Jump to content

seanarchy

Member
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by seanarchy

  1. The second one of these sucks. The first one of these is a case of bad K debaters not understanding the actual sociology of race, or maybe you've misinterpreted them, I can't say b/c I wasn't there. I'm curious, are the same people saying both of these things? Because at an ideological level they're more or less contradictory positions when you cut through the misinterpretation.
  2. I'm not particularly sure what you're talking about without specification, since many different people with different positions have been called hostile or rude in the commentary on this round. As a comment on tactics in general, as much as civil discourse is a nice thing in concept, I'm not totally sold on its objective value in cases involving potential racism, cisnormativity, xenophobia, etc. All of the things you listed don't seem particularly civil, but this is partly because they deny civil treatment to marginalized groups in debate, which suggests to me that civility in response may not always be the best answer for the defense of marginalized groups. Again, it's difficult to tell if I'm replying directly to your statement without knowing who you're referring to as uncivil. All of this said, and as much as I agree that those things you listed do occur in the debate community, I'm not totally sure of their relevance to this debate, and as far as I'm aware none of those particular things occurred. I think some things said in this debate are reflections of debate practices in somewhat regressive circuits, but I'm not sold on the idea that anything said here is a reflection on the whole debate community.
  3. These are very different things. The overwhelming majority of judges will immediately drop a team if you can prove they edited or otherwise fabricated evidence. Misconstruing evidence is far less serious and is probably not a voter unless that evidence would otherwise decide the debate. Just point it out and explain why it doesn't flow their way. It's not a theoretical voter.
  4. just an fyi but you can also use italics, bold, and underlined text on this website, as well as change the size.
  5. seanarchy

    First Time Judge :)

