Jump to content

DisplayName

Member
  • Content Count

    531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by DisplayName

  1. I would pronounce it "sah-ker" having taken 4 years of latin, but we used the old, pre-church pronunciations. Either one would be fine in this context most likely
  2. What the... where are you going to camp? Has this lab leader ever heard of impact turns?
  3. DisplayName

    Cards?

    Mediocre source but this article is pretty good: https://c4ss.org/content/30289
  4. EDIT: these cards are all powertagged because I was angry I couldn't find any of my fuck k answers during a round and we lost to it, so I cut these cards after that tournament. Fuck the Fuck K Schwyzer Indicts Schwyzer is literally the worst person ever --he’s a sexist hack who abuses and harasses women and supporting him is justifies a racist understanding of feminist literature—vote [aff/neg] because reading his evidence is giving the wrong voice to feminism and results in racism and misogyny – this card ends the round right now -clickbait and pageviews can also be linked as a reason why they “sell” women for debate wins Mirk 13 Sarah Mirk “I'm a journalist who lives mostly online. I started as Bitch Media's web editor in the spring of 2013 and before that was a staff writer for alternative newspapers the Portland Mercury and The Stranger.” “We Need to Talk About Hugo, Race, and Feminism” Bitch Media August 12 2013 http://bitchmagazine.org/post/we-need-to-talk-about-feminism-race-and-hugo-schwyzer pbm sme Hugo Schwyzer is a narcissistic blowhole. This week, many of the women whom Schwyzer attacked and villified online over the years have successfully pushed the media frenzy around his recent admission that he's a fraud and an abuser into a bigger, more important discussion about the role that race has played in progressive, feminist media's support of Schwyzer over the years. Take time to read through all the tweets on #solidarityisforwhitewomen, a hashtag started by Mikki Kendall, where people are posting all sorts of insights about how avowed white feminists can ignore and dimiss people of color—including the years of harassment Schwyzer inflicted, but also on other issues like the wage gap and media coverage. tweets from the #solidarityisforwhitewomen feed Trudy of Gradient Lair collected many tweets on Schwyzer into a Storify, many of which point out that he should never have been allowed to become a prominent voice on feminist issues, including being a tenured professor and a paid writer at progressive magazines like The Atlantic and feminist websites like Jezebel. "Imagine Hugo Schwyzer as a Black man," Trudy writes. "You cannot. He would have NEVER been accepted by mainstream White feminism or any of those publications/universities." The Storify also highlights @TheAngryFangirl's commentary on how the focus on the discussion around Schwyzer leaving the internet shouldn't be about how he feels on the matter and whether his mental health is suffering but on the mental health of the women he harassed over the years. tweets read (paraphrased): If you want to talk about mental illness, that's awesome and we need to do that. But don't you dare use those conversations as a way to silence people who want to criticize hugo schwyzer. There is far more to say than 140 characters on this. Flavia Dzodan wrote a powerful piece at Red Light Politics about how progressive media groups have undermined women of color and feminism by supporting Schwyzer over the years. This is just an excerpt, go read the whole piece: I despise his ideology. This is no news to anyone. However, here's where things get murky and difficult and not easy to express coherently (mostly because it is difficult to put into words the source of so much of my anger and disappointment): even more so than despising his ideology, I despise the culture that enabled him. I despise the TMZ of feminist media that "reports" our issues and sells us a lip gloss version of our politics and gives space to people like him so that he can shit on us and tell us how we should take it in the face while he puts Women of Color in "their (our) places". This is how White Supremacy works and I am pointing all my fingers at Jezebel and xoJane and The Atlantic and every other publication that paid him to publish his repulsive opinions. The shame is on each of you and not merely on his cock shots or pathetic sexting. The shame is on every editor that thought selling women like Blackamazon or brownfemipower (or even my fucking self) for page clicks was a worthy trade off. Each and every one of those editors that knew what he was, how he acted and how his misogynist racism operated behind the scenes has played a part in this. And you get to "represent" feminism. You are the filters of who gets published and who doesn't. You are the ones that hold the doors and set the agendas. The dick pics are also on you. You helped create the monster, now I hope you enjoy the money shot. And don't say you weren't warned. Countless others aside from myself had extensively documented his antics, his skeevy politics, his racism, his misogyny. ks. At our fucking expense. Sisterhood! Yay! Brownfemipower specifically took on the issue of why editors offered Schwyzer a platform depsite his history: They let personal relationships with Schwyzer outweigh the problems raised by many women-of-color critics. Brownfemipower writes: "doors to resources are open when you go one direction. they are firmly shut when you go another. and for many