Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/07/16 in all areas

  1. 8 points
  2. 7 points
    I wasn't initially going to post something here but I think that this is particularly relevant in the context of the discussion that has happened. To start, none of what I'm saying here supports or justifies any of Trump's racist, sexist, homophobic, and other views/policies oppressive to minorities. Debate has always been a hyper-liberal community whether teams are K or not. And many in debate pride ourselves on making debate as open ideologically as possible. In many cases, that means opening ourselves to things that tend to be more liberal like asking for gender pronouns, providing trigger warning, among others. But we need to recognize that opening ourselves needs to happen to those that aren't necessary as left leaning as we are. Trump is a very good example of this. 99% of things Trump does are bad and I will not contest this, but the fact that we'll go as far as to say that Trump can never do anything that is ideologically aligned to solve oppression is just as bad as those in debate on the right that say that liberal policies can never be good. Many of the arguments after the election that we've made on framework is about Group Polarization. But aren't we similarly polarized when some in the community say that any policies supported by Trump cannot possibly be good in any world ever? Many of Trump's policies/actions are definitely racist but we ignore that African American unemployment rate has fallen by a full percentage point as well as black wages since the election. We also ignore that 30,000 new black jobs are created each month and job growth among blacks is 40% higher than under Obama. (Source - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-race-trump-economy-progress-0822-story.html and I do not condone the entirety of this article, just citing statistics). Trump's actions towards womyn and minorities are despicable but this entire criticism of Kasen is that his plan is simply supported by Trump, not just that they defends Trump's rhetoric (which they might've but that's not condoned or criticized by me). Those of you who attacked Kasen as a person have taken a debate argument and a plan and attacked their personal beliefs which is exactly what those on the left criticize. A comment Sean made on another thread about this issue particularly affected me where he says that Trump's policies on Immigration are universally regarded as racist and thus we shouldn't every consider talking about them. While this is definitely true in some sense, the group most likely to benefit from Immigration restrictions are Black men who are ignored by current employers, not just White people, plus 85% of African Americans support reducing Immigration caps (Source - http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-seminara-trump-immigration-reform-african-americans-20180316-story.html#). All I'm saying is that when we shut down discussion simply because a policy lies on the right or because somebody debates differently than us, then we become just as bad as those on the right that shut down discussions of racial minority, LGBT, womyn rights and much much more. Those who argue that Securitizing is good, Hegemony is good (in a way), the War on Terror is good, etc. are similarly aligned to some of Trump's beliefs and I personally believe that they deserve to have legitimate discussions in debate. Please do not construe my post as a support or a form of apologism of the Alt Right or Trump, because it's not. My statistics about black economic growth similarly aren't saying Trump loves black people or that Black people are having a great time and aren't suffering ontologically or materially and there's a legitimate argument that those trends are happening despite Trump instead of because of him , but just that there's discussions to be had that some of Trump's policies can help minorities. I simply think that debate's that aren't Racism Good, Genocide Good, deserve discussions about plan's and ideologies that fall further right that we expect. If we kick them out completely and attack personal beliefs, not only does it push those people who are centrist-right's further away from compromise, but we polarize ourselves in a way that eliminates alternate discussions that those of us in debate should pride ourselves on.
  3. 5 points
    Here is what I'd do if I owned cross-x. Full implementation of this slate will complete your rebirth. 1. Pay Evazon authors to jumpstart the cycle of college debaters commenting on the site to drum up proof of expertise and drive sales traffic. College debate posts are essential to increase the quality of discourse on the site and fulfill pedagogical needs. 2. Pay mods - something modest, but enough to keep the boards clean and productive. 3. Advertise the site. 4. Probably get some google ad stuff going to bring in monthly cash outside of camp ads and evazon. That wouldn't be super popular, but I'd want a steady stream of income to make adjustments as I see fit during off-season time. 5. Theme weeks, better use of sticky threads, permanent memes board, theory crafting board, video archive board with discussion threads. 6. Try to improve community features like following posters, real time chat, etc. No facebook tie-in though, not never. 7. The Big One: Yelp-type board where people can hire coaches as hired guns. Reviews for hired guns. Reviews for semester-long/season-long coaching. Older debaters offering their services hourly, weekly, etc., at prices that match up with their demand. I think I'm a pretty good coach, and it's hard as heck to convince a parent of that when they've never seen a college debate before, and don't understand the significance of "unranked to top 5 in 2.5 years" for long-term coaching. Yelp-type reviews would help make that sale. It also makes sense to me that someone coming here has limited coaching resources, and while most can't shell out $10k for a season-long coach, many can shell out $20 for 2 hours of coaching or something along those lines. I cannot believe this service doesn't exist in an open-market format. The closest was the debate consultantship thing Seth Gannon was trying to do, but I'm not sure where that ever went. Such a system wouldn't be able to sustain itself independently and needs the infrastructure of this website (traffic, brand-name, heavy community involvement, open feedback) to really work. Plus, all those people trying to sell their services would have a heavy incentive to post a ton so people have immediate proof of their qualification.
