Jump to content

Photo
* * * - - 17 votes

You can't survive a debate if you can't handle your critics

debate camp

  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#21 unsafespaces

unsafespaces

    Novice

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
-5
Slipping...

Posted 23 December 2016 - 05:45 PM

BRAVERY LEVELS ARE TOO HIGH!

 

uZnLSH.jpg


  • -4

#22 The X Factor

The X Factor

    Registered User

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 668 posts
484
Excellent
  • Name:Alex
  • School:University of Rochester

Posted 23 December 2016 - 06:28 PM

Strongly recommending that this topic be deleted by the relevant mod.


  • 6
My nickname was X Factor before it was a show.

#23 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-48
Bad

Posted 24 December 2016 - 09:16 AM

Strongly recommending that this topic be deleted by the relevant mod.

Strongly recommending this moderator commit suicide because WORDS are too dangerous for him/her/it.

 

6G0YUI.jpg


  • -6

#24 ani

ani

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
28
Good

Posted 24 December 2016 - 11:19 AM

Coming up with random catchy graphics and having a cool domain (seriously, manhood101, much domain such wow) are good ways to avoid material, substantive debates. For example, you may have noticed that deejay keeps talking about ad hominem, but deejay has offered no reason that the original message is true--rather, he continuously dismisses criticisms as ad hominem attacks as proof that the message is true. Deejay, regardless or not of your personal character, if Hitler had said 1+2=4, he would have been wrong, not because he was a genocidal, psychopathic warlord, but because his math is not correct. I would like to cross-apply IonlygoforT's statement:

"I can cherry pick one good debate out of 50 where I don't completely get destroyed in a debate. Look how dumb feminists are xD."

You have not offered any proof that you haven't cherry-picked these videos, or hell, even staged them, and additionally, you only show recordings of what appear to be Skype calls. I see no real framework (like Oxford-style debate) for a fair and productive debate. Also, you consistently characterize all people who support equal rights or even human rights as "feminists" and force them to take positions they might not fully appreciate. To take your example:

Motherfucking 2 + Cocksucker 7 still = Dickhead 9.

I'm glad you stumbled upon a policy debate board, because this is exactly what we have kritiks for. You are correct, the math 2 + 7 = 9 holds no matter what modifiers you add to the message, but you're wrong that there are no impacts to those modifiers. I will now argue that the way you present your message engages in a culture of violence, and that will lead to extinction. Here's a watered down version of the Gender Kritik:
 

Your use of the word “fuck” engages in a culture of violence—rethink language and its relation to violence  
Schwyzer 9—community college history and gender studies professor.  DPhil, Berkley (Hugo,  “Penetrate” v. “Engulf” and the multiple meanings of the “f” word: a note on feminist language, 4 November 2009, http://hugoschwyzer....inist-language/, CMR)
 