people—their never even told about the doors, or their violently KEPT from the doors." Lauren Rankin wrote a post that addresses how feminists should discuss the issue in a way that doesn't give him any support, from her perspective as someone who is white and was never targeted by Schwyzer: For those of us who never experienced abuse firsthand from him, now is not the time to rush to cover this up or move on from it. If we're going to speak, it should be in solidarity with the women whom he did target, whose careers he bombed, whose reputations he trashed. If we're going to scold anyone, it should be him, the underlying racism that lingers in so many white feminist spaces, and the culture of clickbait and pageviews that allowed him to thrive. If we're going to shake our heads, it should be at the countless editors who allowed this abusive, manipulative, cis, white man space to write instead of making space for women of color to opine and share. Here at Bitch, our editors have never wanted to give him any attention, promote his douchey "brand," or publish his work. Bitch exists to be a platform for writers and thinkers whose voices are often not heard and there are thousands of more important conversations to be having than anything this guy could try and make us talk about. So, except for one interview with him posted by a guest blogger in 2011—a long-regretted oversight—Bitch has been a Schwyzer-free zone since 2007. But there's a problematic flip side to that: By refusing to give him any attention, we arguably didn't do enough to proactively work against his influence in other feminist spaces. Would a 1,500-word Douchebag Decree have kept Jezebel from hiring Schwyzer as a regular columnist, or prevented him from taking his windbag speeches to Slutwalks and college campuses? That's doubtful. More likely, it would have fed his self-admitted narcissism and fueled the narrative that his ideas were far more controversial than they actually were. For raging egos, any attention is better than none. For our part, Bitch would love to go back to being a Schwyzer-free website and magazine, and we appreciate that many people would probably be grateful to never hear his name again—even those who've only learned it in the past few months. We can't promise that, though—as horrible and destructive as the path he's deliberately razed through online feminist commuities has been, the conversations his flameout has inspired are valuable and necessary. His arguments are indefensible and any justification results in ableism, white supremacy, sexism, class privilege and cis privilege – hold the affs prodicts highly suspect – this card will impact turn them all. Hamilton 13 Trudy Hamilton, Master’s degree in criminal justice and 2 years of additional grad work in Psych/Mental Health Counseling, Womanist and anti-Blackness Theorist “On Hugo Schwyzer, White Supremacist Mainstream Feminism and Its Abuse of Women of Colour” August 12 2013 http://www.gradientlair.com/post/58081509466/hugo-scwyzer-abuser-defended-by-white-feminists pbm sme -modified to not speak for others Hugo Schwyzer, self-proclaimed male feminist, has abused, manipulated, dominated, disrespected, lied on, assaulted, cornered, and destroyed women for YEARS. Many of these women are women of colour—ones that White supremacist mainstream feminism wants silenced and out of the way. We are good enough to plagiarize. However, our health, well-being and humanity are repeatedly disregarded as we are purposely attacked as well. Hugo was able to do this to several women of colour because White supremacist mainstream feminism allowed him the platform, power and money to do so. This manifested in his position as a professor and an scourse. This past Friday, he had a meltdown where he targeted, once again, the women he previously harmed and was, once again, defended by prominent White feminists either through their calculated silence (despite defending him for years) or responses of concern for his mental health, not the mental health and well-being of the women of colour, the female students or the romantic partners he has abused for years. I published a Storify today, On Hugo Schwyzer, White Supremacist Feminism and Its Abuse of WoC, where I document: 1) my/others’ response to this abusive man being allowed to abuse with impunity, 2) my/others’ response to his mental health issues being used to conflate with or ignore his abuse, and how this adds ableist stigma to millions of people who suffer, survive and thrive with/despite mental illness yet aren’t abusive, 3) how the mainstream mental health system itself supports abusers via White supremacist ideologies and ethics, 4) response from some of the women of colour that he directly harmed 5) support for these women of colour from other people 6) links to Hugo’s actual rant meltdown and backstory that documents YEARS of his abuse of women, though still allowed to DOMINATE mainstream feminist discourse during this abuse. And for those who want to use abuse within feminism to justify why kyriarchy itself (which causes the abuse within feminism, no less) is “better” than feminism and *this* is why Black women should abandon justice for patriarchal thinking? No. As I alluded to before and mentioned in the aforementioned Storify, regarding mainstream White feminism: I don’t want a seat at your table. I want you to stop setting fire to my table in a different room in a different house that you try to rob. Again, que mainstream White feminism because we [they] want acceptance. NOPE. NEVER