Jump to content

Greg45865734

Member Since 03 Feb 2016
Offline Last Active Feb 22 2018 10:16 PM
-----

#940124 Updated Title: Would any of you fine debaters on this website like to debate?

Posted by Greg45865734 on 06 September 2017 - 02:43 PM

okay genius i’m obviously not going to read timecube? however, taking the activity too seriously isn’t going to help you much lol, nor will it help others. Also you automatically asumed i’m going to fuck around? not cool lol. Also what is your rant about the neg block in the **beginning**??? don’t see how that matters. your arguement doesn’t make much sense, i would have prefaced my post with “if you want a fuck fuck round debate me” It just seems like you got triggered for no reason, take a chill pill pal, its a joke.... also you read the sex ed aff

edit: spelling

 

Oh I see now, it was both just a joke and I was wrong to assume you wouldn't take it serious. I apologize.


  • 0


#940115 Updated Title: Would any of you fine debaters on this website like to debate?

Posted by Greg45865734 on 05 September 2017 - 09:46 PM

the thing is that the people who took me seriously, take this activity, and this site much too seriously... any debate round on here obviously has some educational value, but taking it too seriously destorys the fun.... this isn’t the toc pal

Speak for yourself.

 

My idea of fun isn't putting effort in a debate for my opponent to never make it past the Neg block. I enjoy debate, it's fun. One person fucking around while the other person is trying to debate isn't fun, and that's not cause I'm taking it too seriously.


  • 2


#940096 Updated Title: Would any of you fine debaters on this website like to debate?

Posted by Greg45865734 on 04 September 2017 - 07:24 PM

When you post something like this it doesn't exactly scream "I'm looking for a debate that I will take seriously"


  • 0


#940053 Anti-Blackness performance and the N-word

Posted by Greg45865734 on 02 September 2017 - 12:54 PM

can i ask why ur reading Ab if neither of yall are of african american orrigin?

 

I'm gonna paraphrase Wilderson on this one, in his AMA he said he finds nothing wrong with non-blacks reading his critique if their motives are to genuinely understand that paradigm of blackness for the purpose of deconstructing it and their own paradigm of whiteness,


  • 1


#940052 Anti-Blackness performance and the N-word

Posted by Greg45865734 on 02 September 2017 - 12:38 PM

For some clarity we weren't planning on saying the word but playing the song on a speaker, this is because neither me and my partner would be at all comfortable saying the n word.

 

Regardless, the point was well taken and I don't plan on doing this.


  • 1


#926255 Benefits of Debate?

Posted by Greg45865734 on 07 March 2016 - 01:42 PM

Honestly, as much as people like to slam critical debate I have to agree with DonaldTrump. As fun as postmodernism is to make heads spin in debate, I found the true value of this crap when I wrote an essay on Jane Eyre from a Nietzschean perspective. In all seriousness though, this stuff is super fun.

"I have to agree with Donald Trump" - Daudrizzle march 2nd 2016


  • 0


#925911 new aff

Posted by Greg45865734 on 27 February 2016 - 08:15 PM

On race: I don't think it makes sense to try to claim an extinction impact on racism when in reality you aren't solving for all of racism. What makes more sense would be to argue that racism is unethical and we need to reduce it to the smallest amount we can and the aff would help


  • 1


#925809 Topicality with Kritikal Affs

Posted by Greg45865734 on 24 February 2016 - 09:41 PM

Here's a few good cards I read 

Fairness and predictability is bad. Unfairness forces adaptation – most real world education skill debate can offer because in the real world you will have to adapt because you won’t be able to demand fairness

Branson, 2007-  (Josh, edebate, http://www.ndtceda.c...May/071122.html, 5/31)

People‘s obsession with ―fairness or ―competitive equity is misguided. One of the most valuable things about debate is adapting to unfair circumstances. If the neg runs conditional CPs, get better and deal with it. If the aff doesn‘t specify their agent, figure out something else besides your same old agent CP. This is what the policy world is like; you‘ve got to react and deal with tough situations. Do I think it‘s fair that it‘s hard to get published without a graduate degree or personal connections? Not really. Are most people in the policy community open-minded and unbiased? Nope. Policymaking is about dealing with unfair and difficult situations, and sometimes debate can be the same way. Looking back, for me a lot of the most intellectually invigorating parts of debate were also the hardest and most ―unfair. It was unfair that Klinger was so fast and clear, it was unfair that MSU at times read short shitty unpredictable evidence, it was unfair that Fullerton didn‘t have a plan and was able to emotionally intimidate judges, it was unfair that a lot of people resented me because I wanted to win and didn‘t exert much effort socializing at tournaments, it was unfair that some judges were biased and we had to adapt our arguments, and it was unfair that Emory had more card cutters on their team than we did. I‘m sure a lot of people feel similar or worse things about debating against Northwestern. But adapting to this stuff is part of life, and certainly part of the policy world. But in debate we certainly cry foul a lot. Maybe too much.

