Jump to content

seanarchy

Member
  • Content Count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

seanarchy last won the day on June 28

seanarchy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

86 Excellent

About seanarchy

  • Rank
    Champion

Profile Information

  • Name
    Sean
  • School
    UCSC
  • Biography
    Oakland Tech 18, Santa Cruz 22. I read stupid arguments.

Recent Profile Visitors

3082 profile views
  1. I'd shy from potentially (and probably) ableist language but ye. After months of pointless gibbering, just to end with "I give up." Why??? Glad to see advocacy skills and dialogic contestation being put to work.
  2. I'm glad to hear your opinion has developed, however I see a few problems with this new outlook as described in your post. 1) Your point seems to rest on a set of observations which you haven't described in detail or proven can be generalized. This may be a "problem" wherever you are, but I haven't seen an inordinate amount of abuse based on a lack of genuineness where I debated, and I debated in a circuit where Ks were often more common than policy arguments. 2) This sounds a lot like authenticity-testing. This is to say, you probably have in your mind some idea of what a "genuinely" marginalized or expressed identity would look like, the abuses you believe you have witness do not hold up to this standard. The trouble is other people have different experiences, different perspectives, etc., which all make it difficult to say that there is a single genuine mode of expressing marginality. "Genuineness" is really not a standard by which you should judge someone or the way they argue, in or out of debate rounds. Of course, sometimes there are clear abuses. If I - as someone who is basically comfortable with the label cisgender - were to say "I'm trans and I want to express my rage" for the duration of a single debate round only to assume all the privileges, behaviors, etc. I had before that round, that would be clearly problematic. I would be commodifying or misappropriating the label "transgender" in order to win a debate round. This would be bad, and I think you would agree. However, I've never seen anything like this firsthand, and the only time I've heard about it was in reference to a policy team who used a similar argument to get out of a single link. Here's another example: a team of two black men would wear dashikis at tournaments, even though they usually would just wear ordinary clothes in most other settings I saw them. That could be what you are referring to, but I wouldn't be able to tell based on your description. They'd be changing their clothes and might make an argument about it, but that wouldn't necessarily be wrong. 3) None of these problems are unique to Ks, K teams, minorities, or any other group. I already mentioned that a couple of white guys who read policy arguments temporarily jettisoned their gender to get out of a link. Furthermore, literally every segment of the debate community distorts literature. It's virtually impossible to make competitive arguments that clash with one another if you adhere strictly to the text and context of your cards. This applies to policy proposals, scenario-planning, critical theory, performance, and virtually every debate round. Lastly, "altering their appearances" is something plenty of debaters do; surely you've seen people put on suits or makeup for tournaments? The same principle would apply to the example I gave about dashikis. Look, overall I'm glad you've decided Ks aren't the problem. But it's next to impossible to comment on your post in a positive manner without specifics. All of the points I've listed are inference based your previous interactions with this forum. You seem to be attributing your grievances to people "abusing" Ks, and not to people "abusing" policy, and you seem to think this is because debate is "far left." It's not, and the appropriation of identity is not leftist in any case.; I've given you several leftist critiques of both what you have described and your position.
  3. I'll take a wild swing and guess that this card is from History of Sexuality or Madness and Civilization. In either case, Foucault is describing how a discourse is constructed, which in the lines of the card you've provided is the discourse of madness. This is a set of assumptions, values, and logic that circulate through how society (particularly psychotherapists) talk about "madness" as a thing which exists and can be analyzed. A discourse produces its subjects. It makes them appear coherently as subjects with certain disorders. Foucault's thesis is that even though the behaviors and symptoms that are described as madness exist in themselves, they exist as a set of named pathologies that we call "madness" only through a discourse. So there might be a set of hallucinations, outbursts, etc. that we might call schizophrenia, but we have decided to name it that and assert that it is a disorder. Foucault's claim is not that these discourses are always bad (schizophrenia probably sucks and diagnosing it is important) but that we should understand their structures and effects. Take lobotomy as an example: for several decades, it was thought of as a respectable and medically sound practice for curing certain disorders. But according to the psychological discourse of the 40s and 50s, these disorders often included simple disobedience, laziness, or a number of other relatively mundane behaviors that fall well within the realm of healthy neurologically and environmentally conditioned deviance. (I should note that when I say "healthy" I'm referring to what is considered healthy within contemporary psychological discourse. This is not a "disclaimer" per say, and there are