Jump to content

TheTrashDebater

Member
  • Content Count

    738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by TheTrashDebater

  1. That moment when your opponent concede, and then when you ask them about it and give them options of how to push back, they call the debate a waste of time. And then proceed to down vote all your posts on the thread because they decided to be rude and petty for no reason at all
  2. I mean, that doesn’t necessarily means that the debate can’t still happen, just push like the warrants of your UQ in the 1AC and leverage them. You also have another entire advantage you can go for
  3. Here's the 1NC, order is 5 off (you can label the flows T, K, CP, DA, DA), advantage 1, advantage 2 Word count is 2525 I believe, open for cross 1NC Puerto Rico Visas.docx
  4. Bold of you to assume I have a life (I jest, but thanks for understanding lol) sorry for the delay, the round started as I was in my debate class which is why I was really quick to reply, I gotta finish up some homework but the 1NC will be up by tonight
  5. Like, what qualifies a person for an EB-3 visa? Is the impact to the second advantage just "china gains influence?" How does the aff resolve nutritional inequality then?
  6. I don't even know what you answered... Can you just type out your answers possibly?
  7. Three post limit ok for CX? What specifications are necessary to obtain an EB-3 visa? In the second advantage, what's the warrant for how the aff increases remittances? The Mercarder evidence is in the context of food and nutrition programs from the federal government, how does the aff solve those disparities? What's the impact to a strengthened China?
  8. Depends on how they read the aff. I mean t-substantial works on either version, you just need to be prepared for the "BuT oUr ScHoLaRsHiP iS iMpOrTaNt" argument on that, but you have two real options to go with- A. go for the large policy strat (so like politics, parole, T, I think that the canada CP may have good solvency for this aff that you could utilize) and just win that extinction outweighs and you're golden B. go for set col if you're comfortable with it, or do what I did and go for cap and use links based off their reading of the aff and using race-centered politics in the debate space
  9. Continuing the tradition of the past couple of years, does anyone wanna have a debate on the arm sales topic? I’m down to go aff or neg on that one as well
  10. Feel however you feel like about certain arguments. That doesn't contest what we've all been saying the entire time, which is that writing a book or article about it is unnecessary and only gives further negative attention to the debate community. Seriously, if you have a problem with K's and K affs, and you think that they're so horrible for debate, then run theory. Argue why your model of debate is better. I am sick and tired of people otherizing the type of debate that brings me joy, and have it knocked as "not real debate." It is opinions like this, and the complete close minded attitude around this, that make me wanna quit sometimes. I am tired of being judged by people for simply thinking that we ought to question our assumptions and our positions in society. Debate has become a home, and when people threaten to set the room I reside in on fire, it makes me wanna leave that home. Stop skirting the actual issue and debate the actual debate instead of using ad homs and completely disregarding the points of others. We're providing the deliberation, you just have to engage with our deliberation. Tell us why K debate isn't educational, why ought it be banned in policy specifically, don't knock us as closed minded people who think that policy-policy debaters are terrible people. I larp in LD, I think that policy discussion is a good idea and that it's a cool discussion to be had, but I don't think that limiting the discussion of the debate space is a good idea. Look back to almost anyone in this thread and you'll see that the discussions from K debate are a good thing, and that they ought to be engaged in. Seriously, stop attacking me, and stop attacking my style.
  11. Why allow critical debate in certain events when that just encourages a decrease in participation in debate?
  12. Sure, private message me, we can work together on it!
  13. My laptop broke pretty badly, until I get a new one (which should be somewhat soon), can we postpone this?
  14. I've heard that the UNT policy camp has really gone downhill. I would suggest UTNIF if they can because it truly is a wonderful camp (at least on the policy side. the LD side was a CF this year, you know the whole "not paying our LD staff adequately" really hurts the credibility of the LD camp)
  15. I'm not a hater whatsoever, I just think that your framing of what K debate is constituted as is just plainly wrong, go ahead and publish your article but in actuality what you're doing is no better than what you think K debate is doing to policy debate. Mostly in the sense that it only creates an environment of silencing that only damages teams further by preventing them from learning about critical debate, take this from a person who didn't have a school coach that went over K's with me which cost me the ability to pick up some rounds I could have. Exposure and practice in critical debate is also key to foster skills that can be integrated into policy style arguments, and vice versa. I think that crowding out that substance not only makes us ignorant of how our rhetoric and how our policies reflect marginalized groups and power structures, which only hurts the image of the debate community by preventing a fostering of true activism for those social groups. Post it if you want, but be aware that all you're doing is causing more polarization in the debate community over an issue that has already divided us extremely to the point where debaters on teams where their other teammates and/or coaches make them feel like they aren't legitimate debaters anymore because they don't "run real arguments" this rhetoric harms the inclusive value of the debate space, and harms the safety of the activity. Emporia SW didn't win on a conceptualization of debate as a home for no reason. The argument is true, and we need to open the doors of our home up to everyone, not exclude them
