Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by OutKTheK

  1. Depends entirely on the judge and they way they framed T. Generally you probably shouldn't concede T in the 2AC because they can feasibly, and probably not abusively, run a violation in the 2NC. You would, for most judges, have to make an argument why not having a violation means that their T shell doesn't matter in the debate. This is risky because it isn't easy to win, and if you lose it, then you almost certainly lose the debate. However, if you know the DA is likely going to win them the round, either because you aren't prepped out for it or some other reason, this can be a possible strategy. It also depends on whether or not the judge has inherent biases about the function of T in the debate space. If it's the 1AR and you concede T and also use that to beat the link to the disad, you need to win that total topicality doesn't change/affect the merits of the aff. A specific example would be the classic T substantial + politics DA with a link story based on your aff being a "substantial" shift from the status quo (something to this effect was run in CFL Finals in 2017, iirc). Generally if you want to make this strategic decision, you should do it in the 1AR, passed the point where they can add another link to the DA or run a violation. But yeah, I think in front of the right judge with an actually logical, solid argument about why the violation's lack of existence makes the T shell defunct and if you are doing reasonably will in the standards debate, you should have a decent chance of winning T and that DA. ~OutKTheK
  2. I have a few problems with this idea - 1. This seems VERY generic - if you want to call out soft left teams for not providing a content warning, you should write a specific kritik for the specific type of content they don't warn about - a generic content warning kritik will only have a shakier impact story, much less specific and relevant content, and overall probably won't be very persuasive. 2. The impacts standalone aren't very strong. I find "drop the team" arguments almost always very unpersuasive, and most judges usually have some degree of skepticism for drop the team arguments. Usually, you take the soft-left team's lack of trigger warning, or whatever, and use it as a specific link to a different kritik. This will always be stronger, have a better overall link, and will be more persuasive and a generic "they didn't say trigger warning so drop them". If you can find a way to work around these two problems and create a cool new generic kritik for content warnings, im all ears, but I highly doubt a viable kritik of this nature is feasible. Good Luck! ~ OutKTheK
  3. It's a cool real world example of the argument, but altogether not a very solid card imo. 1. It has very few warrants, and the logic behind some of the arguments made in the card is pretty simplistic, and doesn't really go very deep. A better card would be one that has more warrants and is more nuanced, while using this singular example as an analytic in round instead of a full fledged card. 2. The tagline makes a couple of statements that would be problematic to defend without more warrants/more explanation, such as "_____ group not allowed to exist". This requires a thesis level argument on the nature of being, and probably some phenomenological explanation of the relationship between bodies and the spaces that they inhabit in order to defend it. ARGUMENT 1: It definitely does not support your first point - that's a massive stretch that really you can't assume. An advocacy is a finicky thing - although a white person might advocate it, what if the theory is created by a black person? Does a white person advocating for it destroy all of the inherent value of the theory, and prevent it from success? If so, than a white person can derail any movement simply by advocating for it. At the end of the day, you need to have way more warrants in the card explaining answers to some of these questions. ARGUMENT 2: I highly doubt a Canadian Native immigrant that wants to get into the US would say "nah lol, fuck this law bc a white person advocated for it". It's not practical at all, and trying to apply the thoughts of one artist on a painting to a law that can potentially benefit people is pretty ridiculous. The idea of "if a white person did something, whatever they did definitely sucks" is definitely a bad argument with very little merit. This doesn't mean you can't argue that representations are worse for other reasons, like for example white people spearheading a POC movement orients POC around whiteness and creates a dependency on white people to solve problems for them, which is net worse than the plan itself because it destroys the value of a POC movement. You should also probably get an article written by someone who is more knowledgeable about the fundamental arguments made in the cards. Good luck with finishing your argument!
  4. What Baitalle wrote ^ quality user. To add onto this, and connect humanism and Hartman's thoughts, Hartman believes that "empathy" is created when people view the spectacle of Black violence and slavery. Hartman, argues that people who view documentaries of slavery and violence begin to feel for themselves rather than the genocide(d?) peoples. This "ease of empathetic identification" as Hartman puts it “requires that the white body be positioned in the place of the black body in order to make this suffering visible and intelligible”, meaning the space isn't expanded, merely the suffering is reenacted, arguing that there is a "sadistic pleasure" to be gained from watching Black genocide. She equates spectators to witnesses (although she does acknowledge there is a slight difference). I'd suggest reading Hartman, while also having a background in liberalism. She makes a lot of arguments applying facets of liberalism usually applied to the general "other" to the black body, and it's probably a pretty valuable read for antiblackness debaters. It'll give you hella links, at the very least.
