Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Lincoln Douglas Debate

Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 3:24:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I was wondering if there are any other Lincoln Douglas debaters (High school) on DDO. If so I am always interested in networking, send me a friends request with a description indicating you are doing or did LD debate!
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 5:20:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Thett would fight you for saying that
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 6:10:45 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 5:20:54 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Thett would fight you for saying that

i will fight u too!

public forum is by all means superior!
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 9:35:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 6:10:45 PM, debatability wrote:
At 12/25/2015 5:20:54 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Thett would fight you for saying that

i will fight u too!

public forum is by all means superior!

It's adorable that you think that :)
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 5:11:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Can someone explain how parliamentary differs from the other formats?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 5:46:01 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 5:11:42 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Can someone explain how parliamentary differs from the other formats?

'Parliamentary' formats cover a wide range of debate types. Just because it is called Parliamentary doesn't mean it has a similar style to other parliamentaries. LD format is more similar to British Parliamentary than Asian is to BP for example.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 3:06:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 5:20:54 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Thett would fight you for saying that

What does Thett use? lol
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 3:07:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 5:11:42 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Can someone explain how parliamentary differs from the other formats?

LD as previously discussed is more strict in its format. It is supposed to be a value debate (although some new kids on the national circuit are introducing other BS like Kritik's and Progressive). LD is supposed to have a value that represents the highest form of morality that can be achieved in the round, followed by a criterion that measures said value, and contentions supporting the value and how you uphold it.
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 7:19:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 3:07:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 5:11:42 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Can someone explain how parliamentary differs from the other formats?

LD as previously discussed is more strict in its format. It is supposed to be a value debate (although some new kids on the national circuit are introducing other BS like Kritik's and Progressive). LD is supposed to have a value that represents the highest form of morality that can be achieved in the round, followed by a criterion that measures said value, and contentions supporting the value and how you uphold it.

kritiks are not BS. Having critical thought of power structures and underlying assumptions is a powerful tool in assessing the world. People hate K's because they suck at debating against them.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 8:20:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 3:06:00 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/25/2015 5:20:54 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Thett would fight you for saying that

What does Thett use? lol

PF. And if you think Ks are BS then we'll get along reeeaaaalll well.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 8:26:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 7:19:33 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:07:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 5:11:42 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Can someone explain how parliamentary differs from the other formats?

LD as previously discussed is more strict in its format. It is supposed to be a value debate (although some new kids on the national circuit are introducing other BS like Kritik's and Progressive). LD is supposed to have a value that represents the highest form of morality that can be achieved in the round, followed by a criterion that measures said value, and contentions supporting the value and how you uphold it.

kritiks are not BS. Having critical thought of power structures and underlying assumptions is a powerful tool in assessing the world. People hate K's because they suck at debating against them.

Kritiks are outside the scope of the debate.
Nolite Timere
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 9:44:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 8:26:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 12/26/2015 7:19:33 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:07:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 5:11:42 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Can someone explain how parliamentary differs from the other formats?

LD as previously discussed is more strict in its format. It is supposed to be a value debate (although some new kids on the national circuit are introducing other BS like Kritik's and Progressive). LD is supposed to have a value that represents the highest form of morality that can be achieved in the round, followed by a criterion that measures said value, and contentions supporting the value and how you uphold it.

kritiks are not BS. Having critical thought of power structures and underlying assumptions is a powerful tool in assessing the world. People hate K's because they suck at debating against them.

Kritiks are outside the scope of the debate.

If this were true then the case the K is kritiking must necessarily be outside of the scope of the debate as well
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 11:17:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 8:26:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Kritiks are outside the scope of the debate.

Lol what.

There's a collegiate debater that gives this example. Suppose we are debating whether or not we should pass a law that makes slave owners not have the legal right to physically attack a slave unless they have to, to protect their life.
Well, I don't think the neg has much ground ... well, if they have access to kritiks they do have room. They can say that the system that the affirmative is operating in [slavery] is inherently flawed ... even if all of his [the affirmative's] impacts are true, they can't be outweighed by the institution of slavery and capitalist ideology.

Hating kritiks is to hate thought that goes against the SQ and attacks fundamental assumptions or systems that are inherently flawed. Debating the merits of capitalism may detract from the resolution, for sure, but it is an important thing to consider when we think if an action is good or bad.

Resolved: the United States ought to have bailed out big banks during the Great Recession. Well, we need to think if the big banks are worthy of existing before we can consider if they are worth being bailed out for. If they aren't worth existing, then why do we have a moral obligation to act in their interests? So, we have to access the kritik that banks and capitalism shouldn't exist, before we can talk about the specificity of the arguments.

Further, kritiks are actually designed to be 'non-unique', as they originate in CX debate, that's the appeal of a lot of them. Instead of giving a unique DA to a plan, you can give this non-unique critique of the systems that are in place, and you can actively make a change in thought of people.

Finally, kritiks allow us to cite the most dangerous philosopher in the West on a normal basis (at least in capitalism kritiks) - the Giant of Ljubljana - the 1990 Candidate for Slovenian President - the man that has no nostalgia for the USSR yet is a communist - Slavoj Zizek!
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 3:27:16 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 8:20:28 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:06:00 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/25/2015 5:20:54 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Thett would fight you for saying that

What does Thett use? lol

PF. And if you think Ks are BS then we'll get along reeeaaaalll well.

PF=my sources>then yours
LD=my logic and arguments>then yours

and good because they are :P. Do you LD irl?
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 3:28:50 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 9:44:52 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/26/2015 8:26:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 12/26/2015 7:19:33 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:07:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 5:11:42 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Can someone explain how parliamentary differs from the other formats?

LD as previously discussed is more strict in its format. It is supposed to be a value debate (although some new kids on the national circuit are introducing other BS like Kritik's and Progressive). LD is supposed to have a value that represents the highest form of morality that can be achieved in the round, followed by a criterion that measures said value, and contentions supporting the value and how you uphold it.

kritiks are not BS. Having critical thought of power structures and underlying assumptions is a powerful tool in assessing the world. People hate K's because they suck at debating against them.

Kritiks are outside the scope of the debate.

If this were true then the case the K is kritiking must necessarily be outside of the scope of the debate as well

More often than not a K critiques the resolution itself whether than affirming or negating it which makes it in and of itself outside the scope of the resolution.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 3:32:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 9:44:52 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/26/2015 8:26:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 12/26/2015 7:19:33 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:07:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 5:11:42 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Can someone explain how parliamentary differs from the other formats?

LD as previously discussed is more strict in its format