Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by seanarchy

  1. I've never met a judge who wouldn't vote on cap good if it was argued well. It's hardly the same as death impact turns. Top teams go for cap good against K affs all the time, it's a viable strat provided you get get specific. This is true but it's hardly an automatic win.
  2. This is Michigan's Connolly file. K Answers - Connolly - MMMR.docx
  3. 90% chance you'll never hear about Kant in a policy debate round. If it's about LD, idk. There's some description of noumena and its consequences for moral philosophy here. Edit: I'm fairly certain this is relevant to transcendentalism but there's a more specific bit further up here and here
  4. That's the same thing. Why is this necessarily anti-queer in any specific way? Certainly it's against certain forms of vagueness or inspecificity, but why is this violent? Pls link me to a source that says all attempts at defining correct ways of doing things is anti-queer, or at least address my counter examples. It's not a logical fallacy to say that this is unlikely to be correct if no credible source agrees. The neg/switch side? Also TVAs? Like I'm not saying I think these are necessarily true, but I highly doubt that correct procedure generates violence in a way that always uniquely localizes violence to queer people, and I'm not sure it's legitimate to say it is. This is pretty unclear unless you want to divorce queerness from actual people who could be described as queer. "Definitions are always violent" is an oversimplified version of postmodernist, identity based, or Marxist arguments that is often used by right-wing pundits to discredit the fields as inherently ridiculous. They're right that it would be ridiculous, they're not right b/c no credible author says these things w/o heavy caveats. Yeah this is my point. that maybe the debate space is different but that you have to specifically explain why it is. It's distinct from other binaries of correct/not correct, but your explanation hasn't gone beyond this level. You need to make the point about why procedures in debate implicates queerness, with an author like Edelman. This is the whole premise of limits standards. Not that there shouldn't be flexibility, but that there should be common features that make research generalizable. See MBA GB's aff as an example of a fairly radical T plan. I think there are other problems like research equity with this model, but that it limits is not itself really the issue. The point is you could to have a TVA to access args about why native decisions are important. Most TVAs are not precisely topical, but there's no outstanding reason something like this could not be T. I'm not going to work out the wording, but the premise seems fair. Yeah I'm saying that you don't premise the plan on a specific policy. It's about accessing the args for why natives should be the ones to decide. The idea is purely that natives should have control over immigration policy to solve xyz set col impacts to them not having control. Distinct from the earlier idea about just reading a plan with a natives consent card. See I'm mostly making the args beyond the TVA about the theory, not it's pure debate application. a) It's dumb to just exclude a whole literature base out of hand, especially considering its radical credentials for improving lives materially. b) Setting aside the obvi bad faith in this statement, a "good marxist" is not a moral judgement it's about knowing marxist theory well. c) This is pretty oversimplifying. The point is that the state is the thing that perpetuates oppression against natives. By destroying the state, it's possible to destroy the oppression. Taking over the system maintains a fundamentally violent system of territorial control and confinement. Natives shouldn't be subjugated, but they shouldn't become new subjugators. If you've heard the "more woman war criminals" meme, it's a similar premise. Setting aside that I'm arguing about the theory, not the uniqueness arg, why does this mean anything? If it is equally oppressive, with different oppressors, why would it be better? Example: the Tamils were an oppressed ethnic group in Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers were formed to liberate the Tamil people and create a new Tamil state. They ended up using the same tactics as the Sri Lankan army, raping and pillaging, killing civilians, etc. Why is it any better for this to happen if a movement doesn't hold itself to a higher standard than its oppressors? My point is that all govs are bad lol. Yeah but you're saying the natives should control all land in the US. Self determination for natives is one thing, you're advocating giving natives determination of others. Totalitarianism isn't good if natives do it. Maybe it's good for natives, but it just subjugates millions more. Unity in this case is just referring to the consolidation of control over the continental US. My point is that such control is bad b/c it goes beyond self determination. If you're just arguing that tribes should do their own thing where they are, that's chill. We have no disagreement. I'm just saying creating a new system of authority that can in some way exclude or confine people from/to the continental US as a whole is wrong. I'm not arguing for the topic here, the USFG shouldn't have that power. My point is just that no one does. It's nonsensical to elevate natives to absolute epistemological authority - "we have no right to speak for them" only makes sense so far as I can't speak to the individual