In every women’s studies class I’ve taught here at PCC, and in manay guest lectures about feminism I’ve given elsewhere, I use the “penetrate” versus “engulf” image to illustrate a basic point about the way in which our language constructs and maintains male aggression and female passivity. Even those who haven’t had heterosexual intercourse can, with only a small degree of imagination required, see how “envelop” might be just as accurate as “enter”. “A woman’s vagina engulfs a man’s penis during intercourse” captures reality as well as “A man’s penis penetrates a woman’s vagina.” Of course, most het folks who have intercourse are well aware that power is fluid; each partner can temporarily assert a more active role (frequently by being on top) — as a result, the language used to describe what’s actually happening could shift. Except, of course, in our sex ed textbooks and elsewhere, that shift never happens. If the goal of sex education is to provide accurate information to young people before they become sexually active, we do a tremendous disservice to both boys and girls through our refusal to use language that honors the reality of women’s sexual agency. We set young women up to be afraid; we set young men up to think of women’s bodies as passive receptacles. While changing our language isn’t a panacea for the problem of sexual violence (and joyless, obligatory intercourse), it’s certainly a promising start. As another part of my introductory lecture on language, I talk about “fuck”. I first dispell the urban legends that it’s an acronym (I’m amazed at how persistent the belief is that the word stands for “for unlawful carnal knowledge” or “fornication under the consent of the king”; I have students every damn year who are convinced the word is derived from one of those two sources.) I then ask at what age young people in English-speaking culture first encounter the word. Most of my students had heard the word by age five or six; many had started using it not long thereafter. I then ask how old they were when they realized that “fuck” has multiple meanings, and that its two most common uses are to describe intercourse and to express rage. There’s a pause at this point. Here’s the problem: long before most kids in our culture become sexually active, the most common slang word in the American idiom has knit together two things in their consciousness: sex and rage. If “fucking” is the most common slang term for intercourse, and “fuck you” or “fuck off” the most common terms to express contempt or rage, what’s the end result? A culture that has difficulty distinguishing sex from violence. In a world where a heartbreakingly high percentage of women will be victims of rape, it’s not implausible to suggest that at least in part, the language itself normalizes sexual violence. I challenge my students. I don’t ask them to give up all the satisfactions of profanity; rather I challenge them to think about words like “fuck” or “screw” and then make a commitment to confine the use of those words to either a description of sex (”We fucked last night”) or to express anger or extreme exasperation (”I’m so fucking furious with you right now!”) but not, not, not, both. Rage and lust are both normal human experiences; we will get angry and we will be sexual (or want to be) over and over again over the course of our lives. But we have a responsibility, I think, to make a clear and bright line between the language of sexual desire and the language of contempt and indignation. Pick one arena of human experience where that most flexible term in the English vernacular will be used, and confine it there. Words matter, I tell my students. We’re told over and over again that “a picture is worth a thousand words” — but we forget that words have the power to paint pictures in our minds of how the world is and how it ought to be. The language we use for sexuality, the words we use for rage and longing — these words construct images in our heads, in our culture, and in our lives. We have an obligation to rethink how we speak as part of building a more pleasurable, safe, just and egalitarian world.
 
Masculine lenses make extinction inevitable--reject your gendered lens—it’s the only way to open up new frameworks of thought 
Clark 4—French Cumbie Professor of Conflict Resolution at George Mason University (Mary E, Rhetoric, Patriarchy & War: Explaining the Dangers of "Leadership" in Mass Culture, Women and Language. Urbana: Fall 2004. Vol. 27, Iss. 2; pg. 21, 8 pgs, ProQuest, AMiles)
 