good reasons to prefer certain discourses over others, but it is important to point out that the differences exist.) As a consequence of the consensus at the time, thousands of people were lobotomized against their will, often disproportionately women. This was probably related to the discursive inclusion of "hysteria" and burgeoning female independence within discourses of madness. Now, the debate applications of this argument seem strenuous at best. "Leuret wishes to obtain a precise act the explicit affirmation, 'I am mad.'" This line suggests a somewhat more humane application of a discourse of madness, but the point is that the therapist wanted the patient to admit they were mad: that they were wrong and that now they could see that. Such an admission would provide support for the discourse. As an example, in their book Anti-Oedipus Deleuze and Guattari mock the psychoanalyst Melanie Klein's studies into child psychology: "Say it’s Oedipus, or I’ll slap you upside the head." The theory (that psychology boils down to Oedipus) is brought into reality by its own adherents (Freudians). This could be made to relate to an aff that discusses mental disorders. Take an ableism aff discusses how the 1a is schizophrenic, how they have treated, etc. You could make the case that they have bought into the discourse of madness. Depending on how they discuss "schizophrenia" they could be uncritically accepting the terms of the discourse of madness: by rebelling as as schizophrenic they implicitly affirm the premise that schizophrenia is a natural condition which society simply responds to. You would have to argue some kind of radical mental health position that schizophrenia is produced by social factors, capitalism, etc. and that by saying "I am [schizophrenic]" they have reaffirmed dominant discourses on this subject. Maybe they'll be written off as mad, idk. The trouble is that often ableism affs are explicitly or implicitly critical of the discourse of madness. They would agree with Foucault. And if they don't, chances are there's a reason and that whatever they are describing can be adequately described within medical discourse. This could be applied to other affs too like Irigaray, in which the aff might affirm that they are rebelling as hysterics. But it is very contingent on how the 1ac describes the form of oppression: do they simply reaffirm the terms of the discourse? do they establish a new one? do they subvert the current one? You would want to keep this as an option, because it could be a very good case takeout against certain affs like I described (they rebel as the mad), but it does not seem like a super reliable choice since small minutiae could determine how the aff answers it better or worse. I might make another post later about the Zizek evidence, but again I don't see a great connection here. They might even be opposed to one another depending on how Zizek deploys psychoanalysis, although I doubt it goes that far. His prose is much more opaque and I actually would need the evidence to make a very detailed post. My take rn is that he is probably criticizing the Stalinists for being too ideological (unwilling to admit "the [counterrevolutionary] Other does not exist"), but I don't see how almost any aff is analogous to Stalinist jurors in either form or content. Need the card, ask your coach.
  4. Difficult to say anything without context, you need to post the cites/full text. If anyone blames you tell them that open source is good and that restricting access to evidence is elitist and makes debate exclusionary. That said, I'll say that the judge was definitely right that these are not arguments you should be reading w/o a stronger understanding. Here's my half-informed take given what I see: Foucault and Zizek are making different arguments, other than the word "confession" I don't see what these have in common. Foucault's argument seems to be that affirming one's own madness produces the psychiatric apparatus because it reifies madness as a condition that exists. Kind of a complex theory in itself, but the idea is that "madness" is a name assigned to certain deviant subjectivities, not a condition that "naturally" exists. Seems situational at best vs certain ableism affs, but most ableism affs link turn Foucault (they agree with him). So not super useful unless there's an argument that isn't shown here. Zizek appears to be making an argument about superegoic reinforcement, but I actually have no idea what he's saying specifically w/o context since many of these lines could be ironic. I can explain the Other tho. It is a psychoanlytic concept: if I remember the capitalization correctly the capital-O Other is imaginary. Basically, it's who the subject in question imagines they are talking to during analysis (or in a trial, I suppose). Basically its the principle of "telling them what they want to hear," where "they" are the Other. Of course, you never really know what they want, it's just who you imagine, so there's a degree of projection. In a clinical psychoanalytic encounter, this is supposed to reveal who the subject is by way of who they imagine the analyst is. For Lacanian psychoanalysts, "there is no Other" because intersubjectivity is impossible. But I have no idea how this would describe Stalinist trials or how that would really apply to debate. If you want a more straight forward argument I know there's another Zizek card about hysteria which is tagged to say that debating destruction has become a substitute for destroying debate.