experience of natives. I can make fairly objective structural claims with adequate information, and I can speak on an issue if it has objective implications as serious as something like decolonization. You said ""no one should control a continent" makes the incorrect assumption that Natives are a single body." "All hav[ing] a say" is not functionally different from what I'm disputing - no one should have absolute control over a territory, even if that someone is a bunch of diverse someones. The US is fairly diverse. Doesn't mean it should control all that land. ??? I'm pointing out flaws. Why is it ok for natives to have the power to confine, ghettoize and exclude? In a world where your vision is recognized, and the natives assume control over the US, would they be so subjugated at that point? Historically oppressed groups don't usually automatically make better rulers. See Tamil example, or J Cole's "high for hours." Asserting your own control rather breaking another's is similarly oppressive. Lol revolutions aren't marxist. See slave rebellions, the revolutionary war, the arab spring, or ghandi as examples of non-marxist revolutions. I thought I made this clear at the start, I'm interested in having a theoretical discussion about native "pro sovereignty" movements or ideas insofar as they demand absolute sovereignty over the territory of the continental US. Not just the debate arg, but I assumed we were discussing a K aff or K. There's obvi not such a clear cut uniqueness question in such debates, epistemology is often important as you yourself stated. I don't expect it to be, I'm interested in the interaction between the two literature bases, b/c at many points they seem irreconcilable. I'm just exploring these intersections with the perspective that sovereignty is generally bad. I'd like to engage in a dialogue with you on these terms, tho I apologize if I didn't make this clear. I'm not arguing against native self determination. I just don't believe this determination extends to total control over entry or residence in(to) the US. Btw, honest question, why the hostility towards Marxism? I'm not a very orthodox marxist, but I think it's hugely valuable in analyzing economic and political influences and effects. It's hard for me to get a bead on what your objection is, especially considering the exploitative effects of capitalist corporations and nation-states on native populations. Is it that Marx is a dead white guy? Do you think capitalism is good? Is socialism/anarchism insolvent for natives? If so, why? I'm more interested in having this discussion than calling everything bullshit.
  5. I'll post an extended answer later after I finish school work, but read the Moten ev. It's the main solvency ev for the research model the aff affirms. The last two De Silva cards look like framework preempts. Plans rely on causation and temporality, which is anti-black for whatever reason. A plan has a stable subject affirming it, which is not black. Traditional scenario analysis is anti-black b/c calculation. The topic is based on anti-black categories of citizenship and borders. Look for these sorts of args in the cards and you should have a better understanding.
  6. Lol I know what a K aff is. This is btw a very narrow view of a K aff. Things like "burn it down" or "give back the land" are not just epistemological standpoints "Defining correct procedures" is obvi not always anti-queer. There is basically no-one who says this, just like there is almost no-one who says norms are always bad. These are just straw-persons of postmodernism mirrored back. The correct way of procedure for removing a bullet or administering a vaccine is fairly objective unless we're taking the "harm good" route, which I doubt. Defining that procedure, by the way, doesn't have to touch on queerness at all. The whole "stop defining queerness" debate is irrelevant unless you can prove why defining the words "legal immigration," "reduce," or "restrictions" is defining queerness. You have to prove why the procedure in question is problematic and relevant, which I've suggested reasons for. There is very little chance you will get away with the "all binaries = bad" claim against a competent team. The phrase "natives want it" isn't western lmao. The reason the missionaries were bad was because the natives didn't want it, weren't fully informed about what they were requesting, or were misinformed and the outcome was bad, not because they said the natives wanted it. I still fail to see why a plan that says something like "the USFG should engage in binding consultation with native tribes on the question of legal immigration and implement the results of that consultation as decided by native tribes" wouldn't solve the args about natives deciding who inhabits the land. I have no idea why any of this would be a disad to implementing decisions made by natives if they want it. The topic not being able to go far enough isn't a disad, it's a solvency deficit, which is why perms exist. I'm not sure you've ever read Marx, or for that matter any author who speaks about primitive accumulation or enclosure. Private property is the foreclosure of unowned resources or land from public use or availability. I suppose this can exist without liberalism, as it does in purely sovereign systems (king appropriates the land from the peasants), but that doesn't mean it's not bad for the same reasons. This is literally the thing I'm arguing against. A sovereign nation being native does not make sovereign violence any less palatable. Nation-states are bad, western