Today's Western patriarchal world view now dominates globalwide dialogue among the "leaders" of Earth's nearly two hundred nation-states. Its Machiavellian/Realpolitik assumptions about the necessity of' military power to preserve order within and between groups of humans trumps--and stifles--other potential viewpoints. Founded on the belief that "evil" is innate, it dictates that human conflict must be "controlled": global "law" backed by coercive force. This view, when cross-culturally imposed, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, thus "legitimating" an escalating use of force. Western leaders (male and female) use a rhetoric couched in a "hegemonic masculinity" to justify their ready use of military force to coerce "those who are against us" into compliance. This translates globally as "national leaders must never lose facet!" Changing this dominant paradigm requires dismantling the hierarchic hegemony of masculine militarism and its related economic institutions, through global cross-cultural dialogues, thus replacing a hegemonic world view and institutions with new, more adaptive visions, woven out of the most useful remnants of multiple past cultural stories. The paper concludes with a few examples where people around the worm are doing just this--using their own small voices to insert their local "sacred social story" into the global dialogue. This global process--free from a hegemonic militaristic rhetoric--has the potential to initiate a planetary dialogue where "boundaries" are no longer borders to be defended, but sites of social ferment and creative adaptation. When the call came for papers on War, Language, and Gender, referring us to Carol Cohn's seminal paper "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals," (1) I at first felt that little more could be added on the subject. But events in Washington in the ensuing weeks stimulated me to a broader "take" on this topic. Defense intellectuals, after all, are embedded in a whole culture, and the interaction is two-way. Not only does their strategic framework with its euphemistic language about war and killing have the outcome of forcing society to think in their terms; their framework and language developed in response to our deeply embedded, Western cultural image of a Machiavellian / neo-Darwinian universe. In other words, militarism and the necessity for organized physical force (2) emerge out of culturewide assumptions about human nature. Throughout historical times these assumptions have repeatedly proved to be self-fulfilling prophecies. The pervasive perception of enemy-competitors has generated violent conflicts that flared up and died back, only to flare up again through our failure to achieve deep resolution and, especially, to alter our basic beliefs about human nature and our consequent social institutions. Today our species, politically, comprises some 180190 "nations" of varying cultural homogeneity and moral legitimacy, not to mention size and physical power. Regardless of their indigenous, internal cultural preferences, their cross-national interactions are institutionalized to fit a framework long established by former Western colonial powers among themselves. In other words, the global "reality" constructed by Western patriarchies-a Realpolitik, ultimately grounded in military power-has come to define day-to-day cross-national politics. During the era of the Cold War, this resulted in small, powerless nations seeking alliances with one or other superpower, which offered not only development aid but military protection, and, for locally unpopular, but "cooperating" leaders, small arms to maintain order at home. The "end" of the Cold War brought little change in this pervasive global militarism (though it did strengthen the role of economic hegemony by the remaining superpower (3)). The enormous technological "improvements"-i.e. efficiency in killing power-in weaponry of all types over the past few decades has now resulted in a dangerously over-armed planet that simultaneously faces a desperate shortage of resources available for providing the world's people with water, energy, health care, education, and the infrastructure for distributing them. While our environmental and social overheads continue to mount, our species seems immobilized, trapped in an institutionalized militarism-an evolutionary cul-de-sac! We need new insights-as Cohn said, a new language, a new set of metaphors, a new mental framework-for thinking, dialoguing and visioning new patterns of intersocietal interaction.

 

----

 

Now that that shpeel is out of the way, I'd like to make a few disclaimers: I understand extinction is very extreme to claim. However, the argument still stands: words have power because power is words. Your entire argument that ad hominem attacks don't refute the message is flat-out wrong; say, for example, if I, ani, told you I would hunt you down and kill you. You'd probably laugh and go back to trolling internet boards. But what if, say, the head of the CIA calls your house and informs you that the agency is going to kill you? Again, the same message, but who is delivering it and the way it is delivered profoundly changes how it is received.


Edited by ani, 24 December 2016 - 11:20 AM.

  • 5

#25 ani

ani

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
28
Good

Posted 24 December 2016 - 11:25 AM

competitive and debate should NEVER be in the same sentence. this is why you're an FUCKING MORON.

 

competition speaks to the SELF-ESTEEM

 

debating is a tool to arrive at the TRUTH.

 

you're already a pathetic faggot coward trying to bolster your ailing self-esteem. nobody respects a scared little girl like you who is afraid of WORDS. this is what i'm trying to teach you tards. i'm trying to teach you both the MEANING of a debate and how to be EFFECTIVE when you debate.

 

and all your faggot coward "guarantees" mean NOTHING when you're hiding behind your mommy's keyboard, unwilling to put your childish views to the real test of public scrutiny during a LIVE DEBATE. 

 

no go cry to your mommy you scared little faggot and keep PRETENDING that you're an intellectual while being too SCARED to PROVE IT. #LOLOLOLOL!

 

kO3Tyf.jpg

Here's the thing: we're not the ones hiding behind keyboards. That's actually you, we are all members of the actual debate community who debate each other face-to-face and are sometimes forced to defend positions like "extinction good." The fact that we cannot find your real name is an indicator of who is hiding behind keyboards.


  • 4

#26 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
550
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 24 December 2016 - 03:15 PM

Here's the thing: we're not the ones hiding behind keyboards. That's actually you, we are all members of the actual debate community who debate each other face-to-face and are sometimes forced to defend positions like "extinction good." The fact that we cannot find your real name is an indicator of who is hiding behind keyboards.


