Jump to content
Lukrau

Commentary: Immigration Topic KTyler(aff) vs AnthonySGHS(Neg)

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Isbrar said:

I’m apologizing for anything bad that was taken out of Context. When I agree with zidao it wasn’t any attack on anyone or any beliefs . What I mean is I disagree with the aff structure. Like the cards and the formatting. Not any political statement. I was gonna explain further but for the time the debate was still on and I wanted to wait for the rfd. I’m sorry to anyone who felt bad or felt attacked. 

I'm an old school debater stuck in UIL, which hasn't changed since the 70's. That was the format I was taught and that's the common format among UIL debaters. This is edition #57 of that affirmative. The cards answer the crossfire questions we were hit with the most in mocks against our other teams. I understand if people don't like it, but it's my aff that I'm running the rest of the year. My coach has praised it through and through and has promised me it'll take me far. That's all I need

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look I'm sorry I called you a cretin but it's not my fault if you took the separate and substantive rhetorical criticism as an insult. I'm mostly responding to your debate opponent, who quoted me criticizing Trump and took that to mean they should feel unsafe on account of their pronouns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we're all commenting on this before the round ends I'll just say a couple things I noticed skimming through the round thread

1. The aff had this the question as to who owns and governs the land and the neg answered the natives I think this is problematic. Although im no set col hack so maybe someone can correct me if im wrong but Natives did not have any conception of "property" or "land ownership" which was one of the justifications for settler colonialism (natives don't use the land properly so we'll just take it) so the idea that natives own the land isn't really adhering to what many indigineous authors would say as most of them are anti-sovereignty so i think a better answer to that question would be that NO ONE owns the land really rather that the US gives up its 'sovereign' control over the land. 

2. something else that really irked me was that yall were both really passive aggressive in round like someone would answer a question and their opponent will be like "Again, this is just an  fall back that the neg uses when they have nothing else to attack." or "It might be beneficial for you since your K and DA are literally holding on by a thread thinner than your links to my case." like just answer the questions lol

I have some more stuff that i can add after the round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, seanarchy said:

I wrote a very lengthy post on reddit a few days ago about this that I'll quote here.

I'm not a liberal. Liberalism is more or less based on tolerance and private property. I'm a Marxist. Absolute tolerance is a shit value b/c it's not a value, it's a lack of values that lets anything fill in. Karl Popper wrote extensively about the decay of absolute tolerance into fascism - see here.img

I think this is extremely important to understand. The alternative is what Zizek describes as the beautiful soul - someone who believes that all opinions and differences can coexist. *Spoiler* they cannot. It also strikes me as absurd to describe what I said as hateful, when it is descriptively accurate - Trump is an idiot, and he appeals to racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. I have no problem with your pronouns, and I doubt almost anyone who espouses the beliefs I've described does. The point is to not tolerate homophobia, cisnormativity, or their translations into policy, NOT to declare that everything is a wash and that all ideas are created equal.

I apologize if something I said made you feel unsafe, but I don't see how attacking racist rhetoric could translate into that feeling.

You are so full of yourself. 

Call out culture is toxic hot garbage that accomplishes nothing but personal good feelings and alienation of the person/people called out, which fosters increasingly isolated feelings and entrenched beliefs, which makes it worse. 

There are productive ways of engaging with people whose beliefs you see as wrong, which involves meaningful dialogue. The underlying purpose of learning argumentation and rhetoric in debate is learning how to persuade. IRL convos outside of debate rounds involve persuading the other person, not an audience.

You're just playing to an audience and presenting yourself as morally superior. This is both the lowest tier of slacktivism and emblematic of having learned nothing meaningful from debate and how to translate it into real personal interactions. Try acknowledging different beliefs OR just that someone does hail from a different circuit that necessitates playing to a different audience and moving from there to explain why you think theres something wrong with it. Saying 90% of the debate community would be turned off by his aff is woefully ignorant of the heterogeneity of high school debate circuits; maybe he doesn't believe these things and has this case written for the conservative parents that judge texas uil tournaments. Maybe the research burden on current events and their implications is different.

This thread should be locked and holed or just deleted. 

Edited by OGRawrcat
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, if we could let's just hold the comments till after the round, at the very least. Neither debater has encouraged a discussion about their style or strategic choices, so let's just wait for them to decide what they want.

 

Colin, I'm all in favour of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, aprasad202 said:

Since we're all commenting on this before the round ends I'll just say a couple things I noticed skimming through the round thread

1. The aff had this the question as to who owns and governs the land and the neg answered the natives I think this is problematic. Although im no set col hack so maybe someone can correct me if im wrong but Natives did not have any conception of "property" or "land ownership" which was one of the justifications for settler colonialism (natives don't use the land properly so we'll just take it) so the idea that natives own the land isn't really adhering to what many indigineous authors would say as most of them are anti-sovereignty so i think a better answer to that question would be that NO ONE owns the land really rather that the US gives up its 'sovereign' control over the land. 

