Jump to content

TLF

Member
  • Content Count

    1978
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by TLF

  1. TLF

    Towards?

    generally speaking, south.
  2. TLF

    This

    dropped arg is a true arg, according to flow-go-scripto-crypto-go-go-gadget-centrism. therefore by your own logic you have conceded you wrote the weekly standard article. round over. go home, you're drunk.
  3. TLF

    This

    i think nathan wrote the weekly standard article
  4. TLF

    Strat Help?

    hi lia! matt was just saying that the 2ac was saying that running away from a physical home may be a choice people make, but not one to run away from acceptance of ones self. i would guess this was a response to an argument about how not everyone chooses to endorse their home, their physical home. first of all, just because lots of people think west is best doesn't mean lots of people aren't implicitly racist or hold implicitly racist views. maybe it's bc i live in nebraska but i know LOTS of people who are racists. they don't think they're racists, they don't commit hate crimes, but they're racist as hell. I'm not immune to that legacy myself. the point is you needn't be consciously hostile to minorities or part of any conspiracy to be a racist. for example, one might be a racist by passively believing that white people are responsible for most of the good things in the world. like nathan does. the question you answered, "do you think most people are hate minorities" isn't the same as " is western culture coded as white". i am incredulous that you don't believe that western culture is coded white, not that you don't think most people are hateful. i think that you keep avoiding this particular issue because you know it to be true. ask yourself, all those friends of yours you're thinking about - when you talk with them about "western culture" what nations are you referring primarily to? which scientists typically get included? who usually gets credit for those awesome cultural things you attribute abstractly to "the west"? basically, who is "the west" whose culture you're so taken with? you start out the conversation by admitting that you think that category isn't stable, but then spend the rest of the time trying to defend those who stabilize it in order to make their assertions. my point is that when it is made stable, it is typically done along racial lines (and that stable, racially oriented conception of the west is the dominant one now) which either erases the work of non white scientists and rights advocates, erases their influence on white thinkers, or marginalizes them as inferior in their respective fields. I'm not going to continue to argue on a high school message board, especially one designed to ask a strategy question of a novice round, that saying science and rights are reasons the west is best is racist. At this point i'm not convinced there's anything I could say to convince you otherwise. There's this guy, Edward Said, who sort of started this school of though called "post-colonialism" where they cover this in some depth. so i'm sorry if my criticism isn't "nuanced" enough for you, but i don't feel responsible for that level of exposition. he's pretty good and nuanced on the question of cultural imperialism being racist. you all should check it out.
  5. TLF

    Strat Help?

    if you don't think the concept of "western culture" is coded white, i don't know what to say except that i think you're being willfully ignorant. if it is coded white, then all of these attempts to ascribe universally things like science and rights to western culture are coded as attempts to attribute them to whiteness, making them racist.
  6. TLF

    Strat Help?

    the conversation involved a lot more than that one point of reference, and you can look back and see that, so let's not reduce nathan's endorsement of west is best to one misstated fact. also, science and human rights are not exclusively western. finally, "western" cultural supremacy has some pretty distinct racial correlation, to understate the position dramatically. i think your attempt to suggest it's not a racist statement to blanket position western culture over others is naive, and i'm being generous.
  7. TLF

    Strat Help?

