Jump to content

GoesForT-SPEC

Member
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About GoesForT-SPEC

  • Rank
    Registered User

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Master debating of course.
  1. No, but I will defend that neither of those serves the purposes of this critique. They are inadequate in timeframe and the fact that they are in fact solveable. Edit - also, I think you could go the route of "those impacts are the form the mayan apocalypse will take, like that article above says. You could read straight 2012 in the 1N and then go for link turns.
  2. Lulz. Hegemonic otherization <3's you too.
  3. I think this has already been satisfactorily answered earlier in the thread. If not, could you please explain how/why not? 'Kay, thanks for the advice. Yeah, I'm sure I'll hit that. Irrelevant arg though, and doesn't seem like it'd be terribly hard to beat. Cool. These we could debate against effectively I think. No, you're right, but I think it would be fun now and then. Any tips on how improve it are greatly appreciated.
  4. Thanks for the excellent response. If nothing else, I'm getting a good learning experience from this thread; hopefully when I finally hit my first well-run K/run a kritik myself, I won't be completely useless However, couldn't the argument be made that being given the ballot is the best way to ensure that the message of partying gets spread? Seems like that would crucial in two ways: A. it would physically allow you to proselytize to more people (as you advance in the tournament) and B. it seems reasonable that losing would crush your Kritik in the eyes of much of the world; people want to hear the winning ideas. You could even get meta with it and say that people would co-opt the kritik if it was wildly successful, and I'm sure one could fairly easily find evidence that discourse we come in contact affects us, even if that wasn't our original intent. All things considered, the ballot seems fairly crucial to the life of the party becoming widespread.
  5. Global Warming - Timeframe (~60-100 years). Solveable.Doom 'stroid - Timeframe (unknown). Solveable. Notice that there are Affs specifically built around, yaknow, solving these impacts. Mmmk.... so 2012 possibilities (predicted 'stroid, aliens, religious apocalypse, time machine) are more credible than... 2012 possibilities?Wait, what is this i don't even? Thanks for the support I guess....? Yup, thanks for the insightful contribution. EDIT - nanotech (via spark?) seems attractive, as does LHC and/or Wipeout. The issue is, once again, that of A. Timeframe, and B. Solveability. The rest have the same credibility issues as a religious apocalypse; a time machine malfunction...? The Dark Matter Lab might be a way to pseudoscientifically access 2012 religious apocalypse, but that would make me feel dirty.
  6. Yeah, I thought about the whole performative contradiction thing a little bit too. It seems like there are a few responses. A. The fun one, the idea that you can always outcrazy the other team - i.e., party it up in round. Unfortunately, this wouldn't fly (superconservative area, remember), unless you find a way to do it in a whitewashed, performative manner... go-go gadget Kuzus and party hats! B. I'm not sure what the usual reply to teams that point out the contradictions inherent in caring enough about something to argue it are for a straight Nihilism K, I've never debated on the K (or any K honestly) before :/ perhaps someone more qualified than I could help here? Those answers might be applicable. C. Ultimately, you could also simply argue that it's worth preaching the life of the party in order to free people; that doesn't sound like a stressful job really. It does require you to care a little bit... but perhaps putting in that slim amount of effort now instead of partying is worth it so that more people are partying? Dunno, this argument would seem to allow the Aff a bit much leeway. Ultimately I think its best to: D. Say that what it links in to is the Aff's mode of hyperpolitical discourse. Chillin', talking to friends about an upcoming party is different from presenting a plan to Congress. Thus, the K doesn't link, the Plan and Perm do. Ok, couple things. First, a disclaimer: the idea for the Kritik was originally that it would be something to play around with, largely for the WTF value. It wasn't intended to be something for use in a superimportant round or anything. That doesn't mean that I intend to lose with it, and upon thinking about it more, the idea does seem to have some merit. Therefore: A. A lot of the appeal for 2012 is the fact that (if it were true) it would be utterly inevitable. As in, nothing, at all, ever, could possibly prevent it (as far as I know; I don't pretend to be an expert in 2012 lit though ). This means that it is 1. immune to case turns and 2. cannot be stopped, meaning that partying for V2L is the only option - no option could ever actually solve for the extinction, hence justifying nihilism. B. Is there another inarguably irreversible impact within the near future that you can think of? I'm drawing a blank. Seems that everything else could be solved with some policy action, however fantastic, and that therefore a Perm would solve all of the offense (if you're hitting a good team). C. Credibility issues? If it's a round in which I'd be running