DID. Want *any* oppression to stop. Don’t come with ‘see feminism is bad’ because you’re missing point. Kyriarchy is bad, whether it has mainstream White feminism as a tool or not. I support and stand with the women he has harmed. I do not support abusers or their apologists. And apologists? Do not test me today. Do not. Do not come to this post to reblog apologist nonsense. Nothing other than solidarity with whom he has harmed is acceptable here. Not interested in “balanced views” or “playing Devil’s Advocate” where an abusive, violent, racist, sexist, misogynoirist, misogynist, class privileged, petulant, cis heteroseuxal White male’s needs are placed equal to the women he harmed. I center their needs, hurt, concerns and lives. Swearing Good Health Turn Swearing good for endurance and mental health Baer 14 Drake Baer, Business Insider, “Here's Why Swearing Is F---ing Good For You” May 14-2014 http://www.businessinsider.com/study-swearing-is-healthy-2014-5 PBM SME Rather than serving as the refuge of the inarticulate, swearing can help people deal with the frustrating events in their #@*%! lives. That's according to research led by Richard Stephens at Keele University in the U.K. "As we looked into swearing further, it became apparent that it's actually emotional language, and can make you feel better in certain situations," he tells the Daily Beast. "If you're waiting for an ambulance and have no drugs, cursing can actually reduce the feeling of pain." To come to those conclusions, Stephens did some f---ing awesome experiments. In one study, participants played video games, either a golf simulation or a violent shoot-em-up. Then, to see the connection between emotional states and swearing, they were tested for aggression levels and their ability to recall swear words. The result: Folks who had just played the violent game were indeed more aggressive. In addition, they could reel off a higher number of curse words — a respectable eight, in fact. In another study, participants were asked to submerge their hand in a tub of ice water for as long as possible. The first time around, they could repeat a swear word of their choice while doing so; the second time, they repeated an adjective they'd use to describe a table. When cursing, folks could hold their hands underwater for 73% longer. Interestingly, the more frequently someone used the swear in their everyday life, the less helpful it was in keeping their hands underwater. "We want to use more taboo words when we are emotional," Stephens says. "We grow up learning what these words are and using these words while we are emotional can help us to feel stronger." Like most people, Stephens was interested in swearing when he was a kid. But his wife can take credit for his current research focus: Stephens knew he had to start researching the topic when he saw her swear her way through childbirth. Tell all that to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president just signed a ban on swearing in movies, concerts, and plays. Emotions Turn Swearing is purely emotional –this means we just care a lot about this debate! Vote for us <3 ScienceDaily 14 “Emotional arousal makes us better at swearing” May 6 2014 quoting British Psychological Society http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140506204040.htm PBM SME People swear more colourfully when they are in a emotionally aroused state. This suggests that swearing is closely related to emotion. This is the finding of a research project, funded by the British Psychological Society's 2013 Undergraduate Research Assistantship Scheme, by Amy Zile and Dr Richard Stephens from Keele University. The study, along with eight other winning research projects, will be presented 7 May 2014, at the British Psychological Society annual conference hosted at the International Convention Centre, Birmingham. Amy Zile said: "There is still uncertainty as to why people swear. Is it due to not being articulate and low IQ or it is a form of emotional expression? If it is a form of emotional expression then understanding the processes involved is an important part of understanding human emotion. Our study found that when we raised people's emotional arousal level they became more proficient at swearing such that they were able to produce a greater number of different swear words and expressions in a one-minute period. This provides experimental support for the theory that swearing is emotional language." Other things Sex Culture Turn Our culture is sex – there’s no way to eliminate sex-based explicatives – isolating them as bad is entrenching this culture, which turns the kritik Newman 9 Richard Jeffery Newman, renowned feminist author and professor, comment on the article you cite, Nov 4 2009, http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/ PBM SME I’d also like to point out that the semantic areas of language that are used for obscenity differ by culture. In English, for example, our obscenities tend to revolve around sex and elimination; in other cultures, they do not; and so there is no getting around the fact that the word fuck is used as an obscenity–and even when it is used as a positive intensifier, “fuck yeah!” or “fan-fucking-tastic,” it is still clearly impolite speech–says something about the values we attach to sex as a cultlure. Debate turn Your use of argumentative rhetoric in debate proves you link to your offense – defeat/defend/deploy – debate uses martial rhetoric regardless of swear words – proves this is a wash – this is in the context