    Flow as best as you can. Definitely the most important thing in my mind. The worst is when a judge doesn't vote for you because they didn't have your arguments written down.
  6. I'm going to comment here because the debate is over and I'm bored and have no incentive not too. I'll go in order of speeches. I've got a lot to say. Don't just write this off b/c you disagree with my previous statements. The 1ac. I have a 4 main problems with the 1ac that extend beyond purely political disagreements, that I think are worth taking into account. I'm not going to get into stylistic disagreement. 1) The introduction. Whatever you're want it to say, the fact that the ev is from Prager U is not a good sign. They're anti-intellectual click-bait that condenses real (conservative) arguments into slick catchphrases and 1 liners that present opinion as fact. The National Review, the CATO institute, or the heritage foundation are somewhat respectable and I'd suggest looking there for a similar argument made with more integrity. The ev is also plainly in bad faith - Schumer's remarks are on the topic of how immigrants are treated inside the country (family separation) and any serious academic will tell you that the US on balance has one of the most conservative immigration systems on earth, outside of countries like North Korea or Saudi Arabia. 2) The planks/plan. I'm not sure if this is meant to be aggressively in-your-face to anyone who considers themselves left of center, but it comes off this way. (ICE, Obamacare, and immigration.) I have no idea how common that is in UIL but it immediately puts a bad taste in my mouth. It also is untopical and incoherent at a mechanical level. a) ICE can not be the actor of the plan. It's a law enforcement agency, that enforces existing immigration laws through arrests, detention, etc. It can't pass the plan, which is traditionally what the agent is assumed to do. Congress is the appropriate actor. This is also hugely inconsiderate irl to anyone who is an illegal immigrant, knows any illegal immigrants, or is related to any, especially if they've been targeted by ICE in recent months. b) Obamacare is primarily mandatory spending, not discretionary. The budget can't be shifted in that way. It also is an extra-topical plank, because you could very plausibly claim advantages based purely on the elimination of Obamacare, not the plan. Also, you just open yourself up to Obamacare good disads. I'm not even sure the plan requires funding - unless I'm missing something, there's nothing in the plan that would cost money to implement beyond maybe printing the new regulations and VISAs. It's also somewhat more complicated than just a $1 trillion+ price tag (which is semi-correct) - it also knocks billions off the debt and vastly reduces annual personal expenditure on healthcare. c) It's objectively not topical. This is the big one. You haven't proven that chain immigration is a restriction on immigration, just a standard. I looked through several topicality files, and could find no definition that supported this claim. Regardless of whether eliminating chain immigration is reducing a restriction (which it also logically seems not to be, since by your own definition it allows more immigrants in), merit-based immigration system is a restriction by almost any definition (limitation, qualification, etc.). It also is plainly extra-topical and opposite the direction of the topic (i.e. highly unpredictable) to go beyond reducing restrictions to implement a new regulation, even if it is non-restrictive. The resolution says "reduce its restrictions" not "reduce its restrictions and create new regulations in their place." Because anything can fill this blank, there's no way to predict it. 3) Harms. Maybe this is taken for granted in UIL, but your harms cards aren't harms anywhere else. The first of these is descriptive (terror did occur) not predictive, and the second doesn't explain why illegal immigration is bad (which is hardly a settled issue). 4) Globally, your cards have no warrants. The "solvency" contention doesn't explain why it solves anything, just what points-based immigration is. The "O Canada" card doesn't give any explanation of why anything it says is true - it just presents the claims with no evidence or arguments to back them up. Food for thought. The 1nc. I would highly suggest reading case evidence. That said, if you don't have any this demonstrates my point about topicality - you couldn't have expected to research an anti-topical plan. Because of all this, I'd also suggest reading topicality. If I was judging this round and had anything close to a competent defense of T, I can't imagine not voting neg. Oh and you don't need a roadmap in the 1nc. Other stuff: 1) The DA. There's no uniqueness evidence. There are 3 key pieces of any DA. 1 - uniqueness, 2- link, 3 - impact. There may be internal links, but those 4 basic things need to exist. You've got 2 and 3, in a slightly odd order, but not 1. You need to explain why the DA is not happening now - i.e. why it is a unique disadvantage to the affirmative plan and not just a feature of the status quo. If anything your first piece of ev is a non-uniqueness card - it says brain-drain is already happening. 