 

 

Focusing only on political actions allows us to ignore our own responsibilities to social movements. The method of the 1AC is better

Kappeler, 95  (Susanne, professor of humanities and social sciences at Al Akhawayan University and lecturer at the University of east Anglia, The Will to Violence, p. 10-11)

`We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society - which would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says, upholding the notion of `collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions, and where the conception of universal responsibility becomes the equival­ent of a universal acquittal.' On the contrary, the object is precisely to analyse the specific and differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse situations. Decisions to unleash a war are indeed taken at particular levels of power by those in a position to make them and to command such collective action. We need to hold them clearly responsible for their decisions and actions without lessening theirs by any collective `assumption' of responsibility. Yet our habit of focusing on the stage where the major dramas of power take place tends to obscure our sight in relation to our own sphere of competence, our own power and our own responsibility - leading to the well-known illusion of our apparent `powerlessness’ and its accompanying phe­nomenon, our so-called political disillusionment. Single citizens - even more so those of other nations - have come to feel secure in their obvious non-responsibility for such large-scale political events as, say, the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina or Somalia - since the decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet our insight that indeed we are not responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgement, and thus into underrating the respons­ibility we do have within our own sphere of action. In particular, it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between our own actions and those events, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls `organized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally and also individually or­ganized separate competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major powermongers: For we tend to think that we cannot `do' anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation; because we are not where the major decisions are made. Which is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of `What would I do if I were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defence?' Since we seem to regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends to peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as `virtually no possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like `I want to stop this war', `I want military intervention', `I want to stop this backlash', or `I want a moral revolution." 'We are this war', however, even if we do not command the troops or participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our `non-comprehension’: our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the advantages these offer. And we `are' the war in our `unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the `fact that you have a yellow form for refugees and I don't' - our readiness, in other words, to build ident­ities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of our own and one for the `others'. We share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape `our feelings, our relationships, our values' according to the structures and the values of war and violence.

 

 

Innovation is a prerequisite to change – limits on a topic restrict the ability to create new solutions and theories

Bleiker, professor of International Relations, and Leet, Senior Research Officer with the Brisbane Institute 6 (Roland, and Martin, “From the Sublime to the Subliminal: Fear, Awe and Wonder in International Politics” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 34(3), pg. 733)

A subliminal orientation is attentive to what is bubbling along under the surface. It is mindful of how conscious attempts to understand conceal more than they reveal, and purposeful efforts of progressive change may engender more violence than they erase. For these reasons, Connolly emphasises that ‘ethical artistry’ has an element of naïveté and innocence. One is not quite sure what one is doing. Such naïveté need not lead us back to the idealism of the romantic period. ‘One should not be naïve about naïveté’, Simon Critchley would say.56Rather, the challenge of change is an experiment. It is not locked up in a predetermined conception of where one is going. It involves tentatively exploring the limits of one’s being in the world, to see if different interpretations are possible, how those interpretations might impact upon the affects below the level of conscious thought, and vice versa. This approach entails drawing upon multiple levels of thinking and being, searching for changes in sensibilities that could give more weight to minor feelings or to arguments that were previously ignored.57 Wonder needs to be at the heart of such experiments, in contrast to the resentment of an intellect angry with its own limitations. The ingredient of wonder is necessary to disrupt and suspend the normal pressures of returning to conscious habit and control. This exploration beyond the conscious implies the need for an ethos of theorising and acting that is quite different from the mode directed towards the cognitive justification of ideas and concepts. Stephen White talks about ‘circuits of reflection, affect and argumentation ’ .58Ideas and principles provide an orientation to practice, the implications of that practice feed back into our affective outlook, and processes of argumentation introduce other ideas and affects. The shift, here, is from the ‘vertical’ search for foundations in ‘skyhooks’ above or ‘foundations’ below, to a ‘horizontal’ movement into the unknown.


  • 3


#925807 what lit should I read for better understanding on K's

Posted by Greg45865734 on 24 February 2016 - 09:38 PM

Here's a pretty simple one to get you started: A thousand Plateaus - Delueze and Guattari 


  • 3