debate has gone too far left

[debategirl52 70]

real deliberation and debate is no longer possible. i hope you're happy.

[donnieduck742 7]

i strongly disagree!

[br0drillard 3]

There are plenty of debaters who read impacts likely to be prioritized by right-wing folks (ie, focus on economy or hegemony). The community might lean left, but there's still room to read impacts like this. However, if you're upset because of the rising prevalence identity Ks or not being able to run discriminatory arguments, then I don't really know what to say to you. I've learned a lot from being able to understand kritikal arguments personally.

Could you elaborate on what specifically bothers you about the political atmosphere of the debate community? I'm genuinely curious.

[debategirl52 70]

i am done elaborating. i was simply making a statement. conservative arguments are shunned. it has always been like this, but its only gotten worse.

[donnieduck742 7]

you're talking as if HSI wasn't a thing last year

[NickDB8 506]

just impact turn the thread this is a good thing

[OGRawrcat 1436]

I'm not sure what you mean by conservative arguments. State action good, defenses of liberalism (the economic system, not the questionably applied term to political parties), defenses of US military force, climate skepticism, prioritization of economic impacts, market solutions to linear or systemic problems (a big part of the education topic was charter schools), etc etc. Framework arguments, identity/experience focus bad arguments, non-state action bad arguments, etc are all mainstream and acceptable. If you have judges who don't like procedural framework, cool, answer the case and read a state action CP instead of a TVA with your topic action or state action DA and case offense as net benefits.

Common arguments that have persisted for a long time that could be branded as "left" would be things like US hegemony/militarism being bad (which could be a fiscal conservatism argument), climate change, economic justice, etc. K debate has even been around since the early 90s, the first K read being a Critical Legal Studies argument. Identity critiques have been around for 10-15 years. The big differences now are a generational turnover to coaches/judges who won't outright refuse to vote on critiques, identity critiques specifically, and the refinement/elaboration of this area of Ks. And yet, the conservative arguments listed above are still mainstream and acceptable in debate. 

Simple truth is that if you feel like these arguments are being boxed out because your opponents are like "that's offensive," of course they'll say that. It's apart of the argument they're making and it's apart of the emotional and moral appeal of their argument. If judges are telling you that you're being offensive, then it's an argument packaging problem. 

No argument is unbeatable. The critique, especially identity critiques, are approached by young debaters as insurmountable and confusing etc etc. That combined with the aggressive/emotional presentation of a lot of K debaters makes it look like impossible and almost taboo to debate against some of these arguments. 

My tips:

1) Get familiar with the arguments you plan to debate, understand the basic structure and core claims they rely on, prep for that. More importantly, understand why these arguments feel necessary beyond branding every k debater as someone trying to exploit a particular cause. 

2) Make effective use of your cross-x. Pin the other team down to reduceable core parts of their argument that you have to beat and focus your answers there, particularly framing arguments intended to be a barrier to you getting to weigh your offense (once you get past a framing argument or two, you're more than likely down to just an impact debate). I promise you that most Ks don't have more than like 5 or 6 core parts that underlies all of their offense. Some arguments entirely hinge on 1 core claim (example being ontology-based identity Ks) and if you focus on that, then suddenly get to talk about state engagement/inclusion, your impacts, etc in a substantive way. 

3) Get thicker skinned and a bit more detached without being apathetically offensive. Chances are if your opponent is branding anything you say as offensive without much other substance in answers, then they're likely in a corner with how to answer that argument (unless you're legit being offensive). If you get upset that you're being called some kind of "-ist" then you've reacted exactly how your opponent wants you to. 

[theninjamonkey 2]

It's true that the community is mostly composed of leftists, but you can definitely still win on right-wing arguments. Even if your judge is a hardcore leftist, you can still present right-leaning arguments in a way that they would be appealing to leftists.

[debategirl52 70]

@theninjamonkey -- actually it depends on the judge and there are many examples where your theory hasn't been true.

[OwenK 2]

@David you should ban @debategirl52 she creates a hazardous environment here at Cross-X. Please help keep the remaining members of your site by blocking this troll

https://www.cross-x.com/code-of-conduct/

she violates the standards

Edited July 24 by OwenK

[debategirl52 70]

@OwenK - I resent that. I am sharing my opinion on this forum and reading well-thought out responses. Why should I be banned? Is it because my opinion is unpopular? You are proving my point. But I see you go to SMS... I know your school likes to attack other debate teams in their free time. Please don't make a hobby of attacking me or others who believe debate has shifted to a place where true deliberation isn't always possible. And yes, I read the code of conduct and haven't violated anything. The only people violating the code are the select few insulting/bullying me. David already shut one of my posts down and he has that jurisdiction. But since then, I have posted an apology and lightened up my tone.