  5. Yeah no doubt that would just weaken all the sections of the community since they'd more than likely have to pick and choose which event to attend. This is of course setting aside all other issues that have been laid out in this thread. How do you make judges who like all types of debate enforce it? What if soft left type affs are too critical for some judges, or if someone attaches a plan to a Baudrillard aff (as many do)? How would you make any large national tournament, most of which are run by directors who disagree with you, enforce these rules? You don't, that's how. You can't make debaters debate things they don't want to unless you're doing the debating yourself.
  6. No idea how you could possibly do debate and not understand the concept of consequences to one's actions. I doubt anyone gives a shit if OP is a good/bad person, but the action they proposed and the justifications they gave for it were flawed and harmful. Plenty of people have explained the reasons for this in a civil and well reasoned manner.
  7. I honestly don't know how serious you are just because your rhetoric seems defensive and immature, but I'll try and engage you again to address some of your complaints. I'm sure you have enough self-cognizance to recognize that you are resorting primarily to ad hominem and unwarranted attacks (I have not seen much effort on your part to engage back), so barring a serious response I don't intend to continue this conversation. I doubt many people are really concerned about your "empathy," since it is meaningless as long as you insist that K debaters cease and desist with their entire way of debating. This has been mentioned elsewhere, but if K debate has educational value then why resist it? I've debated both K and policy against both K and policy, and I know plenty of other people have and continue to do so as well. You are factually incorrect to say this. I would suggest that you do a serious investigation of this matter by combing through the wikis. For example, North Broward MR, one of the top high school teams in the country and typically considered a K team, have read not 1 but 3 policy affs this year. Your assertion only makes sense if you decide someone is always and only a K debater, otherwise the multitude of flex teams who read Ks and K affs as well as policy DAs, CPs, and plans, would seem to disprove this thesis. This is a rather confusing proposition. You are "planning to turn debate around?" You and your "growing community?" Because I'm sure that in the interests of "true controversy," by which you presumably mean clash and free exchange of ideas, it would best serve the interests of both your community and the broader debate community to be open about this intent and the reasons behind it, rather than posting outdated and unproven conspiracy theories on obscure and underused forums. Let's be quite frank, debaters have been reading framework for years, and Ks haven't gone anywhere. The status quo on the national circuit and college circuit seems generally resolved to letting debaters make the choices about how they want to debate. Some judges already make clear that they will not vote on Ks, but this is a relative minority in serious circuits. So the only alternative is something like the PRL, that is, a newly established tournament which bans Ks from the outset. This project was attempted in 2013 (I linked the thread) and failed disastrously. It only deepened the resentment on both sides. You cannot force any debaters to attend such a tournament, and I doubt many serious debaters would attend such a tournament. The PRL was a pariah in the college debate community, due to both its structural similarities with phenomena such as white flight, and due to the fact that it would have excluded, a priori, many of the most skilled debaters in the country. No one is calling for an end to policy debate as such, but for an end to policy debate which cannot tolerate critical challenges within it. Rounds in which "NO POLICY" is discussed occur because both teams choose not to debate policy. That is their choice. Rounds which involve a defense of policy by one team and a defense of some critical theory by the other obviously involve policy. The interplay between these two styles is extremely interesting and a worthwhile investment for any real academic. And of course rounds which involve exclusively policy discuss policy: the finals of the NDT, which occurred last night, was a debate of just this sort. "Current events and the real world" obviously does not stop at or even always include debates in which one team reads a plan and one reads a counterplan. Improbably nuclear war scenarios as read in most policy rounds are just that, improbable, and also bear little resemblance to real policy making. Other policy debates obviously do bear on such issues, but national security is hardly the full extent of current events. Issues like police brutality, fake news, or global capitalism that are frequent points of interest in debates involving Ks obviously touch on current events and employ descriptions of the real world no more preposterous than your average nuclear war scenario. Imagine you are reading an affirmative that defends government action to reduce restrictions on immigration, the high school topic last year. In my 1nc, I argue that your authors' evidence employs self-referential, circular reasoning and is likely not credible due to their connections to an influential corporate think tank who stands to gain capital from the passage of the plan. Furthermore, I argue that your plan is likely to cause a shift from obvious and indefensible forms of immigration restriction to more discreet forms which nonetheless produce the same insidious outcomes. These are, respectively, a Baudrillard K and a Deleuze K, two of the most "high" of high theory authors in existence, which I had my teams run this year. These are exceedingly reasonable claims which make claims that no one