  5. Framing is a subcategory of framework, and it's usually presented in the form of a guideline that details the most important arguments/impacts in the round. Usually it's A is more important than B, because C, D, E. My opinions on framework differ from a lot of other people (I see topicality and theory as subcategories of fw too, but I'm a k debater so they always seemed similar lol), but the way I view it is Framework is like the rules of the debate space, and theory, framework, and topicality are all subcategories of this. Hope this helped at least a little lol
  6. In modern policy (aka most circuits), there isn't really a formal way of talking to you opponents. Really, as long as the pronouns are gender neutral, they fly. Representative seems to be a bit too stiff, as even the most traditional policy debate settings ive been in have never used it. If you want to err more on the formal side, you can say "my opponents", but a simple "y'all" or "you" works just as well. However, if the norms of your circuit are very different, by all means go with those. This is just born from my experience as a policy debater. Good luck!
  7. I'm a wee bit late to the party, but I want to say that the debate community should be more accommodating to people with different beliefs. I'm not saying that we should defend racism, xenophobic language, etc, not at all, but that we should take the time to actually talk to them about what they said/what they meant to say. Down repping someone because they don't understand something, especially when said person has said they have autism, is just about the worst thing to do in that situation. I'm not saying that you should defend what he says, agree with him, whatever, but it is called down repping FOR A REASON. It is not the "I don't agree button", it's the down rep button. It should be used when someone says something factually inaccurate, NOT to silence and discredit what someone with different political beliefs said. That is NOT debate. I have been heavily on the left side of the spectrum my entire life, but that does not mean I should go around forcing my opinions on others by down repping them. If you disagree with someone, you should TALK to them. Make an attempt to understand why they think some way. I already know I am gonna get down-repped, but I really don't care. This has to be said. Elmer is completely right, but even if the opposite was true, if the Trump administration is the worst thing to ever happen to America and black unemployment rates rose by 20 percent, it is STILL far better and more educational to talk about it than down rep it. Thank you.
  8. OutKTheK

    Kant help

    brb while i change my member title
  9. OutKTheK

    Kant help

    I Kant believe you replied...the number of reasons why I want to just ignore this thread are UnKantable, but I just Kant ignore it. I'm trying to learn about merKantilism for APush. I place signifiKant attention on my studies, so it is rude to reply to me when I'm vaKant. g̶e̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶l̶e̶v̶e̶l̶
  10. Overview on queerness: I am not trying to divide gay folks from queerness. Instead, I am arguing queerness is MUCH broader than gayness. Queerness, I'd argue, is better defined by what it isn't than what it is. Queerness is deviance, and the only way you can find deviance is if you can find what is NOT normal. Therefore, when you regulate what is, in fact, normal, and make sure that only the normal can survive, deviance becomes impossible. At the end of the day, even if binaries were anti-queer, small binaries don't change queerness much. However, what does change queerness is when a mode of representation for queer people (aka debate) is regulate, and forces their acts of deviance to either lose and fail, or abandon deviance. The debate space becomes a fight for survival, a fight for their right to inject their discourse into the debate space. Now, this may seem grossly over exasperated, but is framework not very similar to what is being threatened with a now with Kavanaugh's possible election into the Supreme Court? Does this not threaten gay marriage, LGBTQ rights, and a number of other queer rights? Now, do you understand what I am talking about on the queerness point? Also, neg is completely irrelevant, because the same teams that run framework on aff run it on neg, too, and TVAs are literally framework's attempt to assimilate deviance, and normalize it so it is "topical" through the lens of the framework. I am also quite tired of the name dropping of certain philosophers, because apparently they must be correct because they are authors. There's a good reason why some of the best kritikal debates happen without any cards at all. I am not referencing an author to somehow make my point more credible. If I ever reference an author, it is because they make my point far better than I could ever make my point, like the line in the Ahmed evidence I put below. My opinions are informed by my reading, but they are NOT carbon copies that require authors to tell me what to think. This isn't a problem with you specifically, as much as it is a problem with the debate space's fetish for cards in kritikal debates. K debates are meant to be open minded conversations about discourse that matters to the debater - you won't find something like that by copying someone else's discourse. You can only find it when you compile ideas you have taken in from numerous sources to form your own opinion. These ideas are my own opinion, and I am fine with defending them. Just don't ask me to change what I believe so that it better fits someone else's model. On Sovereignty: I'm not particularly interested in having a conversation about sovereignty. It is, in my opinion, an outdated term that only has passing relevance to today's society. I believe that, instead of sovereignty, there are much more substantive political debates to be had about whiteness after/during colonialism, and its impact on the various peoples of the World. With that being said, Marxism stuff: I'm not particularly hostile towards Marxists. Just about everything I said was a joke, but I'll respond anyway. 