    lol dude are you being serious? it's earlier in THIS THREAD that this dude says west is best. if you can't see how that might be construed as racist given the context of the conversation, especially after kevin already demonstrated this point pretty well, then i don't think you get to call other people unintelligent.
  8. Yes, I was aware they were the same person. I do think though that not everyone reading here would have the otherwise been aware enough to check ceda forums and there's a substantial part of this conversation essentially happening in a second place. I think you're right, that the issue that "scotus' side" of this conversation seem to want to defend is ultimately not necessarily a gender issue, and that that framing has distracted from the point y'all seem to wanna make. I will say that it's essentially scotus' fault. that's where that framing originated; it didn't seem to address obvious issue with intersectionality; and i think the "that's the status quo" defense of the use of the masculine/feminine correlation to agression/passivity in the first place is pretty unpersuasive, particularly in the context of the debate community. So I understand where voices like O'Gorman are coming from. i have trouble with this paragraph: "There's also another argument made that asking for civility is a way of precluding authentic interactions with otherness. I think that post conflates displaying authentic emotion with utilizing persuasive rudeness. I also think that post assumes that all emotional reactions are justified, which they're not. There is a time and place for anger, but that place is not where you are arguing against a team that hasn't been hostile to you and the time is not when you're on display as an example for the entire community to look towards. Sometimes, emotions should be suppressed, because human emotional intuitions are not perfectly designed." you acknowledge the line you're trying to draw is subjective and yet seem to display a decided lack of empathy for the reasons that any team, ESU in this context included, could possibly be angry enough not to suppress that emotion. you say it's not justified, i'd ask why not? you say it's out of place because the opponent wasn't hostile, but isn't that also subjective? hasn't it already been suggested that hostility may be born toward a system, out of a social location, and partially in response to an argument perceived by many to be itself disrespectful? when else but when on display for the community ought we express outrage? i also think it's interesting that you talk about "seeing enemies everywhere", given that was almost exactly what i thought about I read scotus "Feminized bodies and queer bodies have no place and no home in the kingdom wrought by Emporia." which is clearly not true and is what Paul Johnson is probably talking about when he talks about theory over the object. I'm not doing a tl;dr, but i guess i'd say Paul's point about platonic forms of dialogue being inapplicable and bad probably underpins my willingness to let other subjectivities and interpretations of what counts as "good speech practices" go without policing.
  9. in the interest of conversation (and because what i said last night about this being the only place i'd found dissecting the round as a round became untrue) y'all may wanna read this as well - http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?topic=4766.0
  10. i don't think i was hostile to anyone but nathan, and like i already said, that's about a broader context than just this thread. "blippy" maybe, but i'm not here to win a debate. I was simply pointing out what seemed a decided lack of respect for the debaters in the round coming from most commentors. i'm reading lots of conversations happening about the issue in the round, this is one of the only one discussing the round as a round in terms of strategy and speaking style (as opposed to the ones discussing the implications of the issues for debate). While you're all certainly entitled to those opinions i'm actually the one trying to get you all to be humble and understand that maybe since those teams got where they did and has as successful of careers as they did and some pretty smart people validated many of their practices, that we should be a little more celebratory in the way we talk about them in the days after their last - and a historic - round. sorry, i guess i thought it was a cool round.
  11. my point was that maybe someone, amidst this diatribe against the 2ar, should point out that he is a pretty good speaker. actually.
  12. yeah that 2ar. i bet he never gets speaker awards...
  13. one of these post is answered by the others!
  14. setting aside all the other marginally relevant rehashings you're spouting - would you care you explain what you mean by that last question about Ede?
  15. TLF

    Strat Help?

    you're tilting at windmills. who said reverse the hierarchy (other than you)?
  16. TLF

    Strat Help?