could reasonably ignore or disregard without first disputing them. They have to be debated. There is literally no brightline for choosing where to draw the line. This is why in debates between evenly or similarly matched teams you often hear judges say "the aff was ahead on x, but the neg was ahead on y," before they go on to evaluate the relative importance. It's rarely 100% either way, and this is the very point of debate. I watched two debates over the weekend featuring Kentucky BT, the hyper policy-oriented team who won the Copeland earlier this year and just now won the NDT. In one, after Trufanov read 5 off in the 1nc, Bannister kicked 3 of these and argued for 8 minutes that if we didn't nuke Russia right now they wouldn't surrender in an inevitable war, and would consequently develop AI and super soldiers programmed to, and I'm quoting him, "delete humans." This is patently absurd and somewhat abusive, but it was hilarious and he almost proved it using evidence. There is no substantive reason I can imagine that this practice would not be just as "bad for debate" if not worse than you claim Ks are, while remaining completely within the frame of typical policy debate. In a second Kentucky debate, a similar strategy involving 7 off in the 1nc was used in which Bannister again kicked most of the off positions in the 2nc and then argued that we should allow economic collapse now so that we can transition to a care-based economy in order to avoid environmental collapse (and rogue corporate AI). This is barely distinct from a cap K at a substantive level. The only difference is maybe that he read more cards than most cap debaters, but then again he read more cards than most any debaters. First, if you really believed this, your complaint would not be about K debaters "forcing people into high theory." Second, this is an absurd claim. There is no intrinsic reason that "mandated POSTAL" would be bad. Answers to T or DAs follow rigid structures (link turn + non-UQ). But POSTAL is still not even very rigid or very unique. This is a very introductory understanding of the Kritik, and is not very different from how you are supposed to answer a CP (POST if I remember correctly). But it is also rather flexible. Perms encompass a wide variety of strategic combinations and double binds. Offense is obviously extremely broad, as is solvency. You can also always just read framework or an impact turn, and have that be all. I am furthermore curious about what you think "the 'challenging' of politics" means and why you think all Ks do this. Third, if Ks can really just be transposed into the artificial format of a DA, then you or anyone else should have no difficulty answering them with the research you are presumably ready to do for these DAs. The impact would remain the same, the link would probably remain the same, and the distinction between plan and alt is blurry at best: the difference between the cards we place below a tag starting with "the united states federal government should..." versus those we place below a tag starting with "the alternative is..." is not too big. No one is trying to "guilt and silence" you. No one has said "you should feel guilty" or "you should stop talking," or anything to that effect. Do most people here disagree with you? It seems that way. But you introduced an inflammatory opinion which has not been widely held in the debate community for almost 5 years now, and which seems like it could provide more ammunition for right-wing attacks on academia writ large. Of course you were going to face opposition, and I can't imagine you could have entered this forum in good faith believing anything otherwise. If you feel guilty, or if you feel like you should not publish your book because of something someone here has said, then that is your prerogative. Acknowledge and engage those who disagree with you, don't disregard them. That is quite literally the point of debate. Last point, which I want to reiterate from my last post, is that whatever you do moving forward, please do some research. Contact debate coaches or other figures and note their agreement or disagreement in your book. This is not my opinion or desire, just a fact: you will not be able to publish a book whose only quotes and points of reference are a few anonymous high schoolers or college students on an abandoned forum. I doubt most credible or widely read sources would publish even an article without that basic qualification, and I doubt any real publishing house would be willing to print and distribute copies of such a book. If you are serious about that project, act like it. Don't whine about being silenced by the haters because you got downvoted by some randos. Do some research, engage alternative opinions, and stop acting like a victim. You posted here first and you defended a widely discredited opinion about K debaters. That's your responsibility.
