-1 pointsDavid, We appreciate the job you've done in years past, but life goes on, and your activity on the forums has decreased. Appointing some new moderators would allow you to maintain control without having to do any of the work yourself. If you choose moderators who genuinely care about the activity of debate, Cross-X could thrive yet again. If you're not interested in selecting new moderators, then please consider selling the website. Cross-ex has been a great resource for debaters, and I, along with the rest of this community, don't want it to die. With respect, Samuel Oakes
-1 pointsThere is no reason to change the status quo. The uniqueness and freedom of argumentation is what makes the activity of debate the "art" that it is. I, among many others, appreciate this, as you admit in your post. Why then, would we change it? The real problem is this: How do you propose this genuineness is enforced? Because enforcing genuineness - something which is determined by extremely subjective standards - would in itself be more harmful to debate than allowing this "non-genuineness" to continue, just as it always has.
-1 pointsHi @JSamuel - In response to your last post on my second culture post ("I'm Sorry"), I am actually not maintaining my original standpoint. I am now in a different camp under the echo-chamber umbrella. I am no longer fighting Ks so much as what the debate space has become. It has gone too far. After my first thread which unexpectedly went viral, I did some soul searching. When David shut down my post, I started to wonder if my mission was possible. Then, I began to modify it. I have never doubted the importance of Ks. Part of the beauty of debate is that it is a safe-space for identity expression. I have witnessed that. I don't think I articulated this well enough in my first post. Debate has always been an activity that empowers. My modified mission is as follows: To inject the debate space with genuineness. - Let me explain: I believe that people have taken advantage of the empowering and accepting art that debate is. Because debate so clearly celebrates difference, I have witnessed many people pose (for lack of better words) in an effort to appear like they are part of a marginalized group. I don't want to go into specifics, but this included altering their appearances before tournaments and running Ks which corresponded with their temporarily altered appearance. This happens in many forms and at many schools. Needless to say, this harms the minorities that are actually using the debate space to express their identities. I think witnessing these made me resent Ks in general. I now see clearly. Ks aren't the problem. The problem is what some debaters are doing to manipulate the literature and the system. If there is some advantage to this or critical reason for it, please comment. I don't see it as of now. Thanks. Has debate gone so far left that the community has blinders on? Has anyone else noticed the issue outlined above?
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00