

The entire point of debate is to debate the rules themselves.

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.

 

I think both sides of the aisle hate you for saying that.

  • Upvote 1

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...