Jump to content
TheSnowball

Education vDebate - TheSnowball [A] vs. GayAsInHappy [N]

Recommended Posts

Thank you Pali! Okay crossx:

 

1. Lewis evidence is vague. What does ur alt clearly encompass? 

 

2. How we escape the biopolticial when it exists everywhere?

3. If your lewis evidence applies to debate, then why are you participating in it?

4. Does the aff need to win the ballot to solve their offense?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Pali! Okay crossx:

 

1. Lewis evidence is vague. What does ur alt clearly encompass? 

 

It's not so much an "alt" as a method. We affirm a study of the resolution as a method for disengaging the educational apparatus. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but I'd be happy to clarify further.

 

2. How we escape the biopolticial when it exists everywhere?

 

We discuss biopolitics in the educational space and leave it inoperative through the refusal of potentiality. "Biopolitics" isn't something that floats around killing people. I think it's better conceptualized as a form of "logic."

 

3. If your lewis evidence applies to debate, then why are you participating in it?

 

Lewis is discussing the education system more broadly. Debate is a great space in which to study because it allows endless knowledge-production, but our method would refuse the idea that debate is a means to an end.

 

4. Does the aff need to win the ballot to solve their offense?

 

The ballot reflects an affirmation or a negation of our method. "Solvency" is a mischaracterization of what the ballot symbolizes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay thanks but

could you futher clarrify what "studying entails"?

 

Studying and learning are similar. Both are the accumulation of knowledge. The difference is that study entails the rejection of an external "telos" while learning does not.

 

What happens if the judges vote affirmative?

 

The judges would affirm a study of the resolution and TheSnowball would win a vDebate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX:

 

1) Your arguments simultaneously demand that I isolate a specific strategy for reform and that I stay true to my argument about refusing to present definitive answers/conclusions. Which one of those do you expect me to do?

 

2) Why are IB programs - used to, as the program's website states, "develop the ... skills needed to live, learn and work in a rapidly globalizing world" an example of studying without a goal?

 

3) Why are fairness and education important?

 

By the way - your 1NC was about a thousand words - you still okay with the 2400/1600 word limits on speeches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX:

 

1) Your arguments simultaneously demand that I isolate a specific strategy for reform and that I stay true to my argument about refusing to present definitive answers/conclusions. Which one of those do you expect me to do?

I'm asking you for a specific strategy for reform because it's better for educational as well as fairness reasons, whereas your author wants you to refuse definitive answers.You can choose Which ever one you think will solve better and outweigh the other methodology.

 

 

2) Why are IB programs - used to, as the program's website states, "develop the ... skills needed to live, learn and work in a rapidly globalizing world" an example of studying without a goal?

You can't really study without a goal, but you can minimize educational institutions aimed at capitalist productivity through other real life programs. Here's futher description of IB: "Students are able to take responsibility for their own learning and understand how knowledge itself is constructed...  try different approaches to learning and to take responsibility for their own educational progress."

 

3) Why are fairness and education important?

Fairness is important because debate is competitive, and you need that as a base for the judge to accurately weigh methodologies. Education is important because debate is a learning activity. 

By the way - your 1NC was about a thousand words - you still okay with the 2400/1600 word limits on speeches?

Yea im okay :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the purpose of this debate round?

How does your aff disrupts anything that is happening in debate right now?

 

Does the aff cause anything after the debate round is done?

 

How can we test the truth of the aff?


How does the nc link into the gov da?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the purpose of this debate round?

To affirm or reject the method proposed by the Affirmative.

How does your aff disrupts anything that is happening in debate right now?

It apparently disrupted something, or you wouldn't have read topicality. Our rejection of definitive answers and affirmation of resolution study breaks with traditional debate expectations. But, more broadly, our "solvency" is about the viability of our method, not executing that method in a debate.

 

Does the aff cause anything after the debate round is done?

Are you asking if voting Affirmative causes people to adopt our method? No. Fiat isn't real, which is one argument I made against your topicality argument.

 

How can we test the truth of the aff?

I mean, I could list off ground, but it's not really my job to tell you what you should run. I beat this Affirmative 3 times at debate camp going for the "capitalism good DA" because productive schools built economically minded workers which were great for a capitalist economy.

 

How does the nc link into the gov da?

You read a definition that draws a line of exclusion between the USFG and "the people" that naturalizes the distinction between political life and bare life made by the sovereign that you have affirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay school just started where im from and my time is kinda limited so I'll skip CX and go ahead and post my next speeches. 

2nc: Order is case then T
1nr; Order is the same but they'll both be crystalizations of the debate.

 

 

 

Edit on 1nr:

 

on top:

"..falsehood of aff (not neg"

near bottom of Case ov
"off = aff"

 

Near bottom of t ov:

"..solves back 100% of offense (as opposed to solves back - only - of offense"

sorry!

2NC.docx

1NR.docx

Edited by GayAsInHappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2AR in the same order the debate has been in.

 

Hey this was really fun and I enjoyed debating with you. Some of my speeches probably come off as sarcastic/snarky, and I want to say that I mean that to be humorous, rather than pejorative. You're really great and I think you made some of the smartest case arguments against this Affirmative that I've seen, having debated it a lot at debate camp.

2AR.docx

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the aff is being too light on the solvency question - I think the fact that the neg's entire strategy is premised on the claim that the aff is unproductive/unfair for debate is proof of how the very introduction of the 1AC into debate is a disruption of the "rules" debate proffers and a refusal to activate potentiality in a way that is aligned with sovereign norms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awh Snowball you're so sweet. I had a lot of fun debating with someone who can executive really smart and creative arguments. Also you speak really eloquent as opposed to my broken ass semantics lol. (also sorry too i just liek to be humuorous in round and didn't want to come off as extremely rude :o). Thanks for debating with me and I hope we get to do it again sometime!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Kyler on the solvency question- I don't think it's resolved by the end of the debate and I think in a round judges would intervene to decide it one way or another- but I do think that FW goes 100% away since the 2NR conceded the we-meet. I would bet that judges would be inclined to vote aff in this debate more often than not, but it depends on how they evaluate the solvency debate.

 

Personally I would vote aff because I don't think enough is done on the solvency debate and it becomes kind of a wash- I think the block should be reading evidence on this and other questions and the other area which I was willing to pull the trigger (the perf con debate) I think is undeveloped and kind of muddled so I'm not willing to vote on it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×