  4. 4 points
    Restore it to what...? Debate is constantly evolving and will continue to evolve.
  5. 4 points
    This debate was pretty good, bit messy in the 2AC and block though. I vote neg, I think @NickDB8's 2NR was way better on the question of lbl/tech and @debategirl52's 2AR just grandstands on some defensive claims at best.
  6. 4 points
    This will be a long post. Sorry if it's kind of messy-it's hard to organize Bataille's ideas. Bataille thinks that the world is chaotic and incomplete, so trying to address any part of the world using an isolated and static approach, such as a plan, inevitably fails, because the world is constantly in a state of flux, or is constantly changing. In these moments where attempts at knowledge fail, authentic communication not chained to static interpretations or isolationistm can take place, so the alt can often try to create a moment like this. If isolationist campaigns continue, they will always be tortured by the utter chaos of the universe, which does not care about rationality or completion (those who consider themselves sane will be tortured by the universe for that very ascription to sanity). If we assume these things, then we can theorize human consciousness as either 1-an attempt for meaning and isolated identification, a quest which is never finished and only tortures the seeker, or 2-a self-defeating process that eventually spirals into madness and chaos, opening up a new space. Bataille thinks that, once consciousness collapses in on itself and becomes mad, the entire paradigm of existence is radically altered inasmuch as traditional value systems are turned upside down, and it is possible to escape from rationalist consumer society (sometimes called a restricted economy) and towards mad indifference and completion (sometimes called a general economy). Within a general economy, excess is always primary, and trying to push it back only causes bad things because it tries to conform the madness and excess into a rational restricted economy. Bataille thinks that one of the ways to escape from restricted economies is to transgress their norms through revolutions in the affairs of everyday life, which can take the form of rule-breaking, "sins" committing taboo acts, or anything else that a system doesn't think can exist within it. Bataille wants to transgress isolated values to access sensory bliss and feelings, to experience the extremes of life instead of bland consumer capitalism. One way to escape from these bland systems is through odious utterances, the "unspeakable" things or actions that will cause sensory extremes of things like emotion and open the possibility of freedom. These odious utterances disrupt each step in the hierarchies of normalcy (norms of society are set up in a sort of hierarchy where each step seems small enough to be reasonable, at least compared to steps next to it, a cycle which quickly escalates). These norms impose taboos restricting deviance, so that the possibility for difference (and "freedom") becomes more and more limited, and systems start to become homogenized as everything deemed unacceptable is "banished" from society, leading to a deprivation of access to life which makes value impossible. Society offers a fantasy of security (think things like military "protection", social security, or other support systems), but this security is also a security of the self, as society's codes for what is acceptable help people imagine who and what they are and what they know that they know. However, once we transgress society, we lose security for unsafe bliss and freedom, escaping society's fear-systems. Bataille wasn't an academic, but a librarian, and never wrote for fame or fortune, but to transgress writing, ruining words and showing that complete communication is impossible. The effectiveness of this strategy is shocking the public is apparent by the fact that the French ministry of culture literally banned his last book "Tears of Eros," because it was considered an "outrage to morality" for its content. Bataille thought that this strategy could open up access to the difference of non knowledge, an absence of traditional meaning-making which opposed many other areas of philosophy trying to impose static identities on the world. He thought that this act of transgressive writing could disrupt the values of the time through creative destruction, literally abusing the meaning of language in disgusting ways. He didn't think that this transgression could create a new world, because imagining possibilities like this is just a quest for attainment and wholeness that is doomed because it relies on isolated understandings of the world, but he did think that it could allow some level of escape from society. Attainment quests are particularly bad in that they establish goals, which lock us to specific forms of meaning. When you say "I want to be a doctor" you have articulated a goal, and have presupposed that you exist in the present, and there is a possible you in the future who has achieved that goal and is now a doctor. This physical projection into the future only imagines one way that the future could go, which ultimately changes how we react in the present because everything we do works towards that particular future goal. This future with goals makes the present hostile towards anything that seems to threaten your goals. For example, if someone wanted you to go graffiti something with them, possibly an act of transgression, your future-oriented present self will say no, preventing escape, because it thinks that doing that could disrupt the future doctor-self that doesn't even exist yet. When you're always basing the present on a possible future, you fail to live and become hostile, lacking enjoyment. This idea plays out on a global scale as well. We know that the world is threatening, and we try to displace that threat away from ourself onto some other part of the world so that someone else has to deal with it. What this means is that seeing images of other people suffering (dealing with the threat) makes us feel happy and safe because it tells us that the threat is somewhere else and we don't have to deal with it, that the world is dangerous, but not to us. This creates a psychological necessity to continue eliminating threats once one has supposedly been eliminated, to continue feeling safe