  16. Do we know the result of TFA state finals, the results haven't been posted on joy
  17. Bump, down to go neg on the immigration topic Or aff or neg on the March/April LD topic PM for either one
  18. Ok, so I have a few major problems with considering K debate as holistically problematic- 1. Policy-policy debate isn't dead- there are plenty of teams on the national circuit that are almost exclusively policy oriented (IE Greenhill AE, MBA BH) that are still probably some of the top teams in the entire nation. It's not that policy debate isn't dead whatsoever, because that is completely false. In fact I would like to think that this topic has been rather K light on the national circuit in terms of national circuit (except for teams like North Broward MR, we see your like 6 bids). 2. I think that the conception of K debate ruining debate is wrong- this same process happened with the introduction of the counterplan in the 1980's, and the disad before that, and the t shell as well. Point is, debate is constantly shifting and coming up with different ways to interact and present argumentation, and there is nothing we can do about that. I think that restricting teams from learning about these kinds of arguments puts teams at a disadvantage for a few reasons, A- because they never learn how to cohesively answer these types of arguments which means they'll inevitably lose when they run into these types of arguments, B- they re growth as debaters are restricted, I think that preventing debaters from experimenting with the K constricts their growth as debaters into learning how to think kritikally when trying to answer these types of arguments due to a lack of knowledge. I think that K debate injects education into the debate space that we could never gain through policymaking frameworks (IE how our in-round discourse undermines others or has dehumanizing implications) which require the K within the debate space. I was told a story by the UTNIF LD camp curriculum director, Jana Harrison (who's action I in no way, shape, or form condone for those of you who have heard about the completely inappropriate things she did with her students, this is just an anecdote that was given to us about the injection of the K into Oklahoma debate) about a certain team that would always use horrific and abusive language to the other team before round in order to intimidate them, which gave ground to run a K about how their demeanor and language were a tool of the patriarchy in order to conceptualize a submissive, feminine subject. Which also proves that the K is a tool that is critical (pardon the pun) in order to confront and combat completely abusive practices within the debate space. Along with that, the K also exposes us to critical theory that would be unbeknownst to us otherwise which also allows for a deeper philosophical education and promotes the free exchange of ideas among debaters (I personally think that methods debates are in fact one of the most educational debates that could ever occur in the debate community. 3. This doesn't mean that K debate at times can't be problematic- I think that trading off learning the foundations of debate (IE the stock issues, how to go for T, a counterplan/DA) with learning K debate is bad because it prevents debaters from being able to form coherent arguments (I know this from personal experience with novices at my school), which is why I agree that policy-policy debate has its place and importance in the community. I also tend to disagree with the way some debaters tend to frame K's (IE the "They mention money= they're capitalist pigs" is completely misrepresenting the literature which it derives from, or the "using ad homs within the literature 'such as calling your opponents homophobic when you're running queer theory when they in fact did nothing related to homophobic in-round discourse' to substitute actual args" example which I completely agree is bad for debate. That being said, that's A- a very, very, small amount of people who do so, and B- just an issue of framing the argument and using that as a reason to completely dislike K debate is bad because it misrepresents a good K round. Next I also think that K debate is legitimate in the circumstances of 1. discourse K's (IE security, language K's) and 2. when structural K's (IE Baudrillard, Queer Theory, Deleuze, Cap) have a legitimate link to the action of the aff or the resolution because they ensure further topic engagement that delves into the critical side of the resolution 4. If you really dislike K debate so much, just learn how to beat it- coming from a mainly policy school, it took me time to actually find out the proper way to answer K's, but once I did it was rather easy to beat them back if you knew what you were talking about. For example, a good strat if you were running a hard right policy would be going for framework and the perm in the 2AR and winning that extinction outweighs the K so vote aff. Next, if running a soft-left aff, would be to use some sort of perm and a link turn off of the aff along with a state good warrant. There are many ways to beat back the K, it's just a matter of you learning to get good at them and winning on them. I agree with Nick a lot on their post, I don't think that you've developed a sufficient opinion on K debate because everything you are saying is based on you not being the greatest at execution of critical strats, which is nothing to be ashamed considered it's not as easy as it looks and it's not for everyone Now, I also agree with Nick on the conception that a book only worsens the publics perception of debate which only spurs further backlash and hurt our ability to recruit new members which means that the activity would die Now, I am happy to elaborate my opinions on K debate more, just message me and I will happily answer any questions y'all have, Sorry if this post is incoherent, I'm really tired seeing as it is 1:11 AM where I live edit: changed to use correct pronouns, I am deeply sorry for any harm done and will do whatever necessary to make it right
  19. For 6A, I think granted that Hendrikson GS is in the pool, they win the entire tournament this year. This isn't just me being biased either, but also Hays CF means business as well. They are a team to look out for
×
×
  • Create New...