Jump to content

DiamondLouisXIV

Member
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Okay

About DiamondLouisXIV

  • Rank
    Junior-Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Diamond Louis XIV
  • School
    Kansas City
  1. I agree, reading only from Leviticus in your speech speech would be a terrible idea. What's probably more strategic would be to read logical syllogisms on god's existence, and from there argue morality. On some level I think it's pretty strategic. For instance, people who identify with that religion would be more inclined to vote on it. But even if you were just reading the bible, you can't tell me it's any less strategic then other Kritiks (The Batman K, The vampire k...and other crazy Ks). Assuming X religious stance is true, it may matter most that the argument Is True. I feel like strategy may play a role, but that the larger barrier is normativity in policy debate, which, again, really irritates me because of what policy debate is supposed to be and is for so many other concepts.
  2. I, and everyone who does policy has realized that there is currently no place for god in the debate space. Although I am atheist, this norm disturbs me. Debate is supposed to be a place of transformation, we talk about race, LGBT, fem and gender studies, all sorts of identity arguments, and if certain ethics are good or bad. Badiou even says all ethics are bad (basically). What I don't understand is that despite the transformative nature of debate, we exclude the most important question: Is there an objective morality? Even in LD there is but a mention of god, I fact the only place you can find a good God debate is on YouTube or debate.org. The worst part to me is that we are excluding a question this big from the debate space and silencing that voice. The closest argument relating to god I've heard is the god k, which just mocks Christianity. You may argue that we shouldn't argue about god because it's an indeterminate question, but That's a contention of debate not a fact, even if it is, just argue that in round and say interminable questions bad. You may also say it gets people to emotional, My answer would be get over it, if debate is going to be transformative, we can't require they must be happy in the process, that alone is an idea for kritik. So why DO we have these norms, and should they be altered?
  3. I give permission to use this file however you would like.
  4. So I'm trying to wrap my head around narratives. I went against one for the first time yesterday but have heard debates with them several times. I wanted some suggestions on strats and specific arguments (links..ect) that would be good. This is a former version of the aff I went against, which is not in use now (below) Here were my thoughts. They are running their argument without the use of any fiat mechanism which means that everything they say, they claim will really happen (stopping genocide..ect). They do all of this just by talking about the problem and changing our mindsets which somehow scales up and causes a reduction in surveillance. My last strat was this: Border kritik (you're plan text says 'USFG' which is an recognition of its existence, bites the K), FW (hey bro you should actually do policy debate), Methodology aka case (you have literally no solvency because you dont prove that this discussion leaves the room, and you have BOP soo), and then a BS CP (There is no reason that your narrative justifies the ballot, my partner and I advocate a counterheg narrative except we don't recognize the existence of the United States or any other border which is a NB to the CP).....not in that order. I realize the contradiction with the CP AND reading theory blocks that say narratives bad, but they never argued it was abusive and its neccesary to demonstrate the argument that there is no unique reason to affirm, plus I said it only stands if theory fails. I would love to hear some strat/argument suggestions on this because this ish blew my mind with how much it doesn't make sense. bad.docx
  5. I don't think its a terrible argument. Just because you say Word has quality W, X, Y, it does not logically follow that Word does Not have quality Z.
  6. It seems like everyone relies on mutual exclusivity to determine competition but from what I understand, it must simply be less advantageous to do the perm than to do the plan + CP. Or in otherwords, mutual exlusion is just one form of competition. Doesn't this basically means all you baseline-need (to compete and win) is a winning disad and full adv (or weighing the Net Benifit as greater than the other adv) solvency? If wrong why is it wrong. Do you need to solve the advantage(s)? or does anything go so long as the CP is competitive?
  7. so you're saying fed AND 50 states do plan right. then force them to show how not a lot of this surveillance is from fed taking away solvency? what about the CP above but you pick out of one or two of the plan planks making the perm impossible?
  8. 1) So with the solvency argument, would it go something like this: 'they have BOP, means they need to give solvency, means your voting neg on presumption that case doesn't work'? 2) How do I substantiate the claim that most of these activities are local? I've been having a very hard time finding evidence that most of this surveillance is state based or mostly federal based. So would I just make it an analyt. "hey, this surveillance only happens on local scales, believe us until they provide evidence otherwise" 3) when can I find the evidence for the "serial policy failure argument, because that is a good argument. 4) I've never understood alt cause arguments. Even if we can't solve racism or securitization as a whole, isn't it still good to stop this instance? If I see a bully picking on a kid for being black, I stop it bc racism bad not becasue I want to solve racism. Im guessing you make it as an argument to tame down their impacts. 5) so if they don't have a part specify for charitable giving, how does that turn into offense against them?
  9. meaning that the aff changes their advocacy from 'do plan' to 'do plan then do cp'? can't you make it off like the advocacy stays the same but you basically say 'vote aff and then vote neg'? no i mean that kinda the whole point of the CP. usually the build up of hatred towards some other and the loss of morality is a build up. So unless you say the US has as much hatred for the muslim as the nazis did the jew, my point is solid. We need to shock people back to common sense morality and rally support for muslims. Not too many people are so far gone that they would happily applaud genocide. Its just so beyond over the edge that everyone would have to start supporting islam from islamophobia....that's the whole thing about conformity. you lost me here
×
×
  • Create New...