  8. I want to make a few comments, feel free to engage or avoid them, please do not quote me in any book lol. Obviously "it's a free country" and all that, so I doubt anyone genuinely wants to prevent you from publishing your book, but I think you should consider the implications of what you want to do and maybe take some advice. I just want to make some points assuming you do move forward, and to help contribute to your research if you want to make a serious academic effort. 1) You seem to have made up your mind. Speaking as someone who has also debated for 4 years in high school as well as had some limited coaching experience, I have both argued and actually held most opinions about the validity of K debate at various times. I would encourage you to listen to other people on this issue and actually consider their perspectives. 2) As Patrick said, "email some actual debate directors for college." This is a mostly abandoned forum only occasionally populated by maybe 20ish people, almost none of whom hold positions of authority within debate. If you want your book to be credible, you should contact people who do hold such positions. You could do that by posting on the CEDA forums or emailing coaches directly. Jonah Feldman (UC Berkeley) and Jarrod Atchison (Wake Forest) are two directors who have employed a "big tent" style (both policy and K arguments welcome). Their contact information is not particularly difficult to find. Other significant figures you may wish to contact are Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley, director of debate at Pittsburgh who wrote her PhD on black participation in debate, Scott Harris, director at Kansas and president of CEDA who wrote a highly influential RFD on the finals of the 2013 NDT, or Amber Kelsie, assistant coach at Wake Forest and immediate president of CEDA. This list is hardly exhaustive, but it you should contact at least each of these people before writing a book if you are serious about it. You should always engage with the best arguments for a position before rejecting it, and you won't get that here. I would also suggest you approach these individuals with a somewhat less flippant attitude than you have displayed towards the members of this forum who disagree with you. 3) Regardless of the validity of the impact of Ks on debate participation, you should really consider the impact of what you seem to be advocating on those who are already in debate. The affirmative from Emporia in the 2013 NDT finals provided one of the most eloquent and influential statements on the role of debate for many of those who do K debate (in all the various forms that may take) in recent years at a time when opinions like yours were much more common. This is a debate which directly addresses your complaints and I highly encourage you to watch the entire debate. The 2ar in particular addresses your belief that K debaters are the ones excluding policy debaters. Since that time debate has changed significantly, but it is sufficient to say that the majority of the collegiate debate community has accepted that Ks are something to be debated at least, and not excluded a priori. This opinion is nearly as common on the national circuit of high school debate, which always lags slightly behind the trends in college. You are challenging the existence of K debate: consider why so few people hold this opinion anymore and why teams like Emporia had to fight for the right to express themselves and their ideas in this forum in the first place. I cannot imagine that banning Ks would be healthy for either the community at large, competitive quality, or the individuals who read Ks, considering that Ks exist at all levels of debate and that they often hold a meaningful role in the intellectual and personal development of those who read them. 4) Last point is about this remark: I'm actually rather curious, who is this community? Other than the ill-fated Policy Research League, I'm not aware of any sort of policy secession or anything like that, especially not recently. Additionally, as I mentioned the people who are in debate now do not generally hold your position, so one might fairly ask where your "community" is coming from. This is directly adjacent to the point others have made about how your book would likely aid neocon attacks on debate. The question has to be asked, why do you feel the need to publish a book? I would welcome a book which took a rigorous and well-researched position on the current state of policy debate, but you are not going to produce that book if you do not contact serious debate coaches, if you dismiss those who disagree with you as "haters," and if you form your opinion before conducting that research. I would take the guess that you believe K debaters lean unfairly on personal experience. While I would disagree with this characterization of those debaters, you would be correct to say that personal experience is not enough. You have said in several places throughout this thread that you have "seen enough" K abuse, that you know others who hold your beliefs, etc. You have also said that this is the reason to hold those beliefs. I worry that you have formed an opinion based on your personal experience without confirming the universality of this experience. This is why you should conduct further research, such as from those sources I have suggested, to check against your personal biases and limitations, before deciding that you will write a book on this topic with the predetermined conclusion that K debaters are silencing you. Now, obviously I disagree with you about your conclusion, but I don't imagine I will be able to prevent you from publishing if you set your mind to it. My primary concern is, again, that this whole thing would only fuel neoconservative attacks on "liberal universities," "snowflake students," and more specifically, debate as an institution and the funding for it. I doubt the "real" impact of this would be too great, but I always hate seeing the right misconstrue debate and academia generally. So the question "why publish?" is significant for the reason that K debate is hardly the most pressing issue you could write about, except for those for whom it contributes to a broader, anti-intellectual right-wing narrative. If you do respond or if you don't, please just actually do some research if you move forward. I am not a great authority of any kind, which is part of why I have directed you elsewhere, but if you have more questions I'll probably respond since I have time and I care about this issue.
