Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/21/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    ^ 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/
  2. 1 point
    Y'all need to chill k debate and policy debate are both good excluding either one is dangerous as both are highly important whether you be a person of privilege or not. Attacking each other on a debate forum is one of the saddest things I've ever seen go do hw, read a book, PREP, or etc. You will never be able to convince one an other if all you do is rapidly type away your opinion with an aggressive tone. with that being said just stop, stay hydrated, and have a nice day.
  3. 1 point
    Kicking T is pretty much never abusive. You can kick it in the 2NR with no problem. Where you start to get into trouble is when it comes to kicking advocacies such as counterplans and K alts. That opens up conditionality debates and stuff like that. But T shells don’t have a status. Sometimes people will run an RVI on T, but that’s not a very common move in policy debate. It’s just considered kinda silly. And it doesn’t necessarily have a connection with whether you kick the T shell—people will argue that even having read the shell is abusive. So yeah, don’t worry about kicking T in the block.
  4. 1 point
    IMO: A. Use Evidence if you have any to disprove their claims. B. Say their Claims are unwarrented with any evidence or anybody else who believes these claims. C. Say that non-Evidence based Debates just lead to a debate of morality and feelings. Not truly evidence, degrades the level of debate that you have. D. Extend Case and do Impact Calc/ Case S K or Case O/W the K E. Framing.
  5. 1 point
    Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States. ---Breakdown of Resolution--- The 2017-18 Policy Debate topic concerns the federal government's role in reforming K-12 schools in the United States. The following is a breakdown of the text of the resolution. "Resolved:" -- this appears on every resolution -- it is used to indicate that the following proposal is the subject of the debate. The Affirmative team argues in favor of federal education reform by presenting a plan. The Negative attempts to refute that plan. "The United States federal government" -- this regards the central, federal government of the United States of America -- it was established in a relationship with the early American colonies, follows a Constitution written by the "Founding Fathers," and is made up of three branches: -The Judicial Branch is comprised of the United States Supreme Court as well as other federal courts. It has the purpose of interpreting and enforcing the Constitution and ruling on relevant issues. -The Legislative Branch is comprised of the United States Congress (the House and the Senate which include Representatives and Senators, respectively) and has the primary purpose of drafting legislation. Congress has the "power of the purse" to allocate all federal funding such as for legislation or for agency budgets. There are also legislative departments. -The Executive Branch is comprised of the President of the United States, his cabinet/administration, and executive agencies. The President of the United States has a number of particular duties, including the authority to veto or to sign legislation into law, and to interpret and execute legislation. Agencies manage the regulation of various aspects of U.S. domestic policy such as agriculture, health, and -- importantly -- education. The Department of Education (ED, DoE, or DoEd) has the role of interpreting and implementing legislation through education regulations. The Secretary of Education in the Department of Education is Betsy DeVos. "Should" -- this word indicates desirability. The Affirmative should argue that it is desirable for the federal government to reform education. This word is also the source of "fiat" for the Affirmative--they don't have to prove that the government will reform education or that they want to reform education, merely that they should. That makes the resolution "normative." "Substantially" -- this means "to a considerable extent" -- while some people will interpret "substantially increase" as a particular, quantitative account, most debaters consider the word asinine and, mostly, ignore it. "Increase" -- this means "to make greater" -- the main discussion regarding this word relates to whether or not an increase necessitates a pre-existing extent. Does the Affirmative have to increase a form of regulation/funding that already exists? Or may they increase overall reform by creating a new form of regulation/funding? That is up for debate. "Its" -- this means "belonging to" -- the funding/regulation must belong to the United States, and not to another entity. The primary instance in which this word will come under scrutiny is in the case of private education -- the federal government currently does not fund/regulate private schools. So, is it an increase of "its" regulation/funding to reform them? "Funding" -- this usually means money, but could be interpreted as other "financial resources" -- because the federal government technically does not have the Constitutional authority to directly affect education, they often offer financial incentives to schools and state and local governments in the form of grants that have education-related "strings attached." "And/Or" -- most people agree that this means "one, the other, or both." Some odd interpretations say it only means "or." This means, the Affirmative may do any of the following within the bounds of the resolution, which has been criticized for including 2 "and/or" phrases: -fund and regulate elementary and secondary -fund and regulate elementary -fund and regulate secondary -fund elementary and secondary -fund elementary -fund secondary -regulate elementary and secondary -regulate elementary -regulate secondary "Regulation" -- there are two primary definitions of regulation. One stems from "a regulation" which is a rule drafted and implemented by an executive agency. This interpretation suggests the Affirmative should "make a regulation" about K-12 education. Another stems from "the act of regulation" -- this interpretation is broader, and simply argues that the Affirmative should "increase federal control" over education. "Of" -- this word means "related to" -- the funding/regulation should be "of" education. It's more of an auxiliary word. "Elementary/Secondary" -- most