and scapegoating violence onto the other. One instance of this is the elimination of the other, justified through "safety" which continues on indefinitely because there must always be a new other, as the world is always chaotic and violent and the universe ultimately doesn't care. Bataille had a very hard childhood, with his father going mad and his mother becoming suicidally depressed. His childhood was characterized by solitude and abandonment, causing him to theorize that humans are not thrown into the world or introduced to it, but utterly abandoned into it, and that is is chaotic and evil. This abandonment is incredibly painful, and is of isolation and insufficiency. However, even though abandonment is immense suffering, being with other people also has limits, a sort of contradiction in Bataille's scholarship. However, this contradictory scholarship only reinforces absolute madness, as it brings opposites into proximity. Bataille thinks that laughter is one way to transgress taboos, interrupting community and society and showing utter indifference. Bataille's laughter isn't just snickering at a joke, but an insane and overwhelming laugh, think of the laugh of the joker. Laughter overwhelms us, and ruptures normalcy, allowing actual life, which is usually prohibited by taboos. Bataille was heavily influenced by Nietzsche's ideas, and thinks that God was not destroyed, but that many different gods were reinstated in ideas like rationality. The proliferation of these new gods makes us beg for security at the cost of freedom, as we want to impose security and contained knowing on things that can't be controlled. The world is parodic, and everything that seems complete is simply a disguise for something else. Everything only coheres itself through references to other things, going back to the idea that isolationism is bad. Parody is a mockery of the original which can't be identified and lacks authority. When we focus on our object of mockery, we can reveal that it's built on unstable foundations and doesn't really have any authority. In parodicly demonstrating the absurdity of the world, we can refuse the threats that the system creates by disempowering and mocking them. There are two types of expenditure, productive expenditure and unproductive expenditure. Productive expenditure exists to maintain the homogenous needs of a society based on rationalism and consumption, but unproductive expenditure is useless waste of precious resources. Bataille theories unproductive expenditure largely through ideas like potlatch, extravagant but meaningless celebrations where precious objects were discarded and destroyed. Productive expenditure made the world something that puts people on different tracks so that they can best contribute, but it doesn't have to be like this, as people were sometimes and can bad valued for their chaotic individuality and ability to waste. Useful to unproductive expenditure is ritual and gift giving which escalates in extravagance to force more and more waste while also building communities, as this waste is collective. For example, if you give someone a gift, they're expected to give a better counter-gift, and this cycle causes communities to be bound together by their expenditure on each other. Debate can be used as a site of potlatch and useless expenditure, as we can disrupt it, refusing to gift the aff the ballot because they would productive it towards things like skills and education. The judge could instead potlatch us the ballot, disrupting the ballot and sacrificing the aff towards meaninglessness. Sacrifice wastes honor and prestige, removing the object of sacrifice from our everyday to the point that we can no longer comprehend it. In the loss of the thing, new values are able to exist that transgress taboos. The sacrificial subject affirms the death of the self, abandoning traditional self-consciousness for new ways of existing through laceration, the wounds upon the fabric of being. In the process of laceration, everything causes wounds, but the last wound is what kills, and existence is a constant process of being lacerated by the universe as we are forced to confront our own limits. When things go wrong, we get lacerated and are forced to become something else. Bataille is also very interested in the concept of Acephale, and lead a cult called Acephale. Acephalic means headless, and the acephale is the image of the headless being, death's head on its body, a labyrinth on its stomach, starts on its breasts, a knife in one hand, and a flaming heart in the other, the universe characterized by risk instead of security and responsibility. Bataille's acephale society is a counter-group that is very secretive, allowing for a break that lets values be rearticulated without consciously describing those values or ascribing meaning onto them. The Acephale was founded on the individuality of each member, and it refused boredom for freedom and life, refusing processes of homogenization. Communication only occurs when you are willing to risk losing a part of yourself to the other, and is often surface-level and meaningless. True community forms when you experience something that you can't articulate with someone else. In this moment that traditional communication breaks, real inarticulable community is made possible. Disrupting the day-to-day communicative operations of debate can forced debate to reconcile why it matter at all and can allow a new community. When most people think of Bataille, they think his concept of the accursed share. Life is super abundant with cosmic energy, more of it than is necessary to survive, and the energy that can't be consumed must be wasted, either gloriously or catastrophically. A lot of problems are caused by society squandering wealth wrong by reinvesting excess back into itself when it can't fit anymore excess. If we don't waste some of the accursed share, everything is going to collapse eventually. The accursed share also incorporates the ideas of general and restricted economy, the different ways that society can deal with the excess, or accursed share. If you want to read Bataille, you need a very deep understanding of his theorizing, and you should read some primary source Bataille in addition to some modern reinterpretations of his work. It's very confusing at first, but you'll get it eventually. Good luck!