this critique, especially in the region I'm in, it would already have to be a round with an extremely open minded judge. If they "let the debaters debate", I'm pretty sure I can win the credibility debate. Basically, it boils down to what I asked above - how can we truly justify "science" as inherently superior to "mysticism"? See what I said a few posts above. (Note that this is in no way reflects my personal beliefs; I'm not an idiot. I'm also not necessarily disagreeing with you. This is purely for the purpose of seeing if the case for the kritik as-is could be persuasively made.) Also, please note: we are debating about things inevitably ending in extinction, always. We are participating in an activity that requires you to be able to kill a few puppies. We are participating in an activity where, in octas, Loyola recommend that we canonize Heidegger. Is 2012 really so rediculous of an argument? D. You say don't run the 2012 part. I say that, as in sub B, I can't think of a replacement atm. Can you?
  7. Sure, that's exactly the point - that's the way we see things now. The idea would be that, once we become aware of the fact that it's all over in 2012 anyway, then rather than remaining constrained by this view of the world as "problems that must be solved", we would be able to embrace a nihilistic worldview via life of the party, ultimately giving value to life. Thus, we would no longer be weighed down by these "stressful" impacts in any way, shape or form. We're partyin' bro! yep Thanks, I thought so as well. Basically, yes. The reasoning behind why that thinking is bad is because it devalues life, as we aren't partying, and it's unproductive anyway due to the fact that we'll all be crisped at the end of 2012. Mmmk... so it sounds like you're advocating the kritik minus the 2012 part. So essentially just nihilism, we should party and not be stressed out, period. The issue is that then, the Affirmative has a lot more ground to stand on, as it could very well be preventing extinction. And extinction is obviously a prereq to V2L. Viola, case turns K. This is avoided with the inevitability of the 2012 apocalypse. Unless I'm misunderstanding?
  8. Firstly, thanks for the responses secondly, I was thinking more along the lines of a performative Aff. That said, I do think it could be made to work as a Neg Kritik: Worrying about enacting a plan such as the Affirmative would be the link, and said perm doesn’t get out of that. Essentially, if we’re all going to die anyway, making life more stressful is only a bad thing; if we’re all gonna die, might as well party it up now. Yes, we should espouse the party and proselytize to any and everybody we meet; doing the Aff though harms said party, because it means that we aren’t chillaxed and letting loose, we’re engaging in political maneuvering in an ultimately worthless expenditure of time and energy in an attempt to solve the problems of our time. As I said above, “doing the plan anyways” still links in to the K, because engaging in the kind of civic/political discourse that is the plan inherently precludes partying. Ideally, we would argue, one would be so engaged in the life of the party that they wouldn’t have time/even be able to engage in this sort of politicking. Valid argument. I think for this to work as a kritik it would be necessary to win either A. that a nihilistic viewpoint is better or B. timeframe, probably both. This would be something you run against, say, Global Warming – massive, real-world impact with a long timeframe. Heck, now that I think about it though, you could co-opt something like a nuclear war scenario too – if there’s any risk that the Aff won’t solve, then we might as well party until the nuclear war, if they even manage to win that it would be before 2012. Any solvency deficit at all becomes another reason to vote for the nihilistic world of the K. The reason, as I explained above, is that the Aff inherently precludes the kind of absolutely free partying that the K espouses. I believe this is addressed by what I said above; if I missed anything please point it out. Change must begin somewhere. Managing to convince even a single person to stop engaging in political discourse and embrace the life of the party is a good thing, and the start of legitimate change. This is a problem inherent with any K – is what we do in the round actually going to have an effect? That’s up to the round’s participants, and is a pretty meta issue (and worthy, I think, of its own thread). I don’t think that’s a problem specific to this Critique, but I do think that one could fairly easily win that grassroots change must start somewhere – all change obviously starts somewhere – and that that time and place should be in the given debate round. Yeah. This is the primary weak spot, as I see it – I guess the argument would be one of “what makes a ‘scientist’ more qualified to say what will happen in 2012 than a 'mystic'? I mean, ultimately, “universities” and “degrees” are social constructs in our society; why are they inherently more valid than the knowledge of thousands of years of religion and tradition? Further, we have people like Mead who are quoted as legitimate sources, I might even argue that cards such as that are less qualified than a warranted card in which the warrants were religious or supernatural; i.e., at least it has warrants.