Yeah! What they said! I'm a real person! My name is Ryan Snow! My social security number is... oh hold on nevermind this is a bad idea.
  • 5
If you want your Baudrillard link, you can pry it from my cold, biologically dead hands.

#27 IonlygoforT

IonlygoforT

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
4
Okay

Posted 24 December 2016 - 04:09 PM

This threat is absolutely insane, first of all I don't think you all realize this is a high school/college debate forum in which many of us actually use qualified evidence to attack things like female oppression, secondly your website is the creation of a 12-year-old meninist who has no idea on how to actually debate any topic other than calling anyone that believes in equal rights a girl and a feminist. Honestly, I hope to everything this is bait or I'm going to feel really bad for everyone that is a part of this website's creation


  • 2

#28 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-48
Bad

Posted 24 December 2016 - 05:20 PM

Here's the thing: we're not the ones hiding behind keyboards. That's actually you, we are all members of the actual debate community who debate each other face-to-face and are sometimes forced to defend positions like "extinction good." The fact that we cannot find your real name is an indicator of who is hiding behind keyboards.

Isn't it telling that you SCARED PATHETIC FAGGOTS type soooooooooo tough BEHIND YOUR MOMMY'S KEYBOARD yet you're TOO COWARDLY to make these same fucktard childish claims during a LIVE WEBCAM DEBATE LOLOLOLOL!

 

so who's the one hiding again, YOU SCARED LITTLE FAGGOT???

 

265X3e.jpg


  • -1

#29 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-48
Bad

Posted 24 December 2016 - 05:22 PM

This threat is absolutely insane, first of all I don't think you all realize this is a high school/college debate forum in which many of us actually use qualified evidence to attack things like female oppression, secondly your website is the creation of a 12-year-old meninist who has no idea on how to actually debate any topic other than calling anyone that believes in equal rights a girl and a feminist. Honestly, I hope to everything this is bait or I'm going to feel really bad for everyone that is a part of this website's creation

pretty hardcore for a scared little girl hiding behind mommy's keyboard LOL! dare you to say you're toughguy faggot bullshit during a LIVE WEBCAM DEBATE LOL! 

 

tOsSKF.jpg


  • -1

#30 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
550
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 24 December 2016 - 05:23 PM

If we provoke them long enough they'll run out of manhood posters and we'll claim a glorious victory.
  • 3
If you want your Baudrillard link, you can pry it from my cold, biologically dead hands.

#31 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-48
Bad

Posted 24 December 2016 - 05:25 PM

Coming up with random catchy graphics and having a cool domain (seriously, manhood101, much domain such wow) are good ways to avoid material, substantive debates. For example, you may have noticed that deejay keeps talking about ad hominem, but deejay has offered no reason that the original message is true--rather, he continuously dismisses criticisms as ad hominem attacks as proof that the message is true. Deejay, regardless or not of your personal character, if Hitler had said 1+2=4, he would have been wrong, not because he was a genocidal, psychopathic warlord, but because his math is not correct. I would like to cross-apply IonlygoforT's statement:

You have not offered any proof that you haven't cherry-picked these videos, or hell, even staged them, and additionally, you only show recordings of what appear to be Skype calls. I see no real framework (like Oxford-style debate) for a fair and productive debate. Also, you consistently characterize all people who support equal rights or even human rights as "feminists" and force them to take positions they might not fully appreciate. To take your example:

I'm glad you stumbled upon a policy debate board, because this is exactly what we have kritiks for. You are correct, the math 2 + 7 = 9 holds no matter what modifiers you add to the message, but you're wrong that there are no impacts to those modifiers. I will now argue that the way you present your message engages in a culture of violence, and that will lead to extinction. Here's a watered down version of the Gender Kritik:
 

Your use of the word “fuck” engages in a culture of violence—rethink language and its relation to violence  
Schwyzer 9—community college history and gender studies professor.  DPhil, Berkley (Hugo,  “Penetrate” v. “Engulf” and the multiple meanings of the “f” word: a note on feminist language, 4 November 2009, http://hugoschwyzer....inist-language/, CMR)
 
