Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About CanIGetAFavor

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

139 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. CanIGetAFavor

    This site

    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.
  3. CanIGetAFavor

    Has circuitdebate.wikispaces been lost to time?

    Excellent, thank you. Really appreciate it.
  4. 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.
  5. CanIGetAFavor

    [NVM Resolved]

    Or sell the freaking site already.
  6. CanIGetAFavor

    Never seen Kritiks

    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?
  7. CanIGetAFavor

    Content Warning K

    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.
  8. CanIGetAFavor

    I dont understand Baudrillard

    Seems clear the author of that article doesn't understand Baudrillard any better than the rest of us, in the end.
  9. CanIGetAFavor

    Russell K

    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.
  10. CanIGetAFavor

    Russell K

    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.
  11. CanIGetAFavor

    Russell K

    https://www.quora.com/How-was-Russells-paradox-resolved ZFC deals with this problem. The Library of Babel doesn't seem to have any relevance here, unless it's just as an illustration of what the principle of explosion looks like. Not true. You're thinking as if "logic" is one big thing, when really it's a bunch of little axioms and intuitions all grouped under the same label. If we accept some axioms, we can use them as a reason for rejecting others. Using the principle of explosion as a reason that certain systems of logic are invalid is fine, and it is correct to say that if Russell's paradox can be stated in some system of logic then that system of logic is inconsistent. Different argument, if you don't like that one. Using logic to disprove logic already requires logic to work, fine. But using logic to disprove logic also already requires logic to not work. That's a deadlock. You don't resolve a deadlock by choosing one side of the deadlock to emphasize and then walking off satisfied. You resolve it by using some different tool. When OP talked about paraconsistent logics they were deferring to your assertion by pointing out one way in which the principle of explosion might not hold, and so a logical paradox wouldn't imply logic doesn't exist. Without that, though, the argument that a logical paradox implies the unsoundness of all of logic is sound.