Jump to content
Brev

Worst affs on this topic so far?

Recommended Posts

What do you all think? In my personal opinion it's Islamic Charitable Giving. Nile North runs it, but I'll post the 1AC if anyone wants it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh i think the worst aff is exports like how is that a form of domestic survaillance no matter how well this aff does no matter how ridiclous some things are this aff is the hardest to logistically think its domestic survaillance being curtailed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh i think the worst aff is exports like how is that a form of domestic survaillance no matter how well this aff does no matter how ridiclous some things are this aff is the hardest to logistically think its domestic survaillance being curtailed 

Oh yeah. Doesn't New Trier run this? Like I don't get how it's surveillance either. Their definition of domestic surveillance is intelligence gathering non-public information to prevent national security risks and they say they meet this because the U.S. controls exports. But that doesn't really make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah. Doesn't New Trier run this? Like I don't get how it's surveillance either. Their definition of domestic surveillance is intelligence gathering non-public information to prevent national security risks and they say they meet this because the U.S. controls exports. But that doesn't really make sense to me.

 

We've had this discussion before.  It's on-face topical.  I might suggest you do some research into what Export Control laws actually require if you don't get it.  Honestly, I think its a good aff.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had this discussion before.  It's on-face topical.  I might suggest you do some research into what Export Control laws actually require if you don't get it.  Honestly, I think its a good aff.

Ah. I feel some salt, but okay I see what you mean now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had this discussion before.  It's on-face topical.  I might suggest you do some research into what Export Control laws actually require if you don't get it.  Honestly, I think its a good aff.

^ this. if they're surveilling shit leaving the country...that's surveillance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. I feel some salt, but okay I see what you mean now.

uh....the comics linked to in your signature use the n-word and the word faggot. delete them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh i think the worst aff is exports like how is that a form of domestic survaillance no matter how well this aff does no matter how ridiclous some things are this aff is the hardest to logistically think its domestic survaillance being curtailed

 

There are few things I find funnier on this forum than debaters who run performance Affs complaining that something like export controls is nontopical. When your advocacy text is "Jared and I affirm the rewriting of history of surveillance through a mestazje consciousness," you don't get to complain about anyone else's Aff being nontopical :) Edited by Edgehopper
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are few things I find funnier on this forum than debaters who run performance Affs complaining that something like export controls is nontopical. When your advocacy text is "Jared and I affirm the rewriting of history of surveillance through a mestazje consciousness," you don't get to complain about anyone else's Aff being nontopical :)

Lol.

 

Just want to add some trivia; the person who originally wrote the aff thinks that it's not even topical, but authors intent is even less relevant than framer's intent for a T debate so that's neither here nor there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol.

 

Just want to add some trivia; the person who originally wrote the aff thinks that it's not even topical, but authors intent is even less relevant than framer's intent for a T debate so that's neither here nor there. 

 

Someone managing to write a topical aff while thinking its non-topical takes talent.  I think I'll just appreciate the irony.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's GBN, what'd you expect? 

Lol I expect it to get deleted within a day or I'm banning them

 

Edit: and my expectation was met! woohoo not banning anyone!

Edited by Snarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh....the comics linked to in your signature use the n-word and the word faggot. delete them.

Lol. 

 

Lol I expect it to get deleted within a day or I'm banning them

I didn't know anyone even noticed me. All hail the mods tho. 

 

 

Can we talk about bad affs on this topic please.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Snarf I'm sorry for whatever I did. I changed my signature, please forgive me

Edited by Brev
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Snarf for whatever I did. I changed my signature, please forgive me

It's good! I appreciate that you did - we take safe space pretty seriously here, and casual use of the n-word and the word faggot are far from fitting that goal. Points to you for deleting it so quickly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good! I appreciate that you did - we take safe space pretty seriously here, and casual use of the n-word and the word faggot are far from fitting that goal. Points to you for deleting it so quickly.

Okay good to know, my bad, it won't happen again. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh....the comics linked to in your signature use the n-word and the word faggot. delete them.

Even if good intentioned, just saying "delete them" instead of asking Brev to delete the comic seems excessively confrontational. It seems pretty apparent that Brev didn't mean to promote oppressive language as he was readily apologetic.

It's good! I appreciate that you did - we take safe space pretty seriously here, and casual use of the n-word and the word faggot are far from fitting that goal. Points to you for deleting it so quickly.

Why not just PM Brev? It seems like your goal was less to create a safe space and more to get rep or publicly shame Brev. Further, your celebration ("woohoo not banning anyone!) makes it seem like you aren't trying to create a safe space, but trying to create a space where you have power. Trying to police everyone for having different opinions (in this case different opinions about what is funny) is pretty awful.

 

And before anyone says (or thinks) that I'm doing this for rep or w/e, I don't really care about theoretical internet points nor do I post on this site that often. But I read the forums a lot, and the general trend of hating on others for sort of hating on others is just as bad if not worse than who you're criticizing. I agree that this community should be a safe place, but I continually see you (Snarf) as trying to make cross-x a safe place only for yourself by attempting to exclude the viewpoints of others. And it kind of pisses me off.