  9. cards have context though - other cards. that's why you read other cards - to give context. that aside this card says something different than what you think. it's literally just saying that trivial statistical data (like how many people in a room) is useless without a story, which even before you get to other cards, is usually implicit in a single card. most cards tell a small story of their own described in the tag.
  10. There's a lot wrong about this, but I'll just point out a few things. 1) util is not "preventing bad consequences in general" - it's promoting the greatest good for the greatest number, or in it's negative version, preventing the greatest harm for the greatest number. Util is consequentialist, consequentialism is not util. 2) your description of Nietzsche is a description of stoicism. Nietzsche is not concerned with happiness, but with nobility or greatness as an operative way of being - one which is explicitly indifferent to pain and pleasure as guiding principals. Also, what you've described as afropessimist fatalism is actually Warren's black nihilism, which is distinct and is only a call for political fatalism. 3) at the point where you consider "having goals" to be consequentialism, you sort of smush together multiple philosophical perspectives in a way that isn't very helpful - for example, Kant wants everyone to act in accordance with duty (it is his goal to convince people of this), not because it has "good consequences" but because it is critically justified. 4) I have no idea why you think Derrida is not a part of "modernism, post-structuralism, or postmodernism," or why these are even remotely equivalent terms - "everything past humanism is essentially util" is super not true. Like not even a little. Util is a humanism. Kant (not a utilitarian) is a modern philosopher. Bentham (the OG utilitarian) is a modern philosopher and humanist. Nietzsche (not a utilitarian) is a proto-postmodern and proto-poststrucuturalist philosopher - not a humanist. Deleuze (not a utilitarian) is a postmodern and post-structuralist philosopher - not a humanist. Derrida is a postmodern, at first structuralist and later post-structuralist literary critic who commented on philosophy - not a humanist. Wilderson does not fit neatly within these categories but is certainly anti-humanist, anti-utilitarian, and anti-consequentialist in a conventional sense (since genocide exceeds a rational empiricist register). 5) very confused as to why you think it's a logical leap to apply explicitly prescriptive ethical theories (philosophical ones, sometime postmodern or non-utilitarian ones) to situations calling for ethical prescriptions. This is basic applied ethics. It's an entire field which is definitely not pure consequentialism.
  11. Death as an impact does not equate to utill (as in the case of afropess), and particular death - e.g. prioritize genocide before nuclear war - is a fairly common impact. Many Ks (especially French, post-Nietzsche "pomo" style Ks) are explicitly philosophical interrogations of concepts like meaning, the self, metaphysics, etc.
  12. No one here is going to be able to explain Kant to you outright since he has a fairly complex and sizable body of work. He's also not read too much in policy, although I understand his categorical imperative is referenced to some extent in LD. You;ll get more here than you probably will in a single post.
  13. Generics are always your friend. I went to a small school in debate, and by the end of senior year most of our 2nrs were extremely similar combinations of psychoanalysis, charity cannibalism, and a number of technocracy critiques on case that we were quite good at contextualizing. That said, the solution to your problem will inevitably involve a degree of research. If you're going to run with D&G, for example, you should have very generic links which impact something like microfascism (focus on the molar violence trades off with focus on molecular violence) as well as 1 or 2 links to each common sort of aff - links to security discourse, links to international law, links to intersectionality, etc. The point is that you need to do research, and you need to be efficient about it so that your research covers the most ground in the least time.
  14. As a general aside, tons of people do argue that the debate should be strictly about the consequences of the plan. The impact evaluation is usually similar to framework arguments against kritikal affs: fairness is a prerequisite to evaluation, procedural issues come first etc. just like you couldn't argue that a nuclear war impact outweighs a T violation. That's why links to the framework itself are necessary. That said, I usually think of kritiks of micro-aggressions (gendered language, trigger warnings, etc.) as being distinct from other Ks. I don't think it's especially controversial to say that these are often not complaints about the substance of the 1AC. The "don't drop the team" argument is relevant in these cases. The OP's kritik would basically outline issues with the other team's presentation in or out of the debate. In a vacuum, it is easier to argue that this is not a productive or relevant issue to vote on than it is to argue the same about an argument like afropessimism or the cap kritik. There are numerous issues like the debatability of the links, the intentionality of the links, or the actual size of the impact that are not as easy to raise against larger Ks. I think this is basically what @OutKTheK was suggesting in the 2nd point. When you make these links and impacts in the context of a larger kritik, it becomes a more compelling argument because it isn't a isolated incident, and instead it can become evidence of a pattern that a K like afropessimism highlights.
×
×
  • Create New...