  9. Hey all. I'm from a very, very, very conservative and anti-kritikal region (unfortunately), but on occasion we will (hopefully) be travelling to more accepting locales. My CX partner and I were discussing ideas for positions on both Aff and Neg, and in addition to several really solid policy Affs and Neg positions, we were considering a few kritikal ideas. The one I wish to discuss now though is this - the nihilistic idea that we will all die in 2012, and thus we should party it up, as this gives Value to Life etc. I'm more than willing to put in the legwork in finding the kritikal lit to put this together (I'm not asking for ev. handouts, though a prod in the right direction would most definitely not be unwelcome...), and I'm sure its probably been done a million times before. The question I'm here for then, is this: If this were run against you, and all other issues such as framework, theory, and the like aside, what offense and defense would you run against such a K?
  10. QFA. I'm relatively new to the utterly awesome world of CX debate (and therefore young and stupid), but pretty much this. Circumstances will ultimately dictate who is better at which position, and its usually a good idea to get experience in all spots at least early in the season, but in the long term... yeah, what he said. Ultimately attempting to delineate simply based on perceived "skill" is doing a disservice to both debaters; its the individual skillsets (as circumstances/preference allow) of the debaters, not the overall "skill" that will determine speaker positions, at least on a good team. That's obviously ignoring the cases where someone is completely carried. Even then though, as the case has been made above, going double twos for any significant length of time is depriving the other debater of the opportunity to grow into such a role. Basically,
  11. Hah, nice necro. That aside, the question posed by the thread itself and inherent to the article you so graciously quoted in it's entirety (namely "Are pictures arguments?") is a very interesting one. The answer, incidentally, is yes. Now, this was intended to be an argument as to why pictures don't present valid arguments (no warrants etc), but in actuality I think it proves that they do. Firstly, the argument that a picture has a million interpretations I think proves merely that it inherently possesses a million arguments. The subjectivity of art is just a method of expressing the argument that is central to you, as the observer of said artwork. And really, I mean come on, we engage in switch-side debate about things like "nuclear war good". I think the versatility of arguments is something we should all be able to acknowledge, accept, and appreciate. Secondly, the warrants argument. dziegler claims that pictures possess no warrants; in actuality, a picture possesses all of the relevant warrants for whatever central argument you subjectively interpret (or someone else interprets for you) the picture to be making. On the one hand, you have a warranted card about Anti-Americanism in the Middle East -> War. On the other, you have, say, a painting depicting a radicalized Islamic militant group burning a flag while waving guns in the air. A million possible interpretations, yes, but a warrant for every one of them, and it isn't hard to find the argument concealed within, especially if someone points it out to you. Note: the argument as to whether a picture is a valid argument in debate, is another matter entirely. I'm more than willing to engage in that debate with someone as well, if they wish; honestly though, I think this question is the more interesting of the two. P.S. First post btw! Nice to be a part of the community Anything I should know? P.P.S. I'm new to forums in general, so if I'm doing it wrong, let me know.
×
×
  • Create New...