 

Finally, TO BE VERY CLEAR, I am NOT condoning racist or homophobic humor, and I am NOT actively racist (internal/subconscious prejudices exist, and I try constantly to be aware of them). I am ALSO not saying that you (Snarf) are a bad person, but I find issue with a lot of the actions that you take on the site.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome to your opinion, but besides giving Chaos shit, I think your characterization is unfair. I was direct with Brev because the use of the n-word is straight up something we don't tolerate here. I was public with it because the comics were public, and after the comics were deleted, I was openly supportive of Brev with upvotes and comments. I genuinely do appreciate how quick Brev responded, and said as much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are few things I find funnier on this forum than debaters who run performance Affs complaining that something like export controls is nontopical. When your advocacy text is "Jared and I affirm the rewriting of history of surveillance through a mestazje consciousness," you don't get to complain about anyone else's Aff being nontopical :)

 Lol i find it funny that you took time to look at my wiki - but wait for my  aff from michigan-  im changing alittle bit 

 

the key issue is if you go down the route of a plan text please be remotely topical - like lol perfomance has important pedagogical benefits - meanwhile whats the benefit of running an aff that is much more for a completely different topic like an econ engagement topic or stuff of a sort 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the link was public, private-messaging Brev reduces any shame that Brev might have experienced. I think that posting publicly is indicative of prioritizing rep over a safe community.

 I was openly supportive of Brev with upvotes and comments. I genuinely do appreciate how quick Brev responded, and said as much. 

To me, seeing support as upvotes and comments is problematic, and helps to prove my point: you (Snarf) seem to prioritize getting rep as much as (if not greater than) making the community a safe place. Not only do you give Chaos (a lot of) shit, but I have noticed a trend of you just blanketly down voting Squirelloid/Edgehopper (and co). I do believe that you are doing this because you think it is best for the community, but often the way in which you use authority or try to enforce your ideas for what you want the community to be seem more authoritarian than communal.

 

And yes, I'm posting this publicly. But the difference is that I'm not a figure of authority on cross-x, instead I'm just a community member expressing a critique of how you (Snarf) enforce authority. I believe that a discussion of the community is best held among the community rather than in private conversation. I don't think that expressing authority is a discussion about the community, and I see a lot of contradictions in how you (Snarf) expect others on the site to act and how you act on the site.

Edited by Mummyhandgrenade
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol i find it funny that you took time to look at my wiki - but wait for my  aff from michigan-  im changing alittle bit 

 

the key issue is if you go down the route of a plan text please be remotely topical - like lol perfomance has important pedagogical benefits - meanwhile whats the benefit of running an aff that is much more for a completely different topic like an econ engagement topic or stuff of a sort 

Well, my teams will have a few chances where they might debate you this year :)

 

Look, it should tell you something that Snarf, Squirreloid, and I all agree that export controls is a facially topical Aff (well, not so much that Squirreloid and I agree, but our agreeing with Snarf may be a sign of impending apocalypse).

 

Plans can be topical for multiple different resolutions, you know--just taking the three previous years, Megaports was facially topical for infrastructure and oceans, and plausibly topical for Latin America. Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement would have been facially topical for both Latin American and Oceans, had it not passed and become non-inherent in late 2013. Offshore launch platforms would have been facially topical for Space and Oceans, and may have been arguably topical for Infrastructure. The space of policy options is not neatly divided into separate resolutions.

 

And it would open up a whole new can of worms to point out that I don't find the "my issue is really important and offers pedagogical benefits justifying the unfairness of my Aff, but yours doesn't" argument persuasive. If we go by number of people potentially impacted by Affs, I'll wager that the number of people affected by export controls vastly outweighs the number of people potentially impacted by critical academic approaches to historiography (and to tie it back to the other T-heavy thread I've been involved in lately, the question isn't even a close one for Common Core or welfare surveillance).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my teams will have a few chances where they might debate you this year :)

 

Look, it should tell you something that Snarf, Squirreloid, and I all agree that export controls is a facially topical Aff (well, not so much that Squirreloid and I agree, but our agreeing with Snarf may be a sign of impending apocalypse).

 

Plans can be topical for multiple different resolutions, you know--just taking the three previous years, Megaports was facially topical for infrastructure and oceans, and plausibly topical for Latin America. Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement would have been facially topical for both Latin American and Oceans, had it not passed and become non-inherent in late 2013. Offshore launch platforms would have been facially topical for Space and Oceans, and may have been arguably topical for Infrastructure. The space of policy options is not neatly divided into separate resolutions.

 

And it would open up a whole new can of worms to point out that I don't find the "my issue is really important and offers pedagogical benefits justifying the unfairness of my Aff, but yours doesn't" argument persuasive. If we go by number of people potentially impacted by Affs, I'll wager that the number of people affected by export controls vastly outweighs the number of people potentially impacted by critical academic approaches to historiography (and to tie it back to the other T-heavy thread I've been involved in lately, the question isn't even a close one for Common Core or welfare surveillance).

Ehhh I wouldn't go as far as to say that export controls affect people more than colonaility; I think that debate is pretty much a wash as BOTH systems are pervasive on contemporary structures; but I will agree on you that the "topical aff's don't offer anything of value, whereas K Aff's do" argument is pretty bad in my opinion, at least on this year's resolution. Most of the aff's being read this year tend to teeter on the critical side so I don't really see any team winning the "policy bad" argument this year much because it's just simply not true in the context of this resolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, it should tell you something that Snarf, Squirreloid, and I all agree that export controls is a facially topical Aff (well, not so much that Squirreloid and I agree, but our agreeing with Snarf may be a sign of impending apocalypse).

This was so funny I audibly laughed 

Edited by Snarf
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Katz decision Supreme Court plans.  Problematic on several levels, but probably the worst is that the precedent they want to modify is not the governing one in the situations that concern them and plan would not do anything to force courts to reconsider those decisions.  Plan advantages are all based on abuses justified under Third Party Doctrine, which is a consequence of United States v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland, not Katz.  The basis for exclusion of privacy protection in those cases applies at least as well to the plan text privacy formulation as it does to the Katz 'reasonable expectation of privacy' formulation, if not better.

 

If you're going to run a supreme court plan, you should at least get the governing supreme court cases right.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...