agree that these, together, comprise K-12. There is some debate over what years are covered in each. Some interpretations exclude middle school from "elementary and secondary." Debates may also occur over whether kindergarten or pre-school is included in addition to debates over career training and teacher training as a form of education. "Education" -- the primary discussion occurs over whether education is formal instruction in a school, or merely things that are learned by people. The former is more limited and specific. The latter is more broad. "In" -- the primary discussion occurs over whether this means "within" or "throughout" -- should the plan occur "somewhere within" the United States? Or must it occur "throughout" the United States? "The United States" -- most agree this means the territory of the United States. Debates may occur over whether "the United States" includes: military bases, Native American reservations, non-continental territories/possessions of the United States, etc. The text of the resolution is examined when the "topicality" of the Affirmative plan is called into question. For more in-depth interpretations and definitions, see topicality files posted on Open Evidence. ---Specific Arguments--- This guide, provided by Millennial Speech and Debate free online, provides a detailed description of the arguments that were produced at debate camps over the summer for the education topic. Below, I will cover some of the most important arguments and concepts to understand for your first tournament. This list is extremely non-comprehensive. It's just--from the top of my head--some of the biggest arguments on the topic as of yet. -Affirmatives--Funding -- many Affirmatives will offer a significant increase in the funding of education. Funding may occur in areas such as STEM, Native American schools, a particular type of curriculum, equalizing funding between "rich" and "poor" schools, and other forms of increased revenue for education. -Affirmatives--Regulation -- many Affirmatives will attempt to regulate and control schools, such as by eliminating the presence of military recruiters, banning the use of standardized testing or "zero-tolerance policies," or perhaps by attempting to force schools to accept federal testing, curriculum, or equality standards. -Disadvantages--Federalism DA -- as I mentioned before, the Constitution doesn't actually provide for a federal role in education. According to the 10th Amendment, any areas not delegated to the federal government remain with "the people" (lower levels of government like the states). Many fear that the federal government is ill-equipped to deal with the diverse educational circumstances across America. They also fear that invading on states' rights in education could set a precedent that erodes the relationship of power called "federalism" that ensures a limited federal role in politics. This will be discussed further on the "states CP." -Disadvantages--Spending DA--Deficit -- this more general spending DA argues that excessive federal spending would crash the economy, and that the federal government can't afford to substantially increase its funding of education. -Disadvantages--Spending DA--Trade-Off -- this argues that funding for education trades-off with other funding -- such as for the military or for other agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services. The impacts to those disadvantages depends on what is being traded off with. -Disadvantages--Politics DA--Base -- this argues that Trump must "hold onto" his base in order to retain rational leadership -- if the government passed an unpopular education reform, the public hated it, and Trump's base abandoned him, he might try to make a diversion by acting irrationally and attacking another country to regain popularity (North Korea, yo). -Disadvantages--Politics DA--Agenda -- this argues that the government either will currently pass an important piece of legislation that the Affirmative distracts from and keeps from passing or that the popularity of the plan will empower the government to pass an unfavorable piece of legislation. The "scenarios" for the politics DA change frequently and include such topics as tax reform, healthcare, and the debt ceiling. -Disadvantages--Politics DA--Midterms -- this argues that the popularity or unpopularity of the plan would have a significant effect on the results of the mid-term congressional elections. The impacts depend on which party "controls" the House and the Senate. -Counterplans--States CP -- simply, this argues that instead of federal implementation of the plan, the state governments should implement the plan. A particular form of it -- disciplined devolution -- still has the federal government as an actor, but gives states the authority to develop strategies for doing the Affirmative. -Counterplans--Privatization CP -- this counterplan shifts from a public to a private model of education, arguing that it would be more effective in implementing the topic area of the Affirmative. -Counterplans--Process CP -- process CPs include various alternative mechanisms for funding/regulating education such as researching about how the plan would work, consulting with teachers or teachers unions, or opening a process of "negotiated rule-making." -Counterplans--Actor CP -- this counterplan might have the Affirmative be done by a different actor, such as by the Supreme Court if you use the executive, or vis versa, or any other "changing around" of who does the plan and why that might be a better way to do it. -Kritik--Capitalism K -- you guessed it -- education is capitalist, and that's pretty bad. We should probably revert to Communism, or maybe just some critical pedagogy that enables us to resist capitalism. -Kritik--Miscellaneous -- I don't really have the time to discuss every objection there is to the status quo education system -- let's just say, there's a lot. Expect to debate criticisms related to how the education system is: over-productive, racist, sexist, ableist, LGBTQ exclusive, and many other types of "bad." Some say that compulsory education shouldn't exist in the first place. Books have been written about debate, and I could never cover as many things as I would have liked to, but hopefully this is a useful introduction. Please, please, please reply here or PM me with any more specific questions you have and let me know if there's anything I can do to help you prepare for your tournament.