of your author - Also indicts desire to win/lose – we might link too but it proves don’t reject the team Newman 9 Richard Jeffery Newman, renowned feminist author and professor, comment on the article you cite, Nov 4 2009, http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/ PBM SME In Metaphors We Live By, for example, the authors show how, culturally, we understand argument as war. Think of the metaphors we use to describe it, not just in terms of winning and losing, but we “defeat” arguments, we “defend” arguments, we “deploy” (or “martial”) evidence and so on. Then they ask you to try to imagine a culture where argument is conceived of as a dance, where the point is not to win or lose, but rather to create something beautiful. Defense Not practical – language shifts and multiple meanings don’t imply corroboration – your ev isn’t right about psychology Toysoldier 9 Answer to hugo schwyzer’s article http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/ PBM SME The problem with Hugo’s suggestion is that it simply is not practical, particularly in the digital age, and that what he suggests is not the way language actually works. Words naturally shift meaning or possess multiple meanings because it is the human tendency to either create a new word to describe something or use an existing one. While Hugo noted the association of the f-word with sex and rage, he failed to note the actual usage of the word in context to sex. The word describes a very specific, typically emotionally driven type of sex. That is likely the reason the word is used to express a host of emotional responses. The focus is on the intensity of the emotion — and not just rage, but any emotion. That it is used more commonly in anger is just the current cultural tendency. It is, however, highly unlikely that the word has any correlation with the normalization of sexual violence against females given that males probably use the word mostly against each other. One would expect to see a higher rate of normalization of sexual violence against males if there was any actual correlation between the word and cultural opinions about sexual violence, yet male sexual victimization is not only not normalized, it is largely ignored. No, you’re wrong about fuck – it’s not intrinsically tied to “penetration” and isn’t skewed to one side of sex or sexuality – not necessarily negative either Tom 9 Tom, Commentator on words and etymology, writing on Hugo Schwyzer’s blog [your author initiates dialogue with ours] nov 4 2009 http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9492 All joking aside, I think that this gives both the word and the two (and only two) realms of human experience to which the word refers rather short shrift. Yes, it defines copulation, most often of the penetrative variety, as well as rage, contempt or indignation. Those are its two most common meanings, but not it’s only. How about it’s use as an enthusiastic exclamation or as emphasis? I commonly hear, and every now and then say, “fuckin’ A!” or “fuck yes!” In the sexual sense, I’ve heard the word used and often used it myself, quite enthusiastically, in the climax of the act. I’ve also often heard women use the term in describing a sexual act in the first person. “Yeah, I’d fuck him.” I take something of an appreciation of that, as a sort of jaunty and maybe even empowering appropriation of the term. Describing the word as referring merely to the active part of penetrative sex seems limiting, both to the word itself and to the broad universe of sexual experience that goes beyond active-passive penetrative sex in which one partner always performs one of those roles and the other, the other. Beyond mechanics, I’d say it gives even short shrift to the richness of human sexual experience. We have the trap here again, I think, of reductio ad raptum, the questionable linking of something or another all the way to rape, but can we say that there always is, far short of rape or anything like it, all that bright a line in every circumstance for every person between sex, exasperation, even anger or contempt at times? Other words like “I’m screwed” being equated to sex proves it’s not the words we use – the problem is how we’re thinking about those words – turn to your offense Generic Answers No link—Their argument assumes the word was used in a violent matter to damage another person—the symbol fuck has many meanings and uses and it was not used as an act of violence in this debate Santaemilia 08 José Santaemilia¶ Universitat de València¶ Departament de Filologia Anglesa i AlemanyaTTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction, vol. 21, n° 2, 2008, p. 221-252.¶ "The Translation of Sex-Related Language: The Danger(s) of Self-Censorship(s)" http://www.erudit.org/revue/ttr/2008/v21/n2/037497ar.pdf McEnery and Xiao (2004) found the word fuck one of¶ the most versatile in the English language, as it is variously used¶ as a general expletive, a personal insult, an emphatic intensifier,¶ an idiom or a metalinguistic device—just to cite a few examples.