2) The K. The 2nd Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez card is not needed - it's talking about white people who talk about natives but also replace them in academic settings - that's not the aff. I would suggest keeping the framing stuff embedded in the tags of the K proper, or holding it until the block. I'd also be cautious about making claims to solvency when reading a K - making arguments about problematizing or denormalizing is far more strategic, given that it's almost certain a debate round won't overturn all of settler colonialism. The rest seems fine. Starting in the 1nc cx, there are also some rhetorical issues. I'd caution against phrases like "so-called genocide." It's probably fine to question the material impact of academic practices, but the phrasing makes it sound as though you don't think natives experienced genocide at the hands of European settlers - *spoiler* they definitely did. The 2ac. I should clarify a few things: "the aff," "the case," and "on-case" all refer to the same thing - the text of the 1ac and direct refutations to it made by the 1nc, as well as the extended argumentation made about this later in the debate. The brain-drain disadvantage and the settlerism kritik are both off-case positions because they do not refute the case directly - they present external/separate disadvantages to something about the aff. There was no on-case argument in the 1nc - I'd suggest just restating what the harms are, why they are bad, and why they are more important than the neg's positions. 1) the kritik. The K doesn't accuse the aff of genocide per say - it says the plan and the rhetoric surrounding it cover up a history of genocide, and that this erasure is what allows the continued marginalization of native people. I'd also suggest making a lot more arguments here - the main arguments in the 1nc and their warrants are mostly unaswered other than to say that the kritik doesn't link and that it is not unique to the aff. 2) the BD DA. Mostly I think this flow is fine. But it really doesn't matter if it's "not the US's fault" if we can apparently predict the outcome - the disadvantage is not concerned with making the US feel guilty, it's making a causal claim that a certain set of actions will result in nuclear war. This is fine if you answer the rest of the DA, which you do, but it's a bit of a useless point. 3) "the rehash." You don't need one. Most judges I've met have said that if you don't have anything new to say, it's best to just end the speech early, so that the flows don't get messy. If it's already been said, it doesn't need to be (re)said again, and if new arguments are made there's no reason they shouldn't have already been made. Individual points here: a) The K does not say natives do control america. It says that they should and that the US should not. It's negating the resolution, that's the job of the negative. b) Explain why it is important to focus on the effects of the plan - the kritik makes explicit claims to the importance of academic thought, so why should the judge value policy analysis? Give a reason. c) By and large, the reasons to vote aff you list are either, redundant, irrelevant, or non sequiturs. - why should only US-related issues matter? Nuclear war seems important anywhere, even if it is unlikely. - what "educational purpose" matters? Colonialism seems educational and important, given that their cards are literally about education. - they have negated the resolved - they've said the usfg should not conrtol immigration, the resolved/affirmative says it should - I have no idea how this is not negation. - why does it matter if they read the states CP? There are other actors than the states and fed - like native tribes, for instance. The 2nc. It's actually not bad, I just wish you would connect the plan's Trump-connection to settler colonialism. I don't think you need to define the state, and you reread 2nd the Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez card from the 1nc. Also, restate the K framing, don't just say "extend it." Do the work. I've already mentioned this to KTyler's displeasure, but white supremacy is far more than hurt feelings, as the kritik should have made abundantly clear. The rhetoric implies that it's just an issue of natives being overly emotional, and not that they are actually being slaughtered, neglected, or otherwise marginalized by various forces in service of white supremacy. As a kind of global note on the negative's cx answers - I think your tone, as I perceive it, is way off. The constant/random use of capitalization is kind of grating, and if it's meant to convey emotion or shouting it seems kind of hollow next to the dismissal of things I said in the commentary thread - do you genuinely care about these issues? Do you think the rhetoric surrounding the affirmative is mired in settler colonialism? If these things are true, and if it is true that settler colonialism is a genocidal system that infiltrates academia, it seems strange and contradictory to want to maintain the civil discourse or integrity of the debate when it is faced with genuine outside criticism. There's been a lot written about this over the years, in particular by Bill Shanahan and Shanara Reid-Brinkley, but confining radicalism to pure argumentation is hardly radical. That's all I have to say that I haven't already said.
  7. seanarchy