In every women’s studies class I’ve taught here at PCC, and in manay guest lectures about feminism I’ve given elsewhere, I use the “penetrate” versus “engulf” image to illustrate a basic point about the way in which our language constructs and maintains male aggression and female passivity. Even those who haven’t had heterosexual intercourse can, with only a small degree of imagination required, see how “envelop” might be just as accurate as “enter”. “A woman’s vagina engulfs a man’s penis during intercourse” captures reality as well as “A man’s penis penetrates a woman’s vagina.” Of course, most het folks who have intercourse are well aware that power is fluid; each partner can temporarily assert a more active role (frequently by being on top) — as a result, the language used to describe what’s actually happening could shift. Except, of course, in our sex ed textbooks and elsewhere, that shift never happens. If the goal of sex education is to provide accurate information to young people before they become sexually active, we do a tremendous disservice to both boys and girls through our refusal to use language that honors the reality of women’s sexual agency. We set young women up to be afraid; we set young men up to think of women’s bodies as passive receptacles. While changing our language isn’t a panacea for the problem of sexual violence (and joyless, obligatory intercourse), it’s certainly a promising start. As another part of my introductory lecture on language, I talk about “fuck”. I first dispell the urban legends that it’s an acronym (I’m amazed at how persistent the belief is that the word stands for “for unlawful carnal knowledge” or “fornication under the consent of the king”; I have students every damn year who are convinced the word is derived from one of those two sources.) I then ask at what age young people in English-speaking culture first encounter the word. Most of my students had heard the word by age five or six; many had started using it not long thereafter. I then ask how old they were when they realized that “fuck” has multiple meanings, and that its two most common uses are to describe intercourse and to express rage. There’s a pause at this point. Here’s the problem: long before most kids in our culture become sexually active, the most common slang word in the American idiom has knit together two things in their consciousness: sex and rage. If “fucking” is the most common slang term for intercourse, and “fuck you” or “fuck off” the most common terms to express contempt or rage, what’s the end result? A culture that has difficulty distinguishing sex from violence. In a world where a heartbreakingly high percentage of women will be victims of rape, it’s not implausible to suggest that at least in part, the language itself normalizes sexual violence. I challenge my students. I don’t ask them to give up all the satisfactions of profanity; rather I challenge them to think about words like “fuck” or “screw” and then make a commitment to confine the use of those words to either a description of sex (”We fucked last night”) or to express anger or extreme exasperation (”I’m so fucking furious with you right now!”) but not, not, not, both. Rage and lust are both normal human experiences; we will get angry and we will be sexual (or want to be) over and over again over the course of our lives. But we have a responsibility, I think, to make a clear and bright line between the language of sexual desire and the language of contempt and indignation. Pick one arena of human experience where that most flexible term in the English vernacular will be used, and confine it there. Words matter, I tell my students. We’re told over and over again that “a picture is worth a thousand words” — but we forget that words have the power to paint pictures in our minds of how the world is and how it ought to be. The language we use for sexuality, the words we use for rage and longing — these words construct images in our heads, in our culture, and in our lives. We have an obligation to rethink how we speak as part of building a more pleasurable, safe, just and egalitarian world.
 
Masculine lenses make extinction inevitable--reject your gendered lens—it’s the only way to open up new frameworks of thought 
Clark 4—French Cumbie Professor of Conflict Resolution at George Mason University (Mary E, Rhetoric, Patriarchy & War: Explaining the Dangers of "Leadership" in Mass Culture, Women and Language. Urbana: Fall 2004. Vol. 27, Iss. 2; pg. 21, 8 pgs, ProQuest, AMiles)
 