    that's neat rawrcat, how you get to call our coaching decision "irresponsible" and then nobly shield yourself from response by humbly returning to the OP's question. maybe it would be more "responsible" of us to tell the kids they can't run this aff, that they've been running all year, at this tournament. shit maybe it would be more "responsible" of us to tell them they can't talk about the aff at all in novice. or you know what, maybe it's not "responsible" for them to talk about it in debates at all, or in debate class, because we wouldn't want anyone as young as 15 or 16 to have to confront an issue like homosexuality. you know, why don't you tell me so in the future i can tell my homosexual debaters - when is it responsible to talk about their identity?
  17. my bad, i missed your one line congrats amidst all your attempts to say the round was poorly executed. And just so we're clear, I'm not trying to have a debate with this tool. firstly because i can't debate the issue better than the round that already happened and is in question, but secondly because neither can he - in fact, he doesn't even know what happened in the round he's running his mouth about. for those of you who don't know (as has been suggested before) the hostility toward this person isn't isolated to this post. it's not about immediately responding to dissent with hostility, it's about troll bashing. nathan, you're not worth talking to. you rant about the round and the issues in them as though you have some insight that the rest of the community, the round, the panel all missed when in fact you clearly didn't actually listen to the round. i've watched the online feed multiple times now; it's way more than clear enough for you to catch the part of the round i'm referring to -- when the 2ac slows way down, elevates his voice, and very clearly and specifically responds to the very argument about comparing narratives you make. so either you didn't listen, or you're bad at flowing debate. that's not an ad hom, i just warranted it.
  18. this proves brian's point, that you are bad at debate. this argument was made in the round, flagged by the 2ac, and beaten in not only this round. had you listened, you'd know that this isn't in any way responsive. perhaps this also explains why in this thread about the same round = http://www.cross-x.com/topic/54976-strat-help/page-2 = you openly question "which uniqueness arguments" are impacted by the presence of ryan and elijah and yet...that's explicitly addressed in the round too! and you still haven't stopped grandstanding to congratulate them (although you did manage to list your own comparatively meager accomplishments). for someone lecturing about etiquette and character whatnot...you're kind of lacking.
  19. wow...uh, i don't think you should read that card as part of a burroughs argument. what you have there is a justification for a permutation that is explicitly based on mathematics. burroughs cut up understands language as a system of control, he takes the method from gysin (this like, surrealist pseudo-dadaist). the whole point is to disorder the system of language, to let some uncontrollable random "magic" shine through what is created, and when we argued immortality it was from this moment of rupture that we intended to blur the lines between fiction and reality (lines we said were violent and controlling). so while we didn't explicitly make a "math bad" argument, hopefully you can see how there might be some uh...tension there. so no, we did not read that card nor would we have entertained doing so.
  20. if i could boo during your posts nathan, i would. did you wanna take a moment from your attempt to argue the NDT/CEDA champion and offer either team a congratulations?
  21. i don't recall there being a card about math class, and i didn't find one upon my quick look back at the version of that file i have. but that file (and no i'm not being cute) changed a lot and went through a ton of versions and whatnot, so it's very possible we did at some point. By and large though, i think we were all about stuff from the 1NC, maybe another one or two more from murphy/burroughs, and the ole' counterperm. we also read the argument as an aff, so maybe you mean an aff. perm card, but sort of same answer. don't remember one, didn't find one on my hard drive, not necessarily a hard "no we didn't read it ever". i could attempt to apply it if you had a copy i could look at, but i wouldn't be speaking at all to how it has been applied in debate rounds in the past.
  22. i worked at millard south when we put this together. you should pm to discuss the file. the suggestion that you should just be able to figure it out for yourself is one i wouldn't take, if i were you. figure it out, yes. by yourself, i wouldn't. i think the previous discussion should be a sufficient starting point for those of you with only a passing interest or curiosity, so if it becomes clear you've come to me with questions before attempting to engage that already existing explanation or discussion i will be less than an ideal educator probably (or more so than usual).
  23. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=good&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28
  24. lol. careful. your bias is showing.
  25. for someone who claims to be able to glean so little specificity from our evidence, you sure are pretty certain about what it says in regard to the solvency argument you're making. deeds: Artaud gives shitloads of historical examples of rulers, agitators, criminals, so on and so forth who are i'm sure are guilty of a variety of dirty deeds. the point, however, isn't the particular deed. it is that the sewer is the place where we attempt to hide our dirty deeds, both literally and metaphorically. In the sewer, everything is at the end of it's journey, it's usefulness, etc., and stands bare. both the discarded rings of monarchs and the scrap of TP are equals. This is likely why Artaud calls the sewer the detritus of the city, that we could rebuild the city from the contents of the sewers (but the aff doesn't tell us about infrastructure...) Like Dana said (something i could say numerous times during the course of my two short paragraphs here), this leveling and confrontation also rejuvenates forms of politics discarded or relegated to the sewers. a good example might be some cabal in an old french aquaduct or a veritable gallery of art on walls in sewers and underbridges. but also remember: "The point of the aff is not to choose one excluded element and side with it but to rather say...look we are down with all of the people who have been made to feel down and out." which is to say your calls for specificity, at least in regard to question about what particular forms of abjection we defend, may not make sense infrastructure: we might argue sewers are part of infrastructure. we might argue (and perhaps have already done so ad nauseum already in this thread) that the sewers tell us everything about infrastructure in the sense that they tell us the "rest of the story" of infrastructure - the ideas and voices pushed out. we might fail this test, the "you don't talk specifically enough about streets and bridges and stuff" test, but then (like dana said) we're not generally very topical or worried about it. just out of curiosity what would the 1AC have to do, according to your reading of it, to "really confront" shit? quotations to support your reading are always encouraged. i feel like maybe it could too, assuming your vagueness argument wouldn't be the only link. ok. neat. make that argument. build a strat around it. we don't really care. noone but gonzaba is here to have debate rounds on cross-x. we will gladly clarify and disclose arguments so everyone gets better and will vehemently defend their place in debate, etc. We may even defend our ideas against attacks we feel particularly strongly about. but at least myself, i'm not interested in defending them against every one sentence thought that someone enumerates on cross-x. the particularly ridiculous ones tend to get ignored. all perspectives probably have dangers. that's kind of our point. clearly you intend "put cultural and societal sewers on display" to mean "do the aff". i'm not sure why you think this is what our aff does. please help me help you. but to answer your question, no, having the neg do the aff doesn't mean the neg wins. generally the negative will want to do most of the aff and argue that the part they don't do it bad. or they'll try to "solve the same problem" by doing something different. we talk about the sewers relationship to the rest of the world at relatively great length. i feel like i'm being repetitive now. more to the point though, the question implies that political productivity is good and happens exclusively outside of the sewers. these are both ideas the 1AC critiques. agreed. if you see anyone making that equation, lemme know. we think the sewers are a space for all sorts of people, materials, and ideas discarded from society for a variety of reasons. we do include the perspectives, in some rounds, of people who were homeless (not by choice) and lived in the sewers. not sure how you got "sewers=homelessness" out of that. can't it be both? but seriously, what does "put us closer to political action" mean? like, move the debate to DC? the 1AC is a political action, just not the kind you think counts. read that burroughs card again. again, go for it man. see you there.
×
×
  • Create New...