    The best pens to pen flip and debate with!!!

    Holy necro batman. Also G2 ink quality outweighs flippability.
  8. I've already apologized for calling him a cretin and I'm not very interested in arguing about style. I'd like to promote a safe debate space but I'm not going to apologize for saying his rhetoric has a racist history. In order to help me understand what would help you, please specify what I should apologize for that I haven't, or why I should not attack ideas that are racially problematic. I don't know why attacking a specific opinion would make you feel unsafe airing any opinion, so I can't exactly help you without some clear explanation.
  9. a) given that this is the commentary thread, I would think you could both just not look at it if it matters. There's been a lot of interesting discussion today that I doubt would last if the thread were locked. Think of it like whispers or texts in the back of the room that you can't hear. b) @OGRawrcat I have no compelling reason not to state my opinions. At this point I don't really care about the stylistic choices beyond what I said in my initial post. I haven't bought it up since. I'm not sure how what I said is "call out culture," unless you mean pointing out something that has a racist history. If all you think should come out of debate is persuasive skills, we have vastly different views. I've learned plenty from debate, including a rough idea of ethics and an interest in political theory. Fostering inclusion and community necessarily requires intolerant ideas be critiqued and excluded if necessary. I fail to see how anything I've said is "slacktivism." I presented an explanation of how the rhetoric used in cx had a racial charged history, combined with incredulity and a bit of rudeness at what I saw as failure to acknowledge genocide. I assumed that would be that, maybe with some recognition of the problem. I was meet with aggression, downvotes, and an unapologetic defense of Trump. Changing minds is not a 1 way exchange. It requires openness from the convincee, which I've been explicitly denied. Meaningful dialogue requires common meaning, which I'm not sure exists here. Lastly, the idea that I'm "playing to the crowd" is cynical and eerily similar to 4channers' belief that feminist criticism is just "virtue signalling."
  10. Look I'm sorry I called you a cretin but it's not my fault if you took the separate and substantive rhetorical criticism as an insult. I'm mostly responding to your debate opponent, who quoted me criticizing Trump and took that to mean they should feel unsafe on account of their pronouns.
  11. I wrote a very lengthy post on reddit a few days ago about this that I'll quote here. I'm not a liberal. Liberalism is more or less based on tolerance and private property. I'm a Marxist. Absolute tolerance is a shit value b/c it's not a value, it's a lack of values that lets anything fill in. Karl Popper wrote extensively about the decay of absolute tolerance into fascism - see here. I think this is extremely important to understand. The alternative is what Zizek describes as the beautiful soul - someone who believes that all opinions and differences can coexist. *Spoiler* they cannot. It also strikes me as absurd to describe what I said as hateful, when it is descriptively accurate - Trump is an idiot, and he appeals to racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. I have no problem with your pronouns, and I doubt almost anyone who espouses the beliefs I've described does. The point is to not tolerate homophobia, cisnormativity, or their translations into policy, NOT to declare that everything is a wash and that all ideas are created equal. I apologize if something I said made you feel unsafe, but I don't see how attacking racist rhetoric could translate into that feeling.
  12. I'll down vote posts I think deserve it. Note that I haven't down voted anything in this thread except your cx, for reasons I've already described. Pro-Trump posts are similarly bad.
  13. Yeah ok there's no point in continuing this. Trump is an idiot who appeals to some of the most racist and otherwise privileged segments of the American population. If you're gonna down vote me for saying so you're a tool.
  14. Ah you right. Though given that the judge quarantined the comments it's not a forgone conclusion. Also it's not an insult just don't describe anti-racism as hurt feelings.
  15. Look you do you and all style wise, I'm just speaking from the perspective of someone who debated on the national circuit. This is also how TFA works. Substantively, I have no idea why being a republican makes it acceptable to use anti-anti-racist rhetoric. I can't compel you to make any arguments or change your opinions, but surely you realize that Trump is a joke.
  16. Look I'm all for maintaining the integrity of the round, but this is dumb. The use of rhetoric that has been used since at least the civil rights era to discredit anti-racist politics is a nonstarter. He's defending Trump's immigration platform which is commonly recognized among the center to be grounded in racist assumptions.
  17. Uh... a) accusations of racism are not "hurt feelings" and historically discounting them as such has been a tool to delegitimize them as irrational, non-objective, or childish. Don't do it. b) genocide is not "hurt feelings" it's genocide you cretin. Unless you debate in a circuit stuck in like the 70s I doubt that. Consult a coach. The plan is hilariously anti, extra, and untopical. You also have serious formatting issues in the 1ac, with the plan's "planks" and unhighlighted cards as a start. Whatever your politics or arguments, you also need to tone down the right-wing rhetoric. It's grating, anti-intellectual, and will alienate the 90% of the debate community who are part of this century.
  18. seanarchy

    Best Nietzsche debaters?

    I mean yeah but he was always kinda amphetamine fueled. Guess it finally got to him. He also moved to Shanghai and thought Chinese capitalism was the shit.
  19. seanarchy

    Best Nietzsche debaters?

    He wrote The Dark Enlightenment and hangs out with the neoreaction crowd like Moldbug and Thiel. He also posts a lot of scientific racism on his Twitter and stuff like that. My understanding of his new version of his philosophy is that he thinks capitalism is a molecular-individualist intelligence explosion that inevitably trends towards grey goo/skynet. Therefore leftism and egalitarianism are molar regulatory attempts at not accelerating. Also left accelerationism isn't really accelerationism. Also D&G are anti-leftists.
  20. seanarchy

    Best Nietzsche debaters?

    Haven't heard that one before lol. Granted everything in the past two decades from him has ruined his personal legacy, but up until he left CCRU Land's work was pretty groundbreaking. No Nick Land means no accelerationism, no Mark Fisher, no neo-china from the future, etc. My point is that I think we can't discard things that are theoretically related to him just because he's a fascist now.
  21. seanarchy

    Best Nietzsche debaters?