Today's Western patriarchal world view now dominates globalwide dialogue among the "leaders" of Earth's nearly two hundred nation-states. Its Machiavellian/Realpolitik assumptions about the necessity of' military power to preserve order within and between groups of humans trumps--and stifles--other potential viewpoints. Founded on the belief that "evil" is innate, it dictates that human conflict must be "controlled": global "law" backed by coercive force. This view, when cross-culturally imposed, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, thus "legitimating" an escalating use of force. Western leaders (male and female) use a rhetoric couched in a "hegemonic masculinity" to justify their ready use of military force to coerce "those who are against us" into compliance. This translates globally as "national leaders must never lose facet!" Changing this dominant paradigm requires dismantling the hierarchic hegemony of masculine militarism and its related economic institutions, through global cross-cultural dialogues, thus replacing a hegemonic world view and institutions with new, more adaptive visions, woven out of the most useful remnants of multiple past cultural stories. The paper concludes with a few examples where people around the worm are doing just this--using their own small voices to insert their local "sacred social story" into the global dialogue. This global process--free from a hegemonic militaristic rhetoric--has the potential to initiate a planetary dialogue where "boundaries" are no longer borders to be defended, but sites of social ferment and creative adaptation. When the call came for papers on War, Language, and Gender, referring us to Carol Cohn's seminal paper "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals," (1) I at first felt that little more could be added on the subject. But events in Washington in the ensuing weeks stimulated me to a broader "take" on this topic. Defense intellectuals, after all, are embedded in a whole culture, and the interaction is two-way. Not only does their strategic framework with its euphemistic language about war and killing have the outcome of forcing society to think in their terms; their framework and language developed in response to our deeply embedded, Western cultural image of a Machiavellian / neo-Darwinian universe. In other words, militarism and the necessity for organized physical force (2) emerge out of culturewide assumptions about human nature. Throughout historical times these assumptions have repeatedly proved to be self-fulfilling prophecies. The pervasive perception of enemy-competitors has generated violent conflicts that flared up and died back, only to flare up again through our failure to achieve deep resolution and, especially, to alter our basic beliefs about human nature and our consequent social institutions. Today our species, politically, comprises some 180190 "nations" of varying cultural homogeneity and moral legitimacy, not to mention size and physical power. Regardless of their indigenous, internal cultural preferences, their cross-national interactions are institutionalized to fit a framework long established by former Western colonial powers among themselves. In other words, the global "reality" constructed by Western patriarchies-a Realpolitik, ultimately grounded in military power-has come to define day-to-day cross-national politics. During the era of the Cold War, this resulted in small, powerless nations seeking alliances with one or other superpower, which offered not only development aid but military protection, and, for locally unpopular, but "cooperating" leaders, small arms to maintain order at home. The "end" of the Cold War brought little change in this pervasive global militarism (though it did strengthen the role of economic hegemony by the remaining superpower (3)). The enormous technological "improvements"-i.e. efficiency in killing power-in weaponry of all types over the past few decades has now resulted in a dangerously over-armed planet that simultaneously faces a desperate shortage of resources available for providing the world's people with water, energy, health care, education, and the infrastructure for distributing them. While our environmental and social overheads continue to mount, our species seems immobilized, trapped in an institutionalized militarism-an evolutionary cul-de-sac! We need new insights-as Cohn said, a new language, a new set of metaphors, a new mental framework-for thinking, dialoguing and visioning new patterns of intersocietal interaction.

 

----

 

Now that that shpeel is out of the way, I'd like to make a few disclaimers: I understand extinction is very extreme to claim. However, the argument still stands: words have power because power is words. Your entire argument that ad hominem attacks don't refute the message is flat-out wrong; say, for example, if I, ani, told you I would hunt you down and kill you. You'd probably laugh and go back to trolling internet boards. But what if, say, the head of the CIA calls your house and informs you that the agency is going to kill you? Again, the same message, but who is delivering it and the way it is delivered profoundly changes how it is received.

 

I will gladly embarrass a fucktard like you during a LIVE webcam debate and answer each of these silly claims. Not interested in typing to a scared little girl wetting her panties behind her mommy's keyboard. ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=b0DhxMwyB4Q

 

Let me know when you grow a pair and then we can actually have a REAL DEBATE. 