  6. 1 point
    Maury wrote this a while back (I lost the link to the thread he wrote it in) but I thought it was very useful in explaining Wilderson so I copied and pasted it onto a speech doc; so all credits go to him: "A few main points Wilderson makes: 1. The Black Body is an ONTOLOGICAL condition. Ontology here is not in the Heideggerian sense of Dasein, but a social formation in which Being, as such, is determined by the system which produces it. Being, then, is defined by the outside. Who you are, or who you think you are, is irrelevant against the condition of Blackness. Blackness is the condition of a body which is labelled as inhuman, uncivilized, etc, and is the figure by which Civil Society is defined against. This opposition of Civil Society being everything which is NOT the Black Body is the way racism perpetuates itself in the status quo, and comes from a long tradition of slavery. 2. While not all Black Bodies have black skin color, all persons with black skin color are Black Bodies (again, an Ontological condition). The reason all blacks have Black Bodies is not a stupid pun, it is a result of the middle passage. Slaves entered boats as Africans and left as Blacks - there was a complete separation from their culture, heritage, and everything they had grown accustomed to. In that sense, the Black Body (the westernized ex-slave) has no civil society because "Civil Society" is literally the society that is defined AGAINST the slave. The slave is NOT civil, and so a white, "civil society" is constructed to exclude the Black Body (and requires that body to exist as a form of juxtaposition, otherwise there is no means to define what a civil society is). 3. Given the ontological condition of Anti-Blackness, minor reforms to the system are counter productive. By and large, they are merely ways to assist the Black Body to play the White game. It's not about changing the system, it's always about helping the Black Body ASSIMILATE into society (because any body which does not assimilate is a priori uncivilized). Welfare, food stamps, college scholarships, inner-city transportation: these do not destroy the ontological condition of blackness, they provide symbolic "outs" so anti-blackness can continue unabated. These reforms are CRITICAL to anti-blackness because they say "look, isn't society getting better for your kind? Aren't they doing better now?" all while making a spectacle of the Black Body and simultaneously negating the criticism of the radical black. Cap debaters will be familiar with this logic: the more reforms to the system, the less power you have to overthrow it. As the system is reformed, it still maintains a particular hierarchy in which there is always a Black Body, but now those cosmetic changes undercut the criticism of the radical black. This is seen constantly when conservatives say "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" and liberals say "oh wow, these blacks are so articulate". Many critical affirmatives will follow this pattern of helping the Black Body assimilate successfully into the system without ever challenging the system as it is. 4. Given all of this, the only possible alternative is to burn the world down. Here, the world as we know it is an EPISTEMOLOGY question: everything we know comes from the enlightenment metaphysics which was not only silent in the face of, but also justification for, slavery. That form of knowledge, the very knowledge which was responsible for the slave trade, continues on in silence through every form of knowledge we have. Derrida makes this argument, that all philosophy still comes from Plato and Socrates and so there is nothing new to be had. Wilderson believes this applies to social ontology as informed through a particular epistemology which inevitably is inextricable from the racism of old. Everything society has to offer, its every goal and every desire, is founded on slavery and built on the backs of slaves. This means the only possible response is to burn it down, a COMPLETE epistemic break from all we know. This may be unintelligable, this may be impossible to envision, but so be it. We may not have an idea of what will come later, but that is merely an extension of the Black Body being incapable of explaining its relation to civil society. For civil society to exist, the Black Body must ALWAYS be unintelligable, and therefore any alternative which begins from that epistemology will also be unintelligable. There is no road map, there is no final solution, there is only a pure negativity and refusal to accept anything except for burning it all down."
  7. 1 point
    Can we hear what this aff was now that the season is long over?
  8. 1 point
  9. -1 points
    YO WTF. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU CAN TALK TO ME LIKE THAT??? @AnthonyUwU - Just bc ur a k debater doesn't give u the right to be verbally abusive and bully me.
  10. -1 points
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
  • Create New...