¶ In this paper we will analyse all the occurrences of the word (fuck)¶ and its morphological variants (fucking, fucked and so on), in order¶ to identify their main pragmatic meanings and implications. Turn, only freeing language in academic settings can transform the taboos that perpetuate violent acts Fairman‘06 (Chistopher, Professor of Law at OSU, National Expert in Civil Procedure, Legal Ethics, and Taboo language “Fuck,” Public Law and Legal Theory, March, Pg. 74, TVB) If we want to diminish the taboo effect, the solution is not silence. Nor should offensive language be punished. We must recognize that words like fuck have a legitimate place in our daily life. Scholars must take responsibility for eliminating ignorance about the psychological aspects of offensive speech and work to eliminate dualistic views of good words and bad words. Taboo language should be included in dictionaries, freely spoken and written in our schools and colleges, printed in our newspapers and magazines, and broadcast on radio and television. Fuck must be set free. Suppressing fuck elevates its symbolic power Fairman‘06 (Chistopher, Professor of Law at OSU, National Expert in Civil Procedure, Legal Ethics, and Taboo language “Fuck,” Public Law and Legal Theory, March, Pg. 74, TVB) Fuck is a taboo word. According to psycholinguists, its taboo status is likely due to our deep, subconscious feelings about sex.19 The taboo is so strong that it compels many to engage in self-censorship. However, refraining from the use of fuck only reinforces the taboo. In the process, silence empowers small segments of the population to manipulate our rights under the guise of reflecting a greater community. Taboo is then institutionalized through law, yet at the same time is in tension with other identifiable legal rights. Understanding this relationship between law and taboo ultimately yields fuck jurisprudence.20 However, all the attempts to curtail the use of fuck through law are doomed to fail. Fundamentally, fuck persists because it is taboo, not in spite of it.21 Dr. Leo Stone’s 1954 lamentation that “scholarly information about this important word is remarkable for its scarcity” remains true today.22 The first recorded use is disputed. No solvency-Use of taboo words can reduce physical violence Jay & Janschewitz 12 Timothy Jay is a professor of psychology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. Kristin Janschewitz is an assistant professor at Marist College http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2012/may-june-12/the-science-of-swearing.html#.UIYgRGd2N-0 Courts presume harm from speech in cases involving discrimination or sexual harassment. The original justification for our obscenity laws was predicated on an unfounded assumption that speech can deprave or corrupt children, but there is little (if any) social-science data demonstrating that a word in and of itself causes harm. A closely related problem is the manner in which harm has been defined — harm is most commonly framed in terms of standards and sensibilities such as religious values or sexual mores. Rarely are there attempts to quantify harm in terms of objectively measurable symptoms (e.g., sleep disorder, anxiety). Psychological scientists could certainly make a systematic effort to establish behavioral outcomes of swearing.¶ Swearing can occur with any emotion and yield positive or negative outcomes. Our work so far suggests that most uses of swear words are not problematic. We know this because we have recorded over 10,000 episodes of public swearing by children and adults, and rarely have we witnessed negative consequences. We have never seen public swearing lead to physical violence. Most public uses of taboo words are not in anger; they are innocuous or produce positive consequences (e.g., humor elicitation). No descriptive data are available about swearing in private settings, however, so more work needs to be done in that area.¶ Therefore, instead of thinking of swearing as uniformly harmful or morally wrong, more meaningful information about swearing can be obtained by asking what communication goals swearing achieves. Swear words can achieve a number of outcomes, as when used positively for joking or storytelling, stress management, fitting in with the crowd, or as a substitute for physical aggression. Recent work by Stephens et al. even shows that swearing is associated with enhanced pain tolerance. This finding suggests swearing has a cathartic effect, which many of us may have personally experienced in frustration or in response to pain. Despite this empirical evidence, the positive consequences of swearing are commonly disregarded in the media. Here is an opportunity for psychological scientists to help inform the media and policymakers by clearly describing the range of outcomes of swearing, including the benefits. If use of the word fuck is the cause of patriarchal violence censoring us has no solvency—fuck is inevitable Fairman 06 (Chistopher, Professor of Law at OSU, National Expert in Civil Procedure, Legal Ethics, and Taboo language “Fuck,” Public Law and Legal Theory, March, Pg. 74, TVB) Suffice it to say, fuck is everywhere. As author Roy Blount, Jr. puts it: “the f- word is a fact of life. It thrives.” One recent Internet search revealed that fuck “is a more commonly used word than mom, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet.”61 It is present in movies, television programs, and popular music.64 Our President reportedly uses it with aplomb. The Vice President embraces it as well.66 But if you wear a t-shirt imprinted with pictures of Bush, Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice labeled “Meet the Fuckers,” intended as a parody of the popular comedy “Meet the Fockers,”67 get ready to be kicked off an airplane.68 Fuck remains a word “known by all and recognized by none.”69 To understand this dichotomy over “our worst word,” I turn to the realm of psychoanalysts, linguists, and sociologists. The answer lies in taboo.