1. Marx is in fact a dead white guy, but that's not why I disagree with looking at the world through a Marxist lens 2. I don't think capitalism is good, but I also don't think there is any merit to discussing viable vs nonviable political/economic systems. I explain why more below. 3. Not 100% sure about what you mean here, but I would make the argument that as long as the world is contextualized through what is and isn't white, sovereignty is here to stay. I'm gonna copy and paste this from Sara Ahmed's article, Phenomenology of Whiteness, to help explain this statement: "Spaces acquire the ‘skin’ of the bodies that inhabit them. What is important to note here is that it is not just bodies that are orientated. Spaces also take shape by being orientated around some bodies, more than others. We can also consider ‘institutions’ as orientation devices, which take the shape of ‘what’ resides within them." What does this mean? My interpretation of this as it relates to sovereignty is that socialism and anarchism are impossible, because spaces, like, perhaps, America, are oriented around whiteness. This is unchangeable unless colonialism and liberalism cease to dominate the belief systems of the people, which they likely won't, at least in the near future. Whiteness produces and perpetuates sovereignty and hierarchy in its very nature. I'm not hugely interested in replying any longer to this thread, so I guess this will be the last post. Thanks for the debate, I guess. Feel free to respond, I might read it.
  11. OutKTheK

    Kant help

    I Kant help but notice you aren't being very helpful. Kant you actually help the poster instead of ridicule him? This is the problem with the debate space, always normalizing what people can or Kant do in it. I Kant take this anymore, I'm out.
  12. 1. That's why I used the word "often"... 2. Using slogans to characterize entire lit bases is probably not a good idea As for the next part, it's pretty shitty and certainly a bad representation of what I said (maybe you should look at it more critically first), but I guess I'll LxL it 1. It is far more than "defining correct procedures"...it is literally the attempt to assert that one way of doing things is correct, and the other is wrong. Framework is the idea that there is no space in the debate space except for that which cannot be contextualized through a single, "correct" lens. 2. Just because no one says this, does not mean it isn't true. That would be a logical fallacy. Also, it's just plain false. Hablas inglés This is ridiculous. This is trying to equate the debate space to a binary "correct" and "incorrect" where everything except for the framework itself is false. Framework is not merely just the definition of a few key terms. Rather, this isn't the biggest violation that T does - after it defines these words, it posits that the debate space would be BETTER if these words were used in the plan text, and that EVERY other example should be voted down if they do not meet these definitions. It is absolute. The fact that you think I was talking about binaries = bad should clue you into the fact that you need to read more critically. This is fair, I'll concede this. 1. Nobody is gonna prepare an entire plan to avoid a single counterplan argument 2. This is not topical. I don't want to have a T debate, but this is most certainly not topical. 1. Taking one Native person's opinion and trying to make it count for the opinions of ALL of the diverse different Native tribes is probably bullshit. You arent gonna cite a british guy saying "europeans would love to leave the EU" and apply it to Germans. 2. It's a disadvantage because the entire speech is basically them trying to "speak" for the entirety of the Native population. This usually doesn't end up well, ask the USFG. Whether it is bad or not literally does not matter at all, and is altogether irrelevant to this debate. Good thing we arent trying to solve for sovereign violence, just giving Native people a bigger say in who enters and leaves the land that was occupied and/or owned by them. yay, more bullshit that doesnt matter in the context of the cp 1. You lost me at Marxist 2. "Good" and "Marxist" are oxymoronic 3. If a good Marxist is some old ass white man trying to say that that Natives shouldn't at least have more control over the system of their oppressors because of his ivory tower political theory, then I'm not sure i want to meet a good Marxist. More shit that is irrelevant. At worst, we are replacing a system with an equally as oppressive system, just giving Natives the right to choose the people on the land. It doesn't have to be This is bullshit for a number of reasons. You obviously know little about the Aztecs, as they ruled more like the Romans, in that after they conquered societies they left their cultures alone and mostly intact. Maybe you should spend more time looking at it. kk Idk, ask the Government. Once again, we dont have the burden of solving for all of the World's problems. As if the Government wasn't doing things like this all the time. We don't have the burden of solving for all of the World's problems. Tell that to the map of reservations. There are reservations in every part of the US, even if they dont physically inhabit EVERY possible space. 1. Yes, because the Republicans and Democrats are very united. 2. You're going into the assumptions again. How do we know that they aren't completely united in their viewpoints? We have no idea. We also have no right to speak for them, and tell other people how they think. 3. Why is this a bad thing? It doesn't, not at all. Just because they are extremely diverse doesn't mean they aren't all Natives. They all have a say, no matter how culturally diverse they are. Aww boohoo, we don't realize a communist Utopia with our counterplan. Of course, comrade. Also, please don't frame this with shitty marxist terms. Not any worse than it currently is. In short, you basically just wanted to give a pointless lecture of how our counterplan isn't turning the US into a communist Utopia. Almost all of this is just carried over from the US, and just about none of it is unique to the counterplan. You can't win that we worsen any of these conditions significantly from the current state of America. This is NOT a cap K.