  7. 4 points
    I'm going to comment here because the debate is over and I'm bored and have no incentive not too. I'll go in order of speeches. I've got a lot to say. Don't just write this off b/c you disagree with my previous statements. The 1ac. I have a 4 main problems with the 1ac that extend beyond purely political disagreements, that I think are worth taking into account. I'm not going to get into stylistic disagreement. 1) The introduction. Whatever you're want it to say, the fact that the ev is from Prager U is not a good sign. They're anti-intellectual click-bait that condenses real (conservative) arguments into slick catchphrases and 1 liners that present opinion as fact. The National Review, the CATO institute, or the heritage foundation are somewhat respectable and I'd suggest looking there for a similar argument made with more integrity. The ev is also plainly in bad faith - Schumer's remarks are on the topic of how immigrants are treated inside the country (family separation) and any serious academic will tell you that the US on balance has one of the most conservative immigration systems on earth, outside of countries like North Korea or Saudi Arabia. 2) The planks/plan. I'm not sure if this is meant to be aggressively in-your-face to anyone who considers themselves left of center, but it comes off this way. (ICE, Obamacare, and immigration.) I have no idea how common that is in UIL but it immediately puts a bad taste in my mouth. It also is untopical and incoherent at a mechanical level. a) ICE can not be the actor of the plan. It's a law enforcement agency, that enforces existing immigration laws through arrests, detention, etc. It can't pass the plan, which is traditionally what the agent is assumed to do. Congress is the appropriate actor. This is also hugely inconsiderate irl to anyone who is an illegal immigrant, knows any illegal immigrants, or is related to any, especially if they've been targeted by ICE in recent months. b) Obamacare is primarily mandatory spending, not discretionary. The budget can't be shifted in that way. It also is an extra-topical plank, because you could very plausibly claim advantages based purely on the elimination of Obamacare, not the plan. Also, you just open yourself up to Obamacare good disads. I'm not even sure the plan requires funding - unless I'm missing something, there's nothing in the plan that would cost money to implement beyond maybe printing the new regulations and VISAs. It's also somewhat more complicated than just a $1 trillion+ price tag (which is semi-correct) - it also knocks billions off the debt and vastly reduces annual personal expenditure on healthcare. c) It's objectively not topical. This is the big one. You haven't proven that chain immigration is a restriction on immigration, just a standard. I looked through several topicality files, and could find no definition that supported this claim. Regardless of whether eliminating chain immigration is reducing a restriction (which it also logically seems not to be, since by your own definition it allows more immigrants in), merit-based immigration system is a restriction by almost any definition (limitation, qualification, etc.). It also is plainly extra-topical and opposite the direction of the topic (i.e. highly unpredictable) to go beyond reducing restrictions to implement a new regulation, even if it is non-restrictive. The resolution says "reduce its restrictions" not "reduce its restrictions and create new regulations in their place." Because anything can fill this blank, there's no way to predict it. 3) Harms. Maybe this is taken for granted in UIL, but your harms cards aren't harms anywhere else. The first of these is descriptive (terror did occur) not predictive, and the second doesn't explain why illegal immigration is bad (which is hardly a settled issue). 4) Globally, your cards have no warrants. The "solvency" contention doesn't explain why it solves anything, just what points-based immigration is. The "O Canada" card doesn't give any explanation of why anything it says is true - it just presents the claims with no evidence or arguments to back them up. Food for thought. The 1nc. I would highly suggest reading case evidence. That said, if you don't have any this demonstrates my point about topicality - you couldn't have expected to research an anti-topical plan. Because of all this, I'd also suggest reading topicality. If I was judging this round and had anything close to a competent defense of T, I can't imagine not voting neg. Oh and you don't need a roadmap in the 1nc. Other stuff: 1) The DA. There's no uniqueness evidence. There are 3 key pieces of any DA. 1 - uniqueness, 2- link, 3 - impact. There may be internal links, but those 4 basic things need to exist. You've got 2 and 3, in a slightly odd order, but not 1. You need to explain why the DA is not happening now - i.e. why it is a unique disadvantage to the affirmative plan and not just a feature of the status quo. If anything your first piece of ev is a non-uniqueness card - it says brain-drain is already happening. 