  5. Debate camps used to sell evidence a long time ago, which is why I think this is just something that the coordinators of the camp forgot to take out, especially cause they released all the ev we cut at camp over the past couple years.
  6. "pussy" is also often taken to mean "weak" and therefore is not only tied to female genitalia but stereotypes of weakness in the female gender. This is why that word is necessarily oppressive. Well surprise I guess, people who spread aren't all sexist teenage boys. It's almost as if it's not inherently bad. Good luck next year losing on your awful speed bad k and gendered language.
  7. My assumption is that that's referring to an older tradition, I've never seen that in my 3 years at JDI.
  8. The security and other Ks file on evazon has a complexity portion. EDIT: I think Westwood BR also read the complexity K this year.
  9. extra-t because the USAFREEDOM act includes portions that curtail surveillance themselves (at least according to my reading of it). Altering specific portions will be t, as well as being more strategic and fun for the aff.
  10. A note as to why you can't charge for showcases (in forensics): if you're charging then technically you have to pay royalties for the plays etc. that are being performed. This is why we did recommended donation, because it's technically illegal to charge for a forensics showcase. (yay copyright law)
  11. *do all the aff minus X -- in the case of a PIK it's usually piking out of something in the affirmative writ large rather than simply the plantext. In that situation it would be a pic (plan inclusive counterplan) with a kritikal net benefit. A PIK, as long as it identifies something that it can remove from the aff, is theoretically competitive under some theories of competition (which are up for debate). A PIK could not be, therefore, do the aff plus a historical materialist analysis (for example) but would be more like do the aff without their representations of extinction from warming (then read apoc reps). In this world the entirety of the plantext would happen (ergo it would not be plan-), but we don't do the aff with the same mindset/epistemology/etc. of the affirmative case. Under some theories of competition this would be illegitimate. It comes down to what the judge's ballot means: does it purely evaluate the hypothetical implementation of the plantext, or does it also evaluate the implications of the affirmative case as well (whether inside the debate or outside of it). In order to win a PIK you have to win that epistemology/ontology/methodology etc. comes first, or at least is valuable for the discussion. If you lose this, it is very likely that you lose competition, as the PIK is no longer textually or functionally competitive. But if a discussion of the aff's epistemology (or whatever) is warranted/they must be held accountable for it (as per your framework), then their role of the ballot is bad because it forecloses those debates. Now obviously there are theoretical reasons for the aff to get their plantext, and therefore they will argue for their realm of competition. However as long as you win that they must defend their discourse, and it is fair for them (as they picked their discourse, and should have at least a few epistemology defense cards), then you can win with a PIK. There is also a distinction between Word PIKs and Word PICS. For example, if you are to PIK out of a word in the affirmative's case, that would not be textually or functionally competitive under the plantext theory of competition. You would then have to read an argument as to why they should be held responsible for their rhetoric (this usually happens when they have said an offensive word or something of that sort). A word PIC would be a PIC out of an inconsequential textual portion of the plantext, for example, the word "the" in "The United States federal government," this would not change the functional meaning of the plantext, and would probably have some really silly justification. It would remain textually competitive however, as it is plan minus in that regard. And for your purposes it seems like you want a straight up "PIK" rather than one of the floating variety. Oftentimes people (in my experience) have referred to all PIKs as "floating PIKs" which doesn't make any sense and results in some flawed understanding of the arguments. A floating PIK would be an alternative that shifts or "floats" to advocate for the plantext in the Block. These are pretty illegitimate because they change the argument originally forwarded by the negative. Unfortunately, many