Let me be free and share my thoughts. I am not a "troll" by any means. I am sorry you feel that way.

[debategirl52 70]

@OwenK ... looks like you are breaking all of the following.

• Be friendly and patient
• Using welcoming and inclusive language
• Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
• Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
• Showing empathy towards other community members

And frankly, @David wasn't there for me as a community member when people were calling me names, harassing me, and attacking me on one of my previous posts. I respect David for getting back in the game, but please protect all debaters. That includes me. 

[debategirl52 70]

@OwenK - you didn't care about community guidelines when the following insults were spewed at me on my other post. Here are a few that you AND @David missed:

1. You continue to be an ass and choose to not listen. You are pathetic.

 

2. You hateful hateful person I am disgusted by you.

 

3. No one is saying you can't have an opinion. We're just saying you're wrong.

 

4. Get Out Of Here With That Nonsense! You belittle advocacy that does not fit your EuroCentric model and I am truly disgusted. 

 

5. Hypocrite I swear

 

@David you have failed in protecting me against bullies who called me an ass, disgusting, a hypocrite, etc. But you had no problem shutting down MY post because others didn't agree with it. You didn't punish those who were spewing hate.

[OwenK 2]

3 hours ago, debategirl52 said:

@OwenK - you didn't care about community guidelines when the following insults were spewed at me on my other post. Here are a few that you AND @David missed:

1. You continue to be an ass and choose to not listen. You are pathetic.

 

2. You hateful hateful person I am disgusted by you.

 

3. No one is saying you can't have an opinion. We're just saying you're wrong.

 

4. Get Out Of Here With That Nonsense! You belittle advocacy that does not fit your EuroCentric model and I am truly disgusted. 

 

5. Hypocrite I swear

 

@David you have failed in protecting me against bullies who called me an ass, disgusting, a hypocrite, etc. But you had no problem shutting down MY post because others didn't agree with it. You didn't punish those who were spewing hate.

Can you share the specific links to the specific posts that I said those things in? Also, my point was that you are a troll: you are trying to get a rise out of people! I’m going to see if I can block you! Nice knowing ya!

 

 

also one last thing, where are you from? How do u know SMS debaters go after people and can you name one other EK school? If so who are you?

Edited July 25 by OwenK

[Thicccieee 2]

Y’all r all wrong. K debate is good debate. I used to be against K’s but after watching Vishvak’s phenomenal 2nr on afropessimism I have changed my outlook upon debate. Like seriously.

[TestNav 2]

I personally believe that K debate is a necessary and useful tool to opening up new ways of interpreting debate. Saying criticisms shouldn't be allowed is a dogmatic form of thinking and shouldn't be tolerated in spaces of educational productivity.

[Thicccieee 2]

11 hours ago, TestNav said:

I personally believe that K debate is a necessary and useful tool to opening up new ways of interpreting debate. Saying criticisms shouldn't be allowed is a dogmatic form of thinking and shouldn't be tolerated in spaces of educational productivity.

Bro I agree with you a lot. K debate (especially the way Vishvak does it) is useful for the community. After watching Vishvak’s 2nrs, he turned me into a believer of K debate.

[OwenK 2]

1 hour ago, Thicccieee said:

Vishvak

you keep mentioning his name @Thicccieee could you explain to me who he is?

[Thicccieee 2]

1 hour ago, OwenK said:

you keep mentioning his name @Thicccieee could you explain to me who he is?

Probably one of the best afropess debaters in Texas and (arguably) the nation. He goes to coppell and is partners with Shreyas Rajyagopal (he is the 2n). Last year he (and his partner) co-champed TFA and made it to Octos of the TOC

[anonymouspanda 0]

13 hours ago, OwenK said:

you keep mentioning his name @Thicccieee could you explain to me who he is?

In all seriousness, Vishvak is a debater from Coppell who graduated last year. Thicccieee just likes to conflate him with Het Desai, who is the actual partner with Shreyas. Vishvak is a solid debater but when people mention Coppell, its most often in reference to Het and Shreyas

[Thicccieee 2]

20 hours ago, anonymouspanda said:

In all seriousness, Vishvak is a debater from Coppell who graduated last year. Thicccieee just likes to conflate him with Het Desai, who is the actual partner with Shreyas. Vishvak is a solid debater but when people mention Coppell, its most often in reference to Het and Shreyas

Bro why r u obsessed with conflating Vishvak with Het dude. Ask any debater from coppell, Vishvak is Shreyas’ partner, although u might be right that he graduated and also probably right that Het is Shreyas’ new partner.