Jump to content

MartyP

Member
  • Content Count

    753
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

MartyP last won the day on October 12 2015

MartyP had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

812 Excellent

About MartyP

  • Rank
    Top Speaker

Profile Information

  • Name
    Marty
  • School
    Oak Park River Forest High School

Recent Profile Visitors

4946 profile views
  1. 1. I think there were two key arguments from the negative. The one that seems to be of lesser importance was a framework argument by the negative about argumentative authenticity, that the aff shouldn't read a plan that they don't have an actual relationship to. I think what the debate came down to was this question of white uncomfortability and whether that's a) a good liberation strategy for the neg and whether that's an effective method for challenging Georgetown's culture of whiteness. 2. I don't really think Bryant would have been particularly responsive. I mean, that's one way the debate could have gone, but I don't think it's the most effective aff strategy. I think that the aff should've had a better articulation of why the neg's method was violent and why fighting violence with violence is bad. Literally every time I've thought about that argument in my head I think of Marvin Gaye's What's Going On, because he actually explains really well how I think about this issue in that song. The second argument they should've made better is an argument that Rutgers' just didn't create the right kind of discomfort. I discussed this in my last post on this thread, that discomfort can be an extremely effective AND ethical tool, but Rutgers' was just mean. I also think someone else later pointed out that hurling insults at someone doesn't replicate the same ontological discomfort that black people feel.
  2. It's been a while since I've posted on here but I came back because I was very interested in hearing about what the community had to say about this round. I think there are a number of important talking points in regards to this round. I agree with what several people have already said that the idea is good, but the execution was poor. I believe it was NoNegFiat that said that their first encounter with performance debate made them uncomfortable in a productive way. I can distinctly remember the first time I hit a K Aff. At the time I was a typical policy oriented debater with only a rough understanding of what a kritik was, let alone that an aff could not affirm a policy by the federal government. During this round, my partner and I were confused, uncomfortable, and even a little bit afraid. We totally butchered the 1NC because, having no idea what a K aff even was, we didn't even know what framework was or how to argue against this aff. The judge, seeing that we were totally lost, didn't know what to say, and as a result were being vaguely offensive, stopped the debate, gave the aff the win, and then initiated a discussion about the subject. That was the event that initiated my fascination with kritiks, and within a couple years kritiks and K affs became a staple for me and my partner. This is the type of uncomfortableness that is productive. It's productive because it reveals a lack of understanding about what the other side is talking about. Being uncomfortable can be an illuminating, educating experience because it makes you realize that you don't have all the answers, that there's something more to know. In that sense, being uncomfortable is literally productive in the sense of generating learning, and can be an incredibly useful method for combatting systemic violence, as it was for me. Rutgers failed. They certainly created uncomfortableness, but it wasn't generative. What came away from Rutger's method was vindictiveness, spite, and cruelty. It seemed to me that Rutgers was out for blood, and the sight of it only further incensed them. Rutgers' performance was fundamentally violent, and I don't believe that fighting violence with violence can ever lead to peace. I believe that one of the supposed merits of their performance was to flip the script of violence, forcing Georgetown to experience the sense of displacement that people of color constantly feel, thus empowering Rutgers. But the power they gain is that of the bully, not a power that can lead to equality. And I think it's unfortunate that the power of the bully can so easily be conflated with the power necessary to challenge systemic inequality, but I believe that that happened here. I also think that Georgetown made a very valid point in saying that Rutgers' method is only going to fracture the community more. I think that for the most part this has been discussed sufficiently in this thread, but I would like to add something else related to this which I feel has gone largely ignored. As Chaos mentioned earlier, a good roast has a subtlety that Rutgers' roast lacked. What they did instead was settle for ad hominem roasts that centered on appearance and personality. I think that this focus is what made it so easy for Rutgers to slip from funny and productive to mean. The issue that I immediately thought of is that there is a certain arrogance in this line of attack that presumes that the roaster knows the person getting roasted. Because fundamentally the solvency of the neg lies in the effect that the roast has on the aff. And if the roast hits home with Georgetown in a way that that first K aff did with me, then it is effective. But it is also so easy to make a mistake, and roast an aspect about a debater or their families that hits home in a way that is in fact very serious. I thought about this because I have certain personal issues in my life that people don't know about, and that I certainly won't broadcast on a public thread like this. But certain comments in this debate directed towards Georgetown affected me in a way that would have been cruel, not uncomfortable, had they been directed towards me. People should be very careful not to assume that they know everyone in the room well enough to say some of the things that Rutgers decided to say. And I ultimately didn't think that the neg's method was liberating. I'm Hispanic, not black, but I don't feel that their method is a way to create the productive discomfort that I think is so helpful for people to experience. I do think that they won the debate, although while I was paying attention I wasn't flowing the round. But Rutgers should know as well as anyone that tech isn't necessarily truth. EDIT: Just one more thought--one of the important aspects of performance debate is performance as argument. Just as Rutgers argued that it is absurd for Georgetown to make an argument that isn't tied to the flesh, it is equally absurd to try to separate the argument Rutgers was trying to make from their performance of it when trying to evaluate the round. Yes, I think the argument that Rutgers was trying to make was good, but if their performance of it was bad then they should lose. To think otherwise would be the same as to say that if Georgetown read a really really good plan they should win regardless of their articulation of it. This isn't a framework argument that was made in round, but I think it's an important one for thinking about.
  3. That's what it is. Thanks a bunch!
  4. Yo, what's the name for an aff that makes like a counter-history (e.g. pretending that an old court case turned out differently). I'm tweaking right now.
  5. The Rebel is probably nihilistic, if you're talking about the actual meaning of the word and not the way it's been butchered in debate. The Stranger is definitely nihilistic.
  6. MartyP

    Politics Updates

    I'm down if you still want to.
  7. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/the-other-refugee-crisis.html?referer=&_r=0
  8. When OP asks for good, topic DA's, just listing every disad in your Dropbox isn't that helpful. Most of those disads are terrible (like Google lol)
  9. I genuinely can't tell if you're trolling or not. Based on the rest of your comments, I'm guessing not. "Stupid" is ableist too. That's an absurd distinction.
  10. I genuinely can't tell if you're trolling or not. Based on the rest of your comments, I'm guessing not. "Stupid" is ableist too. That's an absurd distinction.
  11. MartyP

    Politics Updates

    I posted some free cards on Duhbait last Thursday. Check 'em out. If anyone is interested in producing or contributing to politics files for Duhbait, let me know. Unfortunately, due to a lot of things I don't really have the time this year to consistently put out complete files.
  12. It's actually a 1-off spending DA. Common mistake though. For reelz tho, there's two ways to split the block. One, the 2NC tries to go for too much and gives the 1NR perms, theory, and framework. I recommend just splitting the flow in round (I.e. actually marking where on the flow the 2NC is going to end), and going straight down. It makes more sense for the judge and makes it more likely you'll get to everything in time (personal opinion).
  13. If you don't like K debate you shouldn't start reading a satire aff. Just saying.
  14. How does that relate to the K OP is talking about though? You're not wrong, I just don't understand why it's relevant.
  15. Which side would be Apollonian Nietzsche? They both seem pretty Dionysian to me.
×
×
  • Create New...