Jump to content
nihilistkitten

nihilistkitten v TheSnowball / PailAmbrose

Recommended Posts

1. Our evidence says "Government representatives and officials emanating from Muslim-majority and Islamic states openly refer to the Islamic religion as a justification for human rights abuses against queer individuals, treating them publicly as inferior to human beings." Some brief Internet reading points me to the story of Lot whose people were called an abomination for homosexual sodomy. Also, if I can't hold you to religious texts, and I can't hold you to real-world examples, how am I supposed to refute or even understand what your alternative is?

 

2. No worries.

 

3. If that's true, why is using human rights to justify education equivalent to using it to justify interventions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I can answer the story of lot stuff in more detail (there’s a lot of issues with translations to English, and there are a lot of queer Muslim scholars who reread this story queerly) if you want, but I’m on my phone rn.

 

You can hold me to the description of the alt in my evidence, just like any other advocacy? Lmao

 

3. Because you also use them to justify intervention/ilaw/etc, and you train students to think that human rights justifies anything.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can hold me to the description of the alt in my evidence, just like any other advocacy? Lmao

I'm good for the 1NR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh lol there's a typo you should ignore the "you can" that doesn't have anything after it I guess I forgot to finish that sentence.

Edited by nihilistkitten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the 2AR. Honestly, good debate. I hope there's no hard feelings.

 

edit: I would also ask that people don't comment a bunch on this thread until after the RFD.

2AR.docx

Edited by TheSnowball
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should have a longer discussion after the RFD. I think it could be very valuable. I will say that you seem very genuine and I don’t think you’re being intentionally violent; this was a quality debate even if it was less than fun to write the 2nr. (If you want me to delete this comment I will; it isn’t intended to influence the decision.)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should have a longer discussion after the RFD. I think it could be very valuable. I will say that you seem very genuine and I don’t think you’re being intentionally violent; this was a quality debate even if it was less than fun to write the 2nr. (If you want me to delete this comment I will; it isn’t intended to influence the decision.)

No need to delete that. I agree with what you're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the judge for this debate, but I"ll leave my two cents anyway: (no RFD)

 

I think this debate was uncomfortable to watch especially after the block. If this were an in-person round and I was in the back I would ask tab to not render a result because of the vitriol and personal back and forth exhibited in argumentation. I understand that you two may have felt it to be necessary to win the argument, but I would ask you to take a step back here.

 

Is winning a debate argument worth inciting personal anger?

 

Why did you feel the need to use ad hominems? 

 

Why do we participate in the activity?

 

I ask you to consider these questions as you reflect on this round and try to sum up what you got out of the round.

 

As for the substance of the round, I thought the 1NC was a good 1 off K setup and the 2AC/block were solid speeches. This round could've gone down quite differently and I would've had a hard time sifting through the evidence and coming up with a coherent RFD based on the round's substance.

 

I'll let PailAmbrose handle the theory debate because that's where this round would've been decided and I frankly through the theory debate was very messy that I don't have an immediate intuition as to who is winning this layer.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the substance of the round, I thought the 1NC was a good 1 off K setup and the 2AC/block were solid speeches. This round could've gone down quite differently and I would've had a hard time sifting through the evidence and coming up with a coherent RFD based on the round's substance.

 

I'll let PailAmbrose handle the theory debate because that's where this round would've been decided and I frankly through the theory debate was very messy that I don't have an immediate intuition as to who is winning this layer.

I very much agree with this, which is why I’m having a hard time writing an RFD. Apologies for taking so long, but I am working on it

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, sorry for keeping everyone waiting for so long, I've been a bit busy and (admittedly) put it off too long. Here's the RFD. I can answer questions, because I'm sure people have them

RFD.docx

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan and I talked for a while earlier, but I’ll write some stuff here anyway because I want to have this discussion.

First I guess for Paul —

Would you mind disclosing speaks? I’m just curious.

Do you think the 1nr should read a utopian alts good c/I or should the lbl just explain why imagining as supposed to fiat solves their specific standar?

Thanks for judging and writing such a comprehensive rfd btw!

(This is a side note btw, but any concrete feedback on the 1nc/block from anyone would be appreciated.)

I guess for both Vinay and Ryan — do y’all think that the 2nc saying “fuck off” is too much, or is your objection to the obviously very aggressive 2nr?

Anyway, Ryan, I’m not certain where to go with this after our conversation. Is there anything else you/anyone else thinks needs to be said?

Edited by nihilistkitten
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan and I talked for a while earlier

We did have a good chat and I think we see each other's perspective.

 

I guess for both Vinay and Ryan — do y’all think that the 2nc saying “fuck off” is too much

 

I think if you want to call me Islamaphobic (something I pride myself on not being and is a bit of an ego hit to lose on) you should set up more of it in cross examination, either neutralizing the 2AC evidence by clarifying that it's just about modern nations or telling me to fuck off when I do say something either intentionally or explicitly Islamaphobic. The "rudeness" argument was just meant to contribute to the 1AR rant. I don't personally feel strongly about you using that phrase, but generally it seems like it would hurt a debater's ethos to say that more than help it.

 

Anyway, Ryan, I’m not certain where to go with this after our conversation. Is there anything else you/anything else thinks needs to be said?

I don't think so. I understand and respect both you and the decision, so I think we're good.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you want to call me Islamaphobic (something I pride myself on not being and is a bit of an ego hit to lose on) you should set up more of it in cross examination, either neutralizing the 2AC evidence by clarifying that it's just about modern nations or telling me to fuck off when I do say something either intentionally or explicitly Islamaphobic

Yeah, this is very fair. Thanks! I'm sorry about that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan and I talked for a while earlier, but I’ll write some stuff here anyway because I want to have this discussion.

First I guess for Paul —

Would you mind disclosing speaks? I’m just curious.

 

I’d probably say 28.9 for neg, 28.8 for aff. Keep in mind I haven’t judged a legit debate round in a while, so I don’t have much reference though.

 

Do you think the 1nr should read a utopian alts good c/I or should the lbl just explain why imagining as supposed to fiat solves their specific standar?

 

Idk, I just think some defense on the standards and a better reasonabiliry argument would have gone a long way. Like you’re really gambling on that one argument, I think an independent reason or two their interp can’t resolve the offense could make the strategy less risky. At the very least, you do have some in-built contextual answers, but they could be more direct.

 

Thanks for judging and writing such a comprehensive rfd btw!

(This is a side note btw, but any concrete feedback on the 1nc/block from anyone would be appreciated.

 

I like the1NC strategy a lot, and I think this K is well tailored to the aff. I think you need more extensive answers to the perm though - all of your perm answers are essentially restated “links are DAs to the perm” which is a good argument but not enough by itself. I also think there needs to be more of a response to pluralism, because that seems like a fairly good justification for doing both. I think the case debate also is a bit too shallow and kinda generic, and I think there needs to be more pushback to the arguments at the top of the 2ac case page. Other than that, I thought it was quite well executed.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess for both Vinay and Ryan — do y’all think that the 2nc saying “fuck off” is too much, or is your objection to the obviously very aggressive 2nr?

For me my remarks on being uncomfortable were predicated on all speeches from the block to the end of the debate starting with your f off comment in the 2NC

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is winning a debate argument worth inciting personal anger?

No, but losing a debate is worth it being compared to 

david herman or arsht

  • 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...