Jump to content

CanIGetAFavor

Member
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

CanIGetAFavor last won the day on May 31

CanIGetAFavor had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5 Okay

About CanIGetAFavor

  • Rank
    Junior-Varsity

Recent Profile Visitors

438 profile views
  1. No. I understand the urge to pick at scabs, but you need to resist it. There is no reason to think this thread would be different than the previous one. I agree some people were rude to you when they should not have been, but you're being unreasonable. You've moved into rudeness yourself. You haven't put anything of substance into this new thread. That is a bad way to start a dialogue. To clarify, this is not a request that you post something you believe has substance that we might have a productive conversation. It's an assertion that while this conversation might need to happen, your behavior doesn't indicate you're capable of making it happen. That would require someone exceptional, and although I think we need such a person, you are not them.
  2. There are ways to disagree with someone else that don't consist of tearing them down or accusing them of wanting terrible things or being stupid, but those are unfortunately in short supply in this thread. Telling someone that voicing their opinion is evidence they are a bad person is not the same thing as telling them they can't have an opinion, but it lives in the same neighborhood.
  3. I was almost roped into judging a round on this at the last tournament I judged, and I was thinking it'd be fun to see a team argue motivations are non-ordinal.
  4. I'm not going to bother checking this thread in the future, given that no further posts have been made and UberNietzsche hasn't logged in since 2-16. The window of opportunity for my judging has closed - popping in every few days to check what's happening here has been an annoying waste of my time and I'm now less likely to volunteer to judge virtual debates in the future.
  5. I am a current HS judge and assistant coach and a longtime regular of the site, though currently on a different account than I've previously used. I strongly agree with everything Baedrillard says, in particular that K arguments are often used as an excuse for mean or disrespectful behavior towards others. The promise of K debate was enormous, but in many ways has failed to be realized, and I do not think it ever will regain its missed potential. Rather than serving to energize and reinvigorate traditional approaches to policy analysis, it has chiefly served to crowd them out and encourage polarization. To Bae's analysis, I'll add two other factors: 1. There is systematic literature skew in the critical theory and postmodernist literature that means policy affirmatives generally start from further behind than they ought to. The philosophical journals have many more low-quality hot takes in them than rebuttals to low-quality hot takes, due to the publishing incentives of authors. This pushes debates towards areas where one team has bad evidence and the other has only generic responses. 2. Judges who are sympathetic to Kritiks often fall into the trap of oversympathizing. It is very difficult for someone to have the personal belief that X is problematic and not allow that to influence their opinions on the quality of arguments related to X, even where debaters' arguments might fail to adequately make the case. This problem is also faced by judges with traditional policy-policy leanings, but only to a lesser degree, as such judges are generally more likely to adopt dissociative filters like belief in the value of roleplaying or switch-side debate, and are less likely to believe individual rounds or debater's beliefs may have high stakes for the future of activism. In contrast, K-friendly judges sometimes explicitly proclaim their hostility and mistrust towards ideals of neutrality and non-intervention. For judges for whom discourse matters, omission is a link, or questioning incommensurability is an act of settler-colonialism, it is much harder to set aside one's own opinions and pretend that the round should be seen as a game where fairness or arbitrary rules ought to meaningfully constrain teams' odds of victory. Philosophy is extremely rich and interesting as a field, and this extends to the arguments of continental philosophers, postmodernists, and would-be revolutionaries, all of which are worth engaging with no matter what one's opinions. But, although I don't know how to fix it, there's a real problem with how philosophy is generally deployed in debate rounds. Arguments are treated as bludgeons to be dodged or smash with, rather than nuanced positions to engage with earnestly, thoughtfully, and this has me very concerned for the future of the activity. When we've grown old and look back on it in twenty or thirty years, I fear we'll find the activity peaked around 2014 or so.
  6. I PMed David for something months ago, when I first created this account, and he hasn't responded yet. I expect he will sometime next year or so if I'm lucky. I don't even know why he wants to own the site if he's not going to do anything with it. A lot more cash would go his way if he sold to someone who plans on improving it. In the meantime, the value of the brand name just decays.
  7. I'll judge, assuming you still need one. Paradigm: I am tab. I only judged a handful of rounds on the China topic. I prefer traditional policy oriented approaches, but there's nothing wrong with nontraditional arguments. I generally lean negative on questions of topicality for small affirmatives, and lean affirmative on questions of generic counterplan legitimacy or K theory questions. I like hearing innovative arguments, sometimes even when they're a bit rough.
  8. Even before the recent technical issues there was mismanagement. I'd pinpoint the sharp decline of this site to about the time of the last moderator elections. Roughly circa 2014? I can't remember whether they never finished or if they were just the last ones ever, but about that point in time people started to drift away from the forums, trolls started taking over abandoned sections of the website, and similar. We've had months late openings of the topic-specific discussions sections the past several years, Evazon authors have not been receiving payment for their work, and our lingering regulars stopped checking in regularly. Before that, though, I think discussion on the site was at its healthiest around 2011. The decline from there was slow, until the 2014 decline, but still present. This needs to be put in context, though, because niche online communities are being outcompeted by aggregators like Reddit across the board, not only in this specific activity. The mismanagement didn't help, but we might have seen a decline regardless.
  9. This was a major resource for LDers without regular exposure to the national circuit to know what to anticipate. We still have the current wiki, but a lot of good cards and knowledge has been lost. Does any archive of this site exist? PM me if needed.
  10. OGRawrcat, if you see this, why do you say that a policy team with a K advantage is usually locked into the perm? Just the overall interconnectedness of critical theory literature, with lots of articles existing arguing that racism is gendered and gender is racialized and similar? Or are there reasons not related to the literature base involved too?
  11. How do people normally articulate "don't drop the team" arguments against Kritiks? When it comes to T and theory, then you can make the argument that the "transaction cost" of wasting this specific round hashing out debate norms to optimize them a little further outweighs the expected benefits of the norm change. This is what good articulations of Reasonability look like. But when it comes to Kritiks, this seems much harder to do, because you're dealing with much bigger problems than just fairness and education. I know that Forgiveness perms and the like exist, but I think they're usually seen as non-starters.
  12. Seems clear the author of that article doesn't understand Baudrillard any better than the rest of us, in the end.
  13. Arguments about the AoC have nothing to do with arguments about the meat of ZFC. ZF without choice is a thing. Trust me, you're overconfident here. You're disagreeing with well-established math. It's widely agreed that ZFC has not been proven inconsistent. Someone other than you would have noticed this first. ZFC doesn't ban Russell's paradox. It removes the axiom that gives rise to Russell's paradox. That's a valid choice, even if it's hard to motivate "in advance" of Russell's paradox. Clearly Russell's paradox and the problem it poses serves as sufficient motivation in itself for using a different system of axioms.
  14. I haven't taken a class on any of this, but my understanding is that Russell's paradox happens because of the idea that we can define sets in terms of properties that objects have. ZFC gets rid of the idea that objects having some property is sufficient to make it coherent to talk about a set with that property. That idea is the axiom of unrestricted comprehension, and ZFC gets rid of it. In ZFC, you can't start with properties and then make sets of all objects with such properties. ZFC is post-hoc, that's true, but it maintains consistency, which is enough to motivate it as an improvement over naive set theory even if it's a little weird and unnatural to approach sets through it. Girard's paradox applies to type theory, but ZFC is not a simplification of type theory as you claim. Type theory is higher order logic, and ZFC is explicitly first order.
×
×
  • Create New...