or not. You're referencing a very narrow component of liberalism and the literature on intervention. There's a lot more to liberal violence, like what I've described. Any good Marxist will point out that there's more to imperialist ideology than western chauvinism. It's a part of it, and some of it is purely cultural, but that part is fueled by economic interests. European colonies in the Americas were formed as a result of mercantilism - the idea wealth is zero sum, it has to be captured for the nation. Why is this any better? The Aztecs did this lol. I'm not trying to draw an equivalence between the sheer scale of violence practiced in the name of western imperialism and Aztec imperialism, but they were both imperialisms that subjugated other cultures and massacred their enemies. One was just more successful. Literally no idea what you're referring to from what I said. I didn't say it would have to be a government, but for purposes of territorial control, it's no different. Why should there be any sort of unified control over where people get to live on such a large scale? Especially in cases like climate or war refugees, or victims of abuse or trafficking. If natives say no, should such people be expelled back to their former homes? I have no problem with individual tribes maintaining the land they live on and work, but they physically don't occupy the entire continent. There're no way for such a decision to be made that doesn't require a certain degree of unity. Also this makes no sense in light of your comment that Saying the natives should control who are in the US makes the exact same assumption, except it legitimizes that imagined control. Which is bad. That's just another nation-state. Fragment the US's control, don't form a new system. The problem with the US is not just that it has a genocidal history, but that it presently ghettoizes and confines natives to specific geographical coordinates. Flipping the script and expelling everyone that isn't a native is bad, it still practices confinement and exclusion. So the revolution stops at the border? How radical. Yes and they should control their own land that they live on, not the whole continental US or NA, which they do not. Nation-states appropriating land is bad.
  7. Yeah this aff is a bit more complex. The general thesis might be that blackness exists as an unknowability or nonknowledge outside rational humanism. It's analogous to how quantum physics is a realm of unknowability outside traditional physics - we can't trace it precisely b/c it already uses a lens which renders that thing we wish to observe non-existent. Humanism is incapable of registering blackness b/c trying to catalog it starts from the European human as the default. I would strongly caution against reading this aff unless know exactly what you're saying. It's full of Kant, Deleuze, math, and really deep references in black studies. Also, if you're in a stock area this is really not a good idea. This is tenuous from the perspective of the nat circuit. Honestly, if you're in a real stock circuit, like judges actually only care about stocks, then don't read a K aff. They are almost never topical unless the neg is totally incompetent, and rely on disads to topicality. They also usually don't "solve" so much as problematize or perform, unless you advocate a thing happening (which this aff doesn't. It's a research model that problematizes humanist metaphysics). A priori judge intervention for stocks being a voter is game over. That said, the framework answer might be a mash of the two things I mentioned earlier - predictability is an anti-black metaphysics, blackness is a slippage that can't be rationally cataloged under topical definitions, and plans presume a hopeful/progressive humanist view on time. Calvin Warren might be a good resource to start researching.
  8. In 99% of planless K affs, the usfg doesn't do anything. You have to have some reason that the model of debate reading a planless aff (or whatever you're doing more specifically) is more valuable than traditional debate, usually for some reason connected to the 1ac. Example: an afropessimism aff that advocates guerilla warfare and burning it all down. They might say plans invest hope and time in planning an always antiblack world, or that topical debate isn't fair for black people bc of biases about what a model debater looks like (rich, white, eloquent, moderate, etc.). It really depends on the aff. For any of the Deleuze affs I read, I might have said predictability is a part of reactionary metaphysics, or that topicality ignores the slippages in language. What is the aff you want to defend? Is there a file, advocacy, or summary?
  9. There are no theory objections to this. You could read them as separate planks to a collective states CP, or you could read them as separate CPs if there's enough debate about both to warrant a separate page. Although if you mean you want to combine their functionality thru this "directly connects to the naturalization" bit, you need specific ev, or else you basically just inventing a CP with no lit.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. just an fyi but you can also use italics, bold, and underlined text on this website, as well as change the size.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Holy necro batman. Also G2 ink quality outweighs flippability.
  17. 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.
  18. 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."
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  • Create New...