2. something else that really irked me was that yall were both really passive aggressive in round like someone would answer a question and their opponent will be like "Again, this is just an  fall back that the neg uses when they have nothing else to attack." or "It might be beneficial for you since your K and DA are literally holding on by a thread thinner than your links to my case." like just answer the questions lol

I have some more stuff that i can add after the round

As for the passive aggressiveness... that's an intimidation tactic that I was taught. It's second nature to use it, so... Anthony knows that anything said isn't a personal jab. We're understanding and get along perfectly fine away from this debate. Sorry if I came off as harsh or anything, I honestly don't mean any of it. Anthony's an awesome debater-- it's just a tactic that I learned at State to take down some bigger debaters.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jhirsch said:

Yeah, if we could let's just hold the comments till after the round, at the very least. Neither debater has encouraged a discussion about their style or strategic choices, so let's just wait for them to decide what they want.

 

Colin, I'm all in favour of that.

I'm in favour of locking the post until after the debate. I'm sure Anthony would agree

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) given that this is the commentary thread, I would think you could both just not look at it if it matters. There's been a lot of interesting discussion today that I doubt would last if the thread were locked. Think of it like whispers or texts in the back of the room that you can't hear.

b) @OGRawrcat I have no compelling reason not to state my opinions. At this point I don't really care about the stylistic choices beyond what I said in my initial post. I haven't bought it up since. I'm not sure how what I said is "call out culture," unless you mean pointing out something that has a racist history. If all you think should come out of debate is persuasive skills, we have vastly different views. I've learned plenty from debate, including a rough idea of ethics and an interest in political theory. Fostering inclusion and community necessarily requires intolerant ideas be critiqued and excluded if necessary. I fail to see how anything I've said is "slacktivism." I presented an explanation of how the rhetoric used in cx had a racial charged history, combined with incredulity and a bit of rudeness at what I saw as failure to acknowledge genocide. I assumed that would be that, maybe with some recognition of the problem. I was meet with aggression, downvotes, and an unapologetic defense of Trump. Changing minds is not a 1 way exchange. It requires openness from the convincee, which I've been explicitly denied. Meaningful dialogue requires common meaning, which I'm not sure exists here. Lastly, the idea that I'm "playing to the crowd" is cynical and eerily similar to 4channers' belief that feminist criticism is just "virtue signalling." 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, seanarchy said:

Think of it like whispers or texts in the back of the room that you can't hear.

I don't let people sit in on my rounds for reasons like that. Discussions are for after the debate. That way you don't influence anything that happens.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, seanarchy said:

 b) genocide is not "hurt feelings" it's genocide you cretin.

 

10 hours ago, seanarchy said:

Unless you debate in a circuit stuck in like the 70s I doubt that. Consult a coach. The plan is hilariously anti, extra, and untopical. You also have serious formatting issues in the 1ac, with the plan's "planks" and unhighlighted cards as a start. Whatever your politics or arguments, you also need to tone down the right-wing rhetoric. It's grating, anti-intellectual, and will alienate the 90% of the debate community who are part of this century.

 

10 hours ago, seanarchy said:

Look I'm all for maintaining the integrity of the round, but this is dumb. The use of rhetoric that has been used since at least the civil rights era to discredit anti-racist politics is a nonstarter. He's defending Trump's immigration platform which is commonly recognized among the center to be grounded in racist assumptions.

 

4 hours ago, seanarchy said:

Look you do you and all style wise, I'm just speaking from the perspective of someone who debated on the national circuit. This is also how TFA works. Substantively, I have no idea why being a republican makes it acceptable to use anti-anti-racist rhetoric. I can't compel you to make any arguments or change your opinions, but surely you realize that Trump is a joke.

 

4 hours ago, seanarchy said:

Yeah ok there's no point in continuing this. Trump is an idiot who appeals to some of the most racist and otherwise privileged segments of the American population. If you're gonna down vote me for saying so you're a tool.

@seanarchy

I am with you ethically. Trump is awful, genocide is bad, racism is bad. All of these posts rise to the level of why you think ktyler is dealing in intolerant ideas, but are a) tinged with an aggressive and dismissive tone and b) don't really try to engage meaningfully with ktyler. Countering intolerance should go beyond just saying "this is racist or privileged" and aim to both understand why those beliefs are held and moving from there in the language of who you're talking to why those ideas are intolerant and should be rejected. Taking an empathetic approach to encountering intolerant ideas is a better method for fostering an inclusive community. Be mindful that the "exclusion" of ideas in aiming for a better society is what creates the victimized attitude of white identity politics that got Trump elected. Whether or not you think that's a good excuse for white identity politics is irrelevant because that's how they feel. 