 

2c3bYX.jpg


Edited by deejay, 24 December 2016 - 05:31 PM.

  • -1

#32 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-48
Bad

Posted 24 December 2016 - 05:26 PM

If we provoke them long enough they'll run out of manhood posters and we'll claim a glorious victory.

 

poor little girl you seem upset #LOL

 

iUsksq.jpg


  • 0

#33 Maury

Maury

    Inventers of the Crimp

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,799 posts
2,328
Excellent
  • Name:JXU

Posted 24 December 2016 - 05:59 PM

Alright, I'll bite. PM me and we can set up a debate or podcast or something. I actually think you have a fair amount of argument here, and if you had a better view of what competitive debate is about you might see some value in our side.
  • 7

Get to know the Digital Debate Camp: www.digitaldebatecamp.com 


#34 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
550
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 24 December 2016 - 06:05 PM

Alright, I'll bite. PM me and we can set up a debate or podcast or something. I actually think you have a fair amount of argument here, and if you had a better view of what competitive debate is about you might see some value in our side.


I'm so pumped to watch this!
  • 1
If you want your Baudrillard link, you can pry it from my cold, biologically dead hands.

#35 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-48
Bad

Posted 24 December 2016 - 06:32 PM

Alright, I'll bite. PM me and we can set up a debate or podcast or something. I actually think you have a fair amount of argument here, and if you had a better view of what competitive debate is about you might see some value in our side.

 

Sent!

 

Also the qualifier of "competitive" in front of debate is just one of the reasons why the skill of argumentation is so poorly taught in academic settings today. We'll be sure to cover that during the debate as well. It's part of the reason why so many kids on this forum are frightened of their own shadow when it comes to defending their views.


  • 0

#36 ani

ani

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
28
Good

Posted 24 December 2016 - 07:37 PM

I will gladly embarrass a fucktard like you during a LIVE webcam debate and answer each of these silly claims. Not interested in typing to a scared little girl wetting her panties behind her mommy's keyboard. ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=b0DhxMwyB4Q

 

Let me know when you grow a pair and then we can actually have a REAL DEBATE. 

 

2c3bYX.jpg

First of all, this is classic; try to avoid the claims I make by offering a LIVE webcam debate (like that changes anything) and posting a cute graphic. I'd like to remind you that I made legitimate arguments, and the way you responded to them (or didn't) makes me think you didn't read them. Your graphic makes it seem like long answers are bad, so I must ask, why the hell are you exploring deep topics if you're scared of long answers? Let me spell out all of the arguments I made so you don't have to read all that and make an intelligent reply:

1. You make random posters that make you look official but really only showcase how bad your arguments are.

2. You don't make arguments; rather, you try to characterize everything and apply a catchy poster.

3. You don't answer arguments, presumably because you can't be bothered to read replies and instead classify them are useless.

4. Your logic applies to yourself; you are a keyboard warrior. Let me remind you that WE ARE NOT ANONYMOUS PEOPLE HIDING BEHIND KEYBOARDS. That's fucking you. I 100% agree with everything you say about people who hide behind keyboards to make shitty arguments with "ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY." Now you have to prove that's us and not you.

5. It's not a fallacy in your logic (which exists, and is very prominent) that we criticize; it's how you deliver it. See your above examples about 2 + 5 = 7, and how I explain that the modifiers definitely impact the message.

6. Your online debates are pointless; you have no framework, such as Oxford style debate, you have no motion, nothing to prepare for; you're just like "WANNA GO LET'S GO DOWN BOI," rather than, "I'd like to explain to you why you are wrong and why my way of thinking is superior, through the use of reasoned and logical debate."

7. TheSnowball is right: "If we provoke them long enough they'll run out of manhood posters and we'll claim a glorious victory."

 

Resorting to a live video chat with my criticisms above proves you're too scared to answer my God damned arguments, and instead resort to... you guessed it... ad hominem attacks... the same ones you criticized earlier.