    Much like Diablo of Suicide Squad fame, he fears his own strength. Sounds like someone is denying the will to power. On another note, Reza Negarestani's stuff links to probably every topical aff for immigration. Strong generic if you can stomach the post-Landian jargon. Derrida's work on hospitality is similar but a bit more accessible.
  22. seanarchy

    best k aff for next year

    Yeah I'm not disagreeing that queerness is antagonistic to many binaries. My point is just that you can't say "framework is a binary, that's anti-queer." You have to prove why that binary is anti-queer. Like the binary between dogs and not dogs is probably not anti-queer, nor does it attempt to define the world as a binary. I think there are plenty of reasons that T/not T could be anti-queer, like the reasons I listed, but I would caution against just taking it for granted. Obviously there would be a more specific debate about this, but I don't see why this isn't probably captured if you can find ev that natives have decided they want a specific immigration policy. Whether or not the USFG is intrinsically bad or not is a separate question, and one that I'm still not sure makes sense if natives themselves want a specific policy. Good evidence probably solves both of these issues. The TVA just says the plan should pass because natives want it and that this trumps other issues for whatever reasons the aff says. I have no idea how this isn't liberal property. The notion of bounded land which is a possession is a fairly European idea, and even if it's not I don't see why it's not bad for the same reasons (primitive accumulation, sovereign violence, etc.) This seems pretty problematic. I have no doubt that some like the Aztecs or Inca with what were essentially states and laws would adopt such a strategy, but I can't see how this isn't just painting all natives as savages or something. And using this as a justification is teleological and not at all different from any sovereign nation historically - its our land bc we back it up with violence. I'm also hesitant to say that this applies to the entire continent. Versus policy affs this is probably not an issue, given they presume the USFG can control given territorial boundaries, but theoretically I don't think this is totally legitimate. I mean, fuck the gov and all, but no one should control a continent. Establishing a new native gov or territorial control strikes me as similarly if not as bad. See D&G on deterritorialization/reterritorialization.
  23. seanarchy

    best k aff for next year

    Love a good necro. Not to say this is a bad argument per say in debate rounds, but on face it's theoretically dubious. I can't think of any critic who actually says that queerness is incompatible with any binary ever. I think you need to explicitly connect the content of the binary with anti-queerness, like with Edelman or something that says the thing that is being limited (political discourse, civil society, etc.) is anti-queer. Alternatively, attack the standards and not the interp. I think skills are almost always a good link to any K - the queer art of failure comes to mind (tho I'm not sure I want to endorse reading Halberstam given the Ronell shit going on). This strikes me as pretty simplistic. It certainly may be effective against a policy aff which already operates on the level of sovereignty and borders and such, I get the argument, and I get that there is maybe even a majority of native theorists and activists who take this kind of approach. That said, the rhetoric employed has a certain Westphalian ring to it that doesn't sit well with me. "Right to decide." "Their land." This strikes me as a classical liberal conversion of land into property and its control under conservative/humanist economic agency. Unrelated point, I think if anyone chooses to run this versus soft-left affs the Baudrillard 94 charity cannibalism card would be a fantastic case turn and link. The whole bottom of that card is about colonialism and the top turns any soft left aff. Also I love the "there's no TVA because the premise isn't topical" arg. Tho I feel like if someone found a card saying some natives support basically any topical immigration policy, they could basically do a "consult natives" TVA.
  24. seanarchy

    Best Nietzsche debaters?

    I assume you're talking about the Kain/Saurette suffering good version? Other than Loyola EM or maybe Steven Murray, I don't think any teams with significant competitive success have read anything close to this version of Nietzsche recently, and unless you have a remarkably in depth knowledge of his work, I wouldn't suggest doing so, or else you'll sound like an indefensible dick to many judges. Most "pomo" args like Baudrillard, Deleuze, or Foucault involve arguments originally made by Nietzsche, like fluidity or acceleration. Teams who have had success with these args include EM and Murray, Michigan KM, Michigan LZ, Berkeley MS, and Stuyvesant DS.
×