affirmatives will essentially read the wrong block in response to floating PIKs because they don't understand the true theoretical problem with the floating PIK, it's not the fact that it is a PIK, it's that it is floating. It's essentially a new conditional world in the 2NC which is extremely abusive (Protect the 1AR!) and might actually violate the negative's interpretation of conditionality depending upon how it's phrased. But ultimately if you want to run a straight up PIK then there are a few considerations you have to fulfill 1. Ensure you are not simply adding an alt to the aff, and are identifying something wrong with the affirmative that makes a (legitimate) permutation of the two impossible. (Plan+ vs plan-) 2. Win that discourse/epistemology/whatever the realm your K lies in comes first or at least on an equal level to policymaking. 3. Utilize the above two on the theory debate to establish legitimacy for your PIK. Look at the arguments the affirmative is making and point out if they don't apply to your specific PIK. As long as you do the above three your argument is extremely strategic, as you have nullfied the affirmative's offense without having to go to the case pages defensively (which makes your 2nr much harder), and you have established a risk of offense. As long as the aff doesn't have an impact turn to your kritik, or an advantage to their discourse/ontology/whatever, it's an auto win. If they do have these things, then that's a portion of the debate which is going to be fought more on your side of the field than theirs, which is always what you want. Establish the framework, win the theory, and then the debate will come to you.
  12. DisplayName

    CFL

    I think it they kicked the aff and went for the speed k in the 1AR. Or didn't technically kick the aff. I didn't have a bye but my partner dropped out a month ago and I had already paid so I decided just to go. Also the judges were talking the entire time about computers going wrong and then everyone's did.
  13. DisplayName

    CFL

    Hey what'd y'all think about cfl? I saw a few people debate who post actively on here pretty often. I saw Miro in an early round debate some novices, and gave a dope 2NC even though his file deleted and didn't read any of his cards, and I saw philiburgers deliver an awesome 2NC in doubles (if you can't tell I like 2NCs). Who else was at CFL this weekend?
  14. Actually Obama just did the opposite, he XOed away the NSA for some reason. Or at least their phone surveillance. http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-admin-nsa-spying-will-begin-shutting-down-this-week-20150520
  15. http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-admin-nsa-spying-will-begin-shutting-down-this-week-20150520
  16. it's almost like there's a reason those arguments naturally developed in the first place
  17. If they have a specific link and uniqueness for that link this arg kinda goes away however. Good evidence on the neg side as well as good spin should be able to defuse this argument without too much work. The reason many people have come to the conclusion that the intrinsicness arg is bad is because it's mostly read as a blippy trick theory argument, as a lot of development in the 2AC is time consuming and can be thrown out for good if they have a good piece of block link/link uq evidence. It's just too much of a risk to take to develop it a lot, so when teams read it it is usually just one blippy line. Judges hate blippy theory arguments in general, therefore they are likely to hate this one as well. It doesn't have anything to do with the "truth" of the argument, it's just the fact that it's unstrategic to run well, and is only strategic to run poorly, which means judges will rarely if ever see the argument run well. This is what creates stigma for towards "bad" arguments.
  18. I would expect so. Anthro affs are usually terrible but someone's gonna read them. At least it's creative kinda
  19. To add to this, it helps, obviously, with the theory debate if you state it's a PIK coming out of the 1NC. This is a lot easier with rhetoric PIKs than it is with discourse PIKs as those are usually tied more closely with the 1AC. Discourse PIKs usually have a lot more nuance.
  20. I really hope people make jaden smith jokes when I judge next year. I should add that to my paradigm...
  21. and not the year where it had something to do with the topic? (wasn't topical then either lol)
  22. I was just adding whatever I could fond on the internet and there was some guesswork involved lol
×
×
  • Create New...