 

Check and fucking mate, bitch.


  • 2

#37 ani

ani

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
28
Good

Posted 24 December 2016 - 07:40 PM

Sent!

 

Also the qualifier of "competitive" in front of debate is just one of the reasons why the skill of argumentation is so poorly taught in academic settings today. We'll be sure to cover that during the debate as well. It's part of the reason why so many kids on this forum are frightened of their own shadow when it comes to defending their views.

Competitive debate incentivizes research, intellectual discussion, and makes it fun. The alternative is boring and offers no emotional reason to participate; sure, we can have uncompetitive debates, but that means there's no human reason (pleasure, pain) to participate. We are more prepared to defend our views than you are, seeing as you haven't answered any of my criticisms.


  • 0

#38 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-48
Bad

Posted 24 December 2016 - 07:58 PM

First of all, this is classic; try to avoid the claims I make by offering a LIVE webcam debate (like that changes anything) and posting a cute graphic. I'd like to remind you that I made legitimate arguments, and the way you responded to them (or didn't) makes me think you didn't read them. Your graphic makes it seem like long answers are bad, so I must ask, why the hell are you exploring deep topics if you're scared of long answers? Let me spell out all of the arguments I made so you don't have to read all that and make an intelligent reply:

1. You make random posters that make you look official but really only showcase how bad your arguments are.

2. You don't make arguments; rather, you try to characterize everything and apply a catchy poster.

3. You don't answer arguments, presumably because you can't be bothered to read replies and instead classify them are useless.

4. Your logic applies to yourself; you are a keyboard warrior. Let me remind you that WE ARE NOT ANONYMOUS PEOPLE HIDING BEHIND KEYBOARDS. That's fucking you. I 100% agree with everything you say about people who hide behind keyboards to make shitty arguments with "ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY." Now you have to prove that's us and not you.

5. It's not a fallacy in your logic (which exists, and is very prominent) that we criticize; it's how you deliver it. See your above examples about 2 + 5 = 7, and how I explain that the modifiers definitely impact the message.

6. Your online debates are pointless; you have no framework, such as Oxford style debate, you have no motion, nothing to prepare for; you're just like "WANNA GO LET'S GO DOWN BOI," rather than, "I'd like to explain to you why you are wrong and why my way of thinking is superior, through the use of reasoned and logical debate."

7. TheSnowball is right: "If we provoke them long enough they'll run out of manhood posters and we'll claim a glorious victory."

 

Resorting to a live video chat with my criticisms above proves you're too scared to answer my God damned arguments, and instead resort to... you guessed it... ad hominem attacks... the same ones you criticized earlier.

 

Check and fucking mate, bitch.

 

I'M PRETTY SURE I'M THE ONE WHO CALLED YOU OUT SCARED LITTLE FAGGOT COWARD HAHAHAHAHAH!

 

MNPJY7.jpg

 

1pFdlO.jpg


  • 0

#39 ani

ani

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
28
Good

Posted 24 December 2016 - 08:00 PM

I'M PRETTY SURE I'M THE ONE WHO CALLED YOU OUT SCARED LITTLE FAGGOT COWARD HAHAHAHAHAH!

 

MNPJY7.jpg

 

1pFdlO.jpg

I'm pretty sure I'm the one who explained how you were really describing yourself. Also, pretty sure I just called you a bitch. Do I get a cookie too?

 

You're still to fucking scared to grow a pear and defend your fucking views.

 

For sane people: The only way to communicate with these people is through excessive language. Please excuse my use thereof.


Edited by ani, 24 December 2016 - 08:01 PM.

  • 0

#40 ani

ani

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
28
Good

Posted 24 December 2016 - 08:02 PM

If we provoke them long enough they'll run out of manhood posters and we'll claim a glorious victory.

I'm starting to think they have an archive of these posters somewhere in the cloud with a petabyte of raw uselessness.


  • 1





Similar Topics Collapse


Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: debate camp

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users