Jump to content

time_stops

Member
  • Content Count

    560
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by time_stops

  1. Why even waste your time, its a stupid argument in the first place. Who are you to tell me that this is a moral obligation for me? Who are you to tell me i am immoral by not acting? Its so stupid to waste yourtime on this, maybe we should debate about their assumptions, whether or not they solve, etc. Its a little more productive. Assclowns.
  2. Hopefully, if so i will be there in two shakes.
  3. I second that, if anyone has it, and is willing, i would very much appriciate it. PM me.
  4. i just like john cooks hawt body...
  5. Simple. I was not talking about speed reading, if you actually look at the text you will never see me say speed reading. Rather i was talking about a thing called activism and advocacy. On the subject of speed reading though, i have no problem with it. Rather i would prefer it, but i won't use it in front of judges who can't handle it because i think in that case its uneducational. But in the cases where you have the right judges it gives us a better perspective, more arguments, and a better understanding of the subject as well as debate. Both have their place, both are grand. I just prefer speed. But thats my view, i don't say its right or wrong, rather its my own individual preferences.
  6. I think the books that John is trying to get at are those that try and explain in a nutshell a specific part of an individuals philosophy without considering the other texts of the writer. These types of arguements bastardize the true meaning/ideas behind the other works of the writer because they don't exert the true idea's of the philsopher contrary to what the person says. These are actually less benificiary because it allows for less educational debate and skews the origininal meaning behind the criticism. These books are comparable but not the same as just finding a kritik file from a camp and trying to make sense out of it. Given you can understand the most basic ideas of the criticism, you won't understand the true idea behind the author who coined the specific criticism. This is where it is best to read the original author's work. Start out with their less academic works and continue to work your way up. I can promise that your understanding of the criticism will be better on all levels of argumentation.
  7. Clearly i was just messing with you dude. As i have read by many of you posts on other threads you know a lot more then i do about debate in general. Obviously in order for the arguments to make sense they need to interact with each other and both fall into a similarity. I made the mistake of not clearly pointing out the joking nature of my post. For a moment i forgot that sarcasm is hard to exert in text. No hard feelings dude.
  8. The only exception to not flowing an overview is when they are telling a story. If you flow one of these overviews you might as well flow an introduction to a case...it doesn't make any sense. But when the team says specifically that you will need a new sheet of paper or to flow the overview then you most definately should. The safe thing to do is always flow them (unless its a story, just remember it then) because a lot of times people will try to slip small arguements in there that they will point out that you never answered it and it could spell your damnation. Just remember, the overview is a clarification of the arguements presented, so if you have already argued them on another flow, pull your answers through and don't answer the same thing twice. Just a bit of advice, if you don't, you fuck your time up. Then your just plain boring.
  9. I think you all have bypassed a huge gap in your logic. Think about this: What other means do 13-18 year olds have to express their concernes for society, and ACTUALLY be heard. Sure everyone has means of posting flyers and trying to give speeches to the public, but how does the true community perceive this? how widespread is the message? Debate is the absolute perfect forum to express an activist strategy. Doing so without empowering the norms of the activity (winning being the only aspect of a true winner/champion) rather by disregarding the norm and advocating change regardless of the outcome of the ballot is what debate should be about. What does winning a debate round on something you don't believe in bring to the community? what effort does it put forth to make our world better? what social change does it bring? Debate allows a community, the public, to sit down and listen to a description of a problem our world faces. It gives us high schoolers a chance to express our world views whether resolutionally abiding or a reso bad advocacy. This sets the means to start an activist movement in the community, ideally spreading your idea's not only in your own district but in others around the state and even the country. As for the educational aspect of it, i ask you to please tell me what exactly isn't educational about this activist strategy. What do we not gain educationally from it, whether you believe in the strat/ideals or not.
  10. I think you miss and misconstrue some key points of deliniation between the standard policy debate vs. a kritikal debate. The First idea you have to look into is the construction and application of Fiat. Fiat in a policy round lets you theoretically solve for possible impacts, thus is why you say signing the ballot will solve for nuclear war for example. Fiat though is just role playing, its a utopian view for a policy outcome. Although these teaches us how to logically analyze real world problems and make good descisions in everyday life, the harms in plan are never really solved for, you don't overt nuke war, and the horrible things that plan talks about still exist. Hence the Role playing aspect, and the zero advantage outcome of voting for or against the affirmative. But when you look at kritikal debate there is a much different perspective and many different implications of the criticism. Some teams will argue that the kritik functions in a pre-fiat world, saying that the kritik must be evaluated before the plan and all impacts outweigh the case impacts regardless. Although its one way of going about it, i don't believe this is the best option. Another way is to simply put in your framework that Fiat doesn't exist, and list reasons includeding some of the ones in the paragraph above as to why fiat is bad. This way you show that the plan re-enforces this role playing that forces us to re-entrench ourselves in the implications of the criticism thus pushing forward towards the impacts. Then you make the arguement that the critique is the only true functioning impacts that we can truley solve for in the round. Now you have the world of In Round impacts and Out of round impacts. The kritik most often functions as one or the other sometimes both. In round basically says that their discourse (such as racist language) has caused us to entrench ourselves in the system of binary language and racist logic. Thus by voting for the neg's criticism you can solve for the in round impacts. Out of round impacts says that the kritik functions in the real world and will effect people outside of the round unless you agree to put a stop to it now by signing the ballot. Both Styles of debate have their part in the community. It just comes to an evaluation between what debate really is. Is it a forum for activist strategy to make a real world change (such as in kritikal debate) or is it merely a competition between speaking and argumentative skills. Both have their place and its the individuals responsibility to decide for themselves what debate really means to them. You have a warped view on these two very different styles of debate. I'd recommend actually watching a real k round or at the least reading some more forums.
  11. time_stops

    Underrated teams

    I agree, Johnny is a good debater having debated against him at camp and by his records this year he proves to be truley underrated.
×
×
  • Create New...