2) The K. The 2nd Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez card is not needed - it's talking about white people who talk about natives but also replace them in academic settings - that's not the aff. I would suggest keeping the framing stuff embedded in the tags of the K proper, or holding it until the block. I'd also be cautious about making claims to solvency when reading a K - making arguments about problematizing or denormalizing is far more strategic, given that it's almost certain a debate round won't overturn all of settler colonialism. The rest seems fine. Starting in the 1nc cx, there are also some rhetorical issues. I'd caution against phrases like "so-called genocide." It's probably fine to question the material impact of academic practices, but the phrasing makes it sound as though you don't think natives experienced genocide at the hands of European settlers - *spoiler* they definitely did. The 2ac. I should clarify a few things: "the aff," "the case," and "on-case" all refer to the same thing - the text of the 1ac and direct refutations to it made by the 1nc, as well as the extended argumentation made about this later in the debate. The brain-drain disadvantage and the settlerism kritik are both off-case positions because they do not refute the case directly - they present external/separate disadvantages to something about the aff. There was no on-case argument in the 1nc - I'd suggest just restating what the harms are, why they are bad, and why they are more important than the neg's positions. 1) the kritik. The K doesn't accuse the aff of genocide per say - it says the plan and the rhetoric surrounding it cover up a history of genocide, and that this erasure is what allows the continued marginalization of native people. I'd also suggest making a lot more arguments here - the main arguments in the 1nc and their warrants are mostly unaswered other than to say that the kritik doesn't link and that it is not unique to the aff. 2) the BD DA. Mostly I think this flow is fine. But it really doesn't matter if it's "not the US's fault" if we can apparently predict the outcome - the disadvantage is not concerned with making the US feel guilty, it's making a causal claim that a certain set of actions will result in nuclear war. This is fine if you answer the rest of the DA, which you do, but it's a bit of a useless point. 3) "the rehash." You don't need one. Most judges I've met have said that if you don't have anything new to say, it's best to just end the speech early, so that the flows don't get messy. If it's already been said, it doesn't need to be (re)said again, and if new arguments are made there's no reason they shouldn't have already been made. Individual points here: a) The K does not say natives do control america. It says that they should and that the US should not. It's negating the resolution, that's the job of the negative. b) Explain why it is important to focus on the effects of the plan - the kritik makes explicit claims to the importance of academic thought, so why should the judge value policy analysis? Give a reason. c) By and large, the reasons to vote aff you list are either, redundant, irrelevant, or non sequiturs. - why should only US-related issues matter? Nuclear war seems important anywhere, even if it is unlikely. - what "educational purpose" matters? Colonialism seems educational and important, given that their cards are literally about education. - they have negated the resolved - they've said the usfg should not conrtol immigration, the resolved/affirmative says it should - I have no idea how this is not negation. - why does it matter if they read the states CP? There are other actors than the states and fed - like native tribes, for instance. The 2nc. It's actually not bad, I just wish you would connect the plan's Trump-connection to settler colonialism. I don't think you need to define the state, and you reread 2nd the Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez card from the 1nc. Also, restate the K framing, don't just say "extend it." Do the work. I've already mentioned this to KTyler's displeasure, but white supremacy is far more than hurt feelings, as the kritik should have made abundantly clear. The rhetoric implies that it's just an issue of natives being overly emotional, and not that they are actually being slaughtered, neglected, or otherwise marginalized by various forces in service of white supremacy. As a kind of global note on the negative's cx answers - I think your tone, as I perceive it, is way off. The constant/random use of capitalization is kind of grating, and if it's meant to convey emotion or shouting it seems kind of hollow next to the dismissal of things I said in the commentary thread - do you genuinely care about these issues? Do you think the rhetoric surrounding the affirmative is mired in settler colonialism? If these things are true, and if it is true that settler colonialism is a genocidal system that infiltrates academia, it seems strange and contradictory to want to maintain the civil discourse or integrity of the debate when it is faced with genuine outside criticism. There's been a lot written about this over the years, in particular by Bill Shanahan and Shanara Reid-Brinkley, but confining radicalism to pure argumentation is hardly radical. That's all I have to say that I haven't already said.
  8. 4 points
  9. 4 points
    ngl I think I liked the old format better oops
  10. 4 points
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
  • Create New...