Jump to content

DisplayName

Member
  • Content Count

    531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by DisplayName

  1. I didn't believe that my case was 100% true or impenetrable this year. Just because a person wrote their own case and "believes it" does not mean they can't argue against it in the hypothetical situation you propose, even without compromising their "beliefs".
  2. yeah in the early days of paperless that happened a lot but I never really experienced it because I didn't go to really competitive tournaments until last year. I mostly just heard stories back in 2010.
  3. 1. On the advent of laptops the viewing computer was considered a courtesy that everyone did, but recently with so few teams going paper, I often don't see anyone carrying around a computer unless they really really don't want you to steal their evidence (which is rare). Slightly unrelated, I remember one year a team near us (I think it was Pembroke Hill -- they don't exist anymore as a team) would give our teams very crappy viewing computers that were barely functional just to piss the opposing team off. We then gave them iPads as our viewing computers.
  4. DDoSing=illegal Admitting to DDoSing as part of an argument=admitting to a crime
  5. Isn't it the aff they've been running all year? Or was it different? I thought it was the same occupy port of baltimore aff
  6. Someone showed me an Orwell counter k a long time ago (freshman or sophomore year) and all I remember is that it was pretty bad. Something like you're reading pomo bs that causes communist takeover and 1984 happens. This was a long time ago so I don't remember the specifics obviously
  7. First of all, we agree is not what happens. At all. Like ever. There are so many nuances to these arguments that any team that is not absolutely horrible will not simply roll over. Just because kritikal teams debate in seemingly similar styles does not mean that all their arguments are the same. And if you realize this you'd also realize why these debates are about in depth arguments which means they cannot be all grouped together. Fairness is usually a subsidiary question to education in this instance. And on your static identities argument, wouldn't you know, that is a kritik that many people read in these debates. Black-white binary and intersectionality are often winning arguments (depending on the debate's content etc). And this also answers your own questions above: this is a fair and predictable argument read in many debates, solves fairness, also resolves the question of everyone agreeing, because people can point out affs that are oversimplification then all of the sudden we have a debate. Surprise! K debate is also a debate, however different. Your lighter-skinned argument doesn't make any sense and it seems like you're essentializing, asserting all race arguments to be the same once again, when in reality many are different and diverse (as proven by your own argument above, once again). And I have no idea what this feminism = men enslaved by the same logic as the mythical, singular race K. "what does the world look like?" once again this would depend on the authors of the kritik, or the spin that is applied by the debaters. This is additionally another argument for the debate, not one for throwing out this style writ large. If the aff/alt cannot answer this question it is likely that they will lose, so if this is really an unanswerable question then K debate should have died out the first time someone asked this question (aka every debate ever).
  8. Was there more theory than on lay circuits?
  9. Hey I normally do policy debate, but in the Kansas circuit we do forensics and ld/pfd in the spring and policy mostly in the fall/winter. So I've only debated on the local Kansas LD circuit for 2.5 years. I qualified to nationals at an almost entirely lay tournament with one approaching-flow round during which we didn't go fast either (the entire tournament was mostly based on basic argumentation and a few judges voted on speaking skills) Has anyone at been to nationals and can speak for how the judging is/style is of debates there? Is it more flow/national circuit LD style with more theory or is it lay and/or speaking focused? Do people go fast or is it just slowed down a little bit?
  10. I also don't think that's their argument either. If these kind of assumptions are bad, then similar assumptions about income levels are also bad. I also think we're being overly reductionist as to what their argument really is.
  11. Keep in mind I don't read these arguments myself, but I don't think that's the point. Their argument is that the majority of asian americans should not be used to represent all. Which is the problem, they are called out for debating the K and being asian therefore privileged, which is a racist assumption.
  12. i told you so EDIT: obviously now KP is going up against BCC who are hot af right now.
  13. Yeah I meant this string of reasoning is based upon an assumption that is bad/racist i.e. all asian people are smart/well off. I'm not saying Edgehopper was being racist, I'm saying that their argument would follow like that. Maybe these misconceptions are why articles like the OP are written
  14. In order to PIK they still have to be PIKing out of something. The PIK doesn't make sense if it's just functionally "do the alt first"
  15. idk if that really is a root cause argument, as the underlying idea of the slave is (by their own admission) a power relation, therefore is governed by biopower.
  16. Or really: what else to call people who aren't white doing debate
  17. I'm pretty sure their argument is that this logic is bad and racist, like right now you are enforcing the model minority myth.
  18. Impossible they meet before then, that will likely be a sems matchup. There's also a lot of firepower on the other side of the bracket (Wayzata, Caddo, Westminster, Blake, Roho KL)
  19. I watched them once, they didn't read baudrillard, they actually went for heg/ddev
  20. accidental downvote, sorry
  21. Why do K-affs necessarily sacrifice logic? Swearing-based ethos (which is the only thing this author seems to consistently criticize) does not necessarily come at the expense of logic, and in terms of teams that win, it never does. She never draws a link between the "rules" of debate and loss of logic (which is the only impact she isolates). The entire article is based off this linkless assumption. The closest she comes to an argument here is the claim that K teams discredit opinions due to privilege, and although privilege plays a part in arguments (as it should), arguments are usually way more nuanced than "you're wrong because you're white." Of course I have no idea how the NPDA works, so I can't claim to know more than the author of the article in this section. But overall this seems to feed into her incorrect assumption that debate has "rules" against the aff being non-resolutional, which don't exist as interpretations of the resolution always have been up to the debaters, since ever. This means her argument about people throwing daisies in basketball make 0 sense, as the K-aff strategy is more akin to an unconventional strategy, like a spread offense in football. Ironically, this article lacks the very thing it incorrectly criticizes debate for lacking: logic.
  22. sems of emory is certainly more impressive than grapevine. GJ was undefeated at Colleyville then lost to the 16 seed (granted that 16 seed has 3 bids and that tournament should've been at least a quarters bid)
×
×
  • Create New...