Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/26/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Also, you should thank me for starting a dialogue. This website is kinda dead and there is some real traction as of recent days!
  2. 1 point
    Just so all you haters know, I will be publishing my opinions. And you can't stop me! There is a whole community of people just like me and we are uniting to restore debate.
  3. 1 point
    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.
  4. 1 point
    I am concerned you have time to write a book about your opinion on the state of HS policy...... He isn't being rude and also check who you are talking to before you talk friend so take your pointed tone elsewhere.
  5. -1 points
    Hi @NickDB8 ... Although I am a little concerned that you have so much time to write a paper on K debate being good, I appreciate all of the thought you put into this. That being said, I noted your arguing that policy debate is unethical. That alone should help you empathize with the opposite statement (K debate bad). I understand that critical literature is good for challenging AFF plans, but do believe that the structure of Ks and mandated POSTAL defeats the "challenging" of politics. It turns into a game. The K team just waits for the FW team to either drop something or for them to fail to offer one of the mandated elements. This is what I meant by taking advantage....among other things. Even if you don't agree with me on that, I and many others on this thread see the harms in K AFFs. Even if you don't like policy research, many policy-oriented community members are forced to invest much time in critical literature when they would rather be learning about the real world. On the other hand, K debaters can neglect to research policy research completely and win on their K blocks. See the unfairness? One group has total freedom to learn what they want and the other group is forced out of their own interests in order to be competitive. I would like to add that I am not silencing K debaters.... K debaters are silencing me. I simply believe that their valuable and educational arguments should either be run in a different format, under a different FW, or in a different entity. Check out the "out of round CP". Many of my friends are K debaters and I support their arguments wholeheartedly. Please do not insult me by implying that I am ignorant. Also, this isn't a debate round. It is merely a conversation. You don't need to construct your responses in the "even if" format. I could pull up all of the evidence pointing out why policy debate is good, common subject matter is good, roleplaying the USFG is good, and K's don't do anything. However, I am sure you have already seen all of these cards. Frankly, I am tired of playing nice. There is a lot more I could say. I will write and publish my stance whether you like it or not. Anything I can do to help struggling policy debaters is what I will do.
  6. -1 points
    @seanarchy - Thanks for this thoughtful response. I take all you have said into account. I will not be using any of these quotes. My fear was right: K debaters have resorted to judgment and anger instead of trying to see my point fo view. Its a double standard. You ask me to show empathy with K debaters and I do. I have said from the beginning of this thread that K debate has educational value. None of the people who have commented on this post will step in the shoes of a policy debater. K debaters would rather make fun of policy debaters and label them than show empathy. To answer your question, there is a growing community of college and high school debaters who are communicating daily. We are all fighting and planning to turn debate around. It has turned into a space lacking true controversy or disagreement. Theoretical assumptions have shattered policy debate and caused many rounds to discuss NO POLICY. Its important that we engage current events and the real world. Stop forcing people into high theory! You continue to misunderstand me. As I said prior, I understand that critical literature is good for challenging AFF plans, but do believe that the structure of Ks and mandated POSTAL defeats the "challenging" of politics. JUST READ IT AS A NON-UQ DA. K AFFs are another story. Your attempt to guilt and silence me will fail.
  7. -1 points
    @seanarchy - I read your lengthy response and many of your points make sense. Yes, I am in fact serious and I believe you are the slightly defensive one. Nevertheless, I appreciate your words. You are stuck on the line by line and missing the big picture framing. However, I stick to my bottom line: Critical literature has been normalized to the point that policy debaters are forced to learn intricate theories that they don't care about. Simultaneously, K debaters get the freedom to research and debate whatever they want. Policy debate is policy debate. It should focus on POLICY instead of obscure ideas. Many K teams are taking the easy way out. I am not 'providing more ammunition for right-wing attacks on academia writ large' simply because I think that the cornerstone of CX includes solvency advocates and policy mechanisms. @HunterJordan - As a policy debater, I encourage you to question whether a K v. K debate belongs in the realm of policy debate. Yes, it has much clash and value. Should policy debaters be forced into research and debate of high theoretical substance? I would argue no!
  8. -1 points
    ^ what @jmeza111401 said I was real close to closing this thread a couple times, but it seemed to meander back towards reasonable discussion. This last page? woof Relatedly, if anyone would like to review the current draft of rules going forward... https://www.cross-x.com/code-of-conduct/
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
  • Create New...