  13. 1. I don't think you understand. A kritikal debate is a clash of epistemologies; a clash of viewpoints. When kritikal debaters attempt to win through a k aff, it is often because they believe the World is contextualized by a certain relationship. Baudrillard debaters, black binary (including Afropess) debaters, setcol and postcol debaters, etc. When debaters run framework, they attempt to tell the other team the correct way of procedure - this act of violently enforcing the choice of submission or be rendered unlegible, untopical is inherently anti-queer, specifically because it doesn't allow for discourse outside of the boundaries that they create. Attempting to define queerness as merely the same as gayness is probably far too limited - that doesn't mean gay people aren't queer, but queerness itself is a bit more complicated to my understanding. It can't be defined or ordered like most things can be, so attempting to define it and confine it to a specific definition is, without a doubt, antiqueer. 2. This is meaningless. At the end of the day, it's irrelevant if they have evidence saying "natives like the plan". The damage has been done. It's similar to saying "well, sorry about colonialism lol, im glad we can put it all behind us". There is an epistemological impact to even the attempt to use the USFG as an actor. Saying "it's ok, the natives want it" is a colonizer's mindset - this is exactly the type of thing a christian missionary would say to justify forcing christianity and a view of western superiority on Natives. At the end of the day, the damage has been done. 3. You are misusing the phrase "liberal property" - this means that there is no connection from a person to the environment other than to use it to gain material wealth, and buy/sell it. A large number of Native tribes had a spiritual, not entirely economical, relationship with their land. Also, there were many Native cities/nations that certainly were sovereign nations. Take the Aztecs. Both secular and religious aspects of society were controlled by an emperor. They did, in fact, back their land up with violence. They also farmed on it, and used it for religious purposes. The difference between that and liberalism is liberalism attempts to establish control over foreign nations under the guise of assistance - they want to perform acts of ideological imperialism - out with the old, and in with the Western. They don't attack and destroy societies for various religious and cultural purposes like the Aztecs certainly did, they assert their culture over others and force them to assimilate. EDIT: https://mises.org/wire/did-indians-understand-concept-private-property - really good article, and will help you better understand this. The language it uses isn't the best, but it's solid enough. 4. You are reading way too into the counterplan. This is not necessarily your fault. With liberalism comes the idea of making ideas more "comfortable" to you by making them more familiar. I said nothing about a "Native government", merely that the Natives should choose who should and should not be in the US territory. There is no comfy, strict, and easy way of deciding how Natives should choose or what the system for choosing should be, as this isn't something that we have any right to talk about, either. Also "no one should control a continent" makes the incorrect assumption that Natives are a single body, instead of an assortment of culturally diverse bodies with far different ideas and cultures. It wouldn't be one body that has control over the US (also not the entirety of NA, but this is mostly irrelevant), it would be a number of incredibly diverse and different bodies, as different as Westerners would be from Chinese or Indonesian people. Terribly sorry for the late response, I'm not as active as I used to be, and school has started. Yikes.
