Jump to content

polarthebear

Member
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About polarthebear

  • Rank
    Junior-Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    BT
  • School
    WL
  1. What's your point? There's nothing inherently wrong with asserting that there's a slippery slope. His problem was equating making arguments for team A with disregarding an incomplete, and thus moot, argument made by team B. If those were the same thing, then intervening on the f/w would justify intervening on the T, making his assertion of a slippery slope completely warranted. Words are meant as proxies for an idea. So when you say "you begged the question", that's understood to mean "your argument is fallacious because its postulate is contingent on its conclusion and vice versa." At the point where people disregard the idea behind a term and treat the term as a "win the argument for free" card, discourse is ruined. The idea behind the proxy is incorrect, and the proxy itself becomes the idea. That's why people who have no idea what "ad hominem" means always respond to an argument that both calls them a name and refutes their point by saying "hurrr durrr u called me a name! Ad hominem! GG, argument over!" Because the disconnect between the term for a fallacy and what the fallacy actually is has exploded so much, everyone should stop flinging out the name of a fallacy, and instead just articulate the idea behind it. If we all did that, people who misunderstand fallacies would have nothing to say, and people who do understand fallacies won't have any problem doing so. tl;dr, slippery slope is not a fallacy, and people should explain their point instead of just using a term
  2. "of which was the real reason we lost to" "which was the real reason we lost to of" I try not to be a grammar Nazi too often, but that is 2 more prepositions than you need
  3. I may have posted this somewhere on here before, but on the TI topic, I hit a team that was running transportation. Our assistant coach, who is an expert in many fields of science and a tech professional, made a huge block about how the plan is impossible and an insult to science. The judge wrote on the ballot, "the neg picks on the aff for being impossible. Anything is possible." Not so funny in of itself, but seeing my coach the angriest I've ever seen him was pretty hilarious. There's also a judge who always draws on ballots, including Sonic the Hedgehog and Goku. He's a gold nugget of a judge hidden in an awful circuit.
  4. >the offense defense paradigm Pardon? How is standard cost-benefit-analysis destructive to debate?
  5. I have cards that say Gitmo doesn't torture and they get McDonalds and homemade brownies
  6. >this post is popular I remembered a time when people didn't tolerate timecube
  7. I've never heard of an "incentive." What is that?
  8. On the space topic, we were neg against tourism. My partner read that no one would do it because a short trip costs a year's salary, while the aff was claiming middle class people would tour space. Her: You say the average person wouldn't take part in the plan? Partner: That's right Her: Wouldn't Charlie Sheen be willing to do it? Partner: Maybe, but I don't think Charlie Sheen is an average person...
  9. Novices should know the structure of the round before they're debating. If you're not speaking next, you're doing cross-x--it's that easy
  10. This. A lot of theory arguments are just a mess of jargon devoid of substance. Another arg is not real-world--someone needs to be the first to propose a policy. If recognition of a policy action in the literature base is a prerequisite for a good policy, no good policy could ever be invented. If a policy has the evidence it needs to prove the plan would solve, that's functionally a policy advocate from logic--if the plan doesn't meet that, then it's not prima facie.
  11. I'm wanting to run education. Is there anything anyone's willing to trade on the subject, PM me
  12. Pretty much. But they could come back and say damage is already done if they went for time/strat skew. No matter what, the argument is weak as hell
  13. Once the admitted they were cheating, you should have gotten the ballot and talked to the office about having them DQ'd. There's a difference between being abusive and fabricating evidence.
×
×
  • Create New...