Jump to content

i caught awesomeitis

Member
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Okay

About i caught awesomeitis

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 04/03/1950
  1. you suck and should debate whereafter you will stop sucking
  2. If you haven't had the opportunity to go to camp this summer or just want to brush up on the topic and debate skills in general, you should check out the recorded lectures from the Dartmouth Debate Workshop and Institute. They can be found at http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/dart...op/id284449482 And yes, they are free.
  3. If you haven't had the opportunity to go to camp this summer or just want to brush up on the topic and debate skills in general, you should check out the recorded lectures from the Dartmouth Debate Workshop and Institute. They can be found at http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/dart...op/id284449482 And yes, they are free.
  4. If you haven't had the opportunity to go to camp this summer or just want to brush up on the topic and debate skills in general, you should check out the recorded lectures from the Dartmouth Debate Workshop and Institute. They can be found at http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/dart...op/id284449482 And yes, they are free.
  5. If you haven't had the opportunity to go to camp this summer or just want to brush up on the topic and debate skills in general, you should check out the recorded lectures from the Dartmouth Debate Workshop and Institute. They can be found at http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/dart...op/id284449482 And yes, they are free.
  6. If you haven't had the opportunity to go to camp this summer or just want to brush up on the topic and debate skills in general, you should check out the recorded lectures from the Dartmouth Debate Workshop and Institute. They can be found at http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/dartmouth-debate-workshop/id284449482 And yes, they are free.
  7. K affs on this topic are boring and repetitive. The best three big affs are Raich, Head Start (New Trier), and the Whitney Young block grants aff, in that order. The PIC is an awful argument. So is 9-0. Military education is solved by states.
  8. And we get stuck with the poverty topic... damnit
  9. But how does the 1AC's "style" of debate abet micro-fascism when it's simply a way that the 1AC chooses to present itself? Some teams spread and read 30 cards, some just give a slow speech, and it's possible to win debates either way easily. Isn't the kritik's hard line stance on possible ways of using debate practices fascist in itself? There is nothing fascist about the presentation of a good idea. My point about naming one debater other than Karl Rove is to prove that while many debaters do go on to work in the state, you can't name more than one who has "legitimated an insidious form of social control." There is zero evidence to suggest that debate practices actually turn us into uncaring individuals who want nothing but violence on others. Karl Rove is inconsequential. Karl Rove is a psychological sociopath who just happened to participate in high school policy debate. The activity itself did not turn him into what he is, but rather the approach he took towards the activity. Debate itself isn't inherently fascist, but if you approach it as only fascist and solely for the win, then your argument has some weight in this respect. At best, your argument is just a state bad K specific to debate. Additionally, why shouldn't debaters want to defend their idea as good? Refutation simply means that the negative point you just made is wrong, and here's the reason why. I guarantee that the vast majority of the time, there is a substantive reason for why that idea is wrong. This kind of argument is in fact, real world. Arguments about what's right and what's wrong and what's true and what's false go on in every sector of academia with people defending their ideas with warrants and yet they are not totalitarian. How is debate any different? You say that "debaters should not take the place of the most powerful nation on earth," but this argument goes back to my original point: debate and the 1AC isn't an actual role-play of the federal government. It's just two people, in a room, resolved that it would be a good idea if the federal government were to do the plan. This kind of proposal of good policy ideas occurs in all kinds of social, local movements who all try to change the state for the better. Debate is not only a personal advocacy of those who advocate the plan, but also a movement to get that plan the support of people, one judge at a time. No offense intended, but I believe this last argument about evidence is asinine. Pieces of evidence read in a debate round aren't game pieces to be used for our consumption, but instead are facts and pieces of analysis created by scholars who study a particular field in great detail, and make these conclusions which support our argument. Debate isn't a game, it's a mode wherein which debaters get to propose good ideas backed up by the facts i.e. evidence. This is like saying we shouldn't state the opinions of qualified authors ever, many of whom support an idea that the 1AC is advocating. There's no reason this becomes fascist unless you actually cut the evidence out of context, ignoring the real argument being made by said author, which I believe merits punishment. Finally, as to reading this K on the aff, I honestly think cede the political trumps it. Your argument is that we should destroy status quo debate practices because they involve us in the state, and that's bad. Well, if we withdrew from the state instead of trying to make it better, the very people who make the state fascist make the state worse because there's no one trying to make it better. That not only crushes your anti-state movement, but it also exacerbates fascism.
  10. Why is the 1AC micro-fascist? The 1AC is an 8 minute speech that expresses the belief that the federal government should do something. It's not an imaginary world we simulate for our own benefit, but rather the presentation of a good idea and the reasons why that idea might be good. I also fail to see how "reading evidence" is fascist - your authors quote people, why shouldn't we be allowed to do the same? We don't cut up and mischaracterize their arguments, which is the only real possibility of fascism in the reading of evidence. "Fiat" is just the expression of the idea that the federal government should do something, so that the question of whether they actually would is irrelevant. I see nothing totalizing about the expression of a good idea. Finally, I challenge you to name one debater, other than Karl Rove, who was recruited by statist institutions to "legitimate insidious forms of social control."
  11. Mead, 9 – Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (Walter Russell, "Only Makes You Stronger," The New Republic, 2/4/09, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2) This is what the United Kingdom and the United States have done in past centuries, and what other capitalist powers like France, Germany, and Japan have done to a lesser extent. In these countries, the social forces that support the idea of a competitive market economy within an appropriately liberal legal and political framework are relatively strong. But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either side of the Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-capitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really taken to capitalism and liberal society--whether during the time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even as many former Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper, imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only half-heartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes, they are quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives. So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States ain may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
  12. So anyone heard anything yet?
×
×
  • Create New...