  14. hmm I think you misinterpreted my idea about queerness and a totally binary framework. There are binaries pretty much everywhere, but my argument is specifically about when people attempt to define the world as a binary. Framework largely attempts to do this by declaring what their idea of topical as right and what their idea of not topical as wrong. In this context they attempt to define a space (the space that the debate is held in) in the context of their framework. Queerness is a beautiful answer to this, specifically because queerness is categorized by its uncategorizability (if that's even a word). It is simple from first glance, but really isn't that simple. Basically, it specifically avoids "consult natives", by basically saying that the Natives should decide if the plan passes. Looking for specific answers to this that talk about whether the natives like it or not is almost pointless, specifically because the counterplan is targetting the debate itself - it's saying the debate should never have even happened, and basically the entire idea of passing the plan through the USFG is a reinforcement of colonial systems. It's a very, very sneaky counterplan, in short, and is much more complex than it seems. That's its greatest strength. As for your point about liberalism, I think that it isn't necessarily true. Before colonial acquisition, natives had specific places that were THEIR land, whether it is property or not. They built cities, villages, etc, and if you told them it wasn't their land, they would have probably waved you off and/or killed you. For example, the Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, and many, many more. Spaces are defined by those that inhabit them. Whether it's "property" or not.
  15. Queerness actually has some amazing answers to framework There's the argument that framework basically is an effort to destroy any semblance of queerness by attempting to standardize everything - basically any binary framework like "ur either t or ur not" is pretty weak to this arg. It also allows you to use the aff flow to outweigh framework, which is a key thing every k team should attempt to do - really strong disads to T are really, really strategic in a k round. I dont think I quite agree with plans being really a necessity/more strategic in open borders. I was playing around with some native stuff, i.e reject the resolution and this debate because the colonizers shouldn't get to choose who comes to the US or not. This should be a native decision, because they have the right to decide who inhabits their land. altho this might function better as a neg argument (or both, even), it's certainly an example of a strategic aff that isn't necessarily topical, but has no real TVAs. The thing with the intersection of queerness and TVAs is TVAs are always looking for a way to fit queerness into some comfortable, defineable box. The neg feels displeasure, and attempts to remove their discomfort by defining the aff in the context of the resolution. If you are queer, you should take advantage of this almost always - call them out, say there is no possible world where queerness and a totally binary framework can exist. In short, do what you are interested in, and what u are familiar with. I really like queerness on this topic, but I don't think the best way to access a kritikal queerness argument is necessarily through letting queer ppl into the US. Anyway, i'm down if u want to have a dm convo on the subject, but I think Virumstein is our friendly neighborhood expert queerness debater. Good luck!
  16. You are 100 percent right, and even if I have questions about most if those affs, (for example, "restrictions" = more than 1 restriction), I think there will def be more than 15 affs on this topic. However, the point I was trying to make is the ground isn't very similar. You proved my point, as many of the things you listed functioned very similarly if not the same as each other, and that's ok. I'm writing a k aff for this topic, anyway! Cheers, and well done on your list. There's no way I could list all that in 10 minutes. ~OutKTheK
  17. Shoulda read one of their old cases. It's just the right combination of disrespectful, cocky, and entertaining. I did this in a bq round against our seniors in 2016, where we decided to have a 45 minute policy round instead of a bq round. I was not disappointed.
  18. You're right, I completely forgot about this. This is pretty massive. I don't think West Point would be allowed either, tbh, even if they are K. This especially makes me think that that topic would be god awful for debate.
  19. I just don't think it would be a particularly entertaining topic. I would rather not have to research something so boring.
  20. I've seen old affs from the last executive authority topic, and they were pretty damn fire. I definitely wouldn't mind watching a few executive authority rounds. Impeachment would be garbage though, I agree.
  21. Now all we have to do is find a way that the plan makes America communist, and we have a perfect communist utopia
  22. The USFG should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the United States by annexing the entire world :^)
  23. Hold up, this was a sick debate. Well done to both of you. The cross-x on both sides was pretty damn fire, not gonna lie.
  24. Some problems/solutions for the aff: 1. You advocate for a destruction of the US economy, but you don't give a framing argument. If you want to advocate for the destruction of the US economy, you must be prepared to outweigh extinction impacts, because the neg is gonna be showering you with "econ collapse = extinction". They will outweigh your extinction impacts immediately in timeframe. You should, instead, defend capitalism as being immoral and discriminative (there are a number of internal links, just only do anti blackness if you're prepared for a long and hard k debate you probably won't win). After this, you should read a framing contention with structural violence impacts as being the most important in the round. 2. Some impacts you might want to look into would be people being dehumanized into capitalist constructs, general "discrimination", etc. 3. I honestly think the thesis of the aff is fine enough. Remove the vague parts of the plan text, retitle the case, etc. You don't need to run this as a "performance aff", and you don't need to do something fancy like framing the ballot as a form of rejection of capitalism. I don't think the aff is well-suited for something like this at all. Good luck!
  25. This may be the edgiest thing I've ever seen a k author say, and I've seen some pretty edgy shit from k authors
  • Create New...