An underlying goal of debate is effective communication. That's way the vast majority of college debate programs are housed in the Communications Department and the Directors are usually tenured comm professors (or at least policy, I'm not that aware of other college debate activities). Communication as a skill translates in a variety of ways: politics (at a variety of levels), law (ridic long list of former debaters practicing law, the USMA director writes for Lawfare), activism (The Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle grassroots think tank comes to mind), journalism (Nate Silver, Nate Cohn). All of those fields involve persuasion. On an interpersonal level, I think that the skill of being able to dissect ideas, understand them, and approach them in that language is a valuable approach to persuasion and most effective. 

I don't really know why ktyler would feel like he would need to be open to you changing his mind when this thread was created as a roast of him and I don't think you took a particularly passive stance yourself. I admittedly didn't as well when I quoted your post and I apologize for that. 

Public call outs with seeming little intention of trying to work with someone you disagree with come across that way to me, with a notable exception for public officials and celebrities who by nature operate in that sphere. That may not have been your intention and I'm sorry for mis-attributing it to you. But really, I'm not a 4channer saying feminism is a feel-good enterprise or conspiracy to take down men. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, seanarchy said:

I wrote a very lengthy post on reddit a few days ago about this that I'll quote here.

I'm not a liberal. Liberalism is more or less based on tolerance and private property. I'm a Marxist. Absolute tolerance is a shit value b/c it's not a value, it's a lack of values that lets anything fill in. Karl Popper wrote extensively about the decay of absolute tolerance into fascism - see here.img

I think this is extremely important to understand. The alternative is what Zizek describes as the beautiful soul - someone who believes that all opinions and differences can coexist. *Spoiler* they cannot. It also strikes me as absurd to describe what I said as hateful, when it is descriptively accurate - Trump is an idiot, and he appeals to racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. I have no problem with your pronouns, and I doubt almost anyone who espouses the beliefs I've described does. The point is to not tolerate homophobia, cisnormativity, or their translations into policy, NOT to declare that everything is a wash and that all ideas are created equal.

I apologize if something I said made you feel unsafe, but I don't see how attacking racist rhetoric could translate into that feeling.

I please ask you reread my post, I talk about how it is hypocritical that in the debate space we are all abput inclusivity but the moment its something from the right we lose our minds and stoop to the level of BAD REPUBLICANS  and group all Republicans as Bad. You made me feel unsafe here to express opinion in a DEBATE . You did that to me BUT MOST DEFINITELY TO KTYLER I ask you tell HIM sorry.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AnthonySGHS said:

I please ask you reread my post, I talk about how it is hypocritical that in the debate space we are all abput inclusivity but the moment its something from the right we lose our minds and stoop to the level of BAD REPUBLICANS  and group all Republicans as Bad. You made me feel unsafe here to express opinion in a DEBATE . You did that to me BUT MOST DEFINITELY TO KTYLER I ask you tell HIM sorry.

I've already apologized for calling him a cretin and I'm not very interested in arguing about style. I'd like to promote a safe debate space but I'm not going to apologize for saying his rhetoric has a racist history. In order to help me understand what would help you, please specify what I should apologize for that I haven't, or why I should not attack ideas that are racially problematic. I don't know why attacking a specific opinion would make you feel unsafe airing any opinion, so I can't exactly help you without some clear explanation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, seanarchy said:

I've already apologized for calling him a cretin and I'm not very interested in arguing about style. I'd like to promote a safe debate space but I'm not going to apologize for saying his rhetoric has a racist history. In order to help me understand what would help you, please specify what I should apologize for that I haven't, or why I should not attack ideas that are racially problematic. I don't know why attacking a specific opinion would make you feel unsafe airing any opinion, so I can't exactly help you without some clear explanation.

Its over, its fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone talking about a divided nation can go fuck themselves.  Trump just refused to reunite children with their families.  He is pure evil and I will instantly think that anyone who supports him is two.  Furthermore, my original reason for hating KTyler was not just how incredibly racist their aff was, it was their dismissal of pronoun requests as irrelevant.  No one in this debate thinks before they speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is right, and everyone is wrong. There have been reasonable arguments, but accompanied with personal attacks and vindictiveness. Here's the code of conduct I'm proposing to have reasonable discussions about these topics.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss racism and the Trump administration, the paradox of tolerance, the best style for debate, or even the code of conduct. But let's at least treat each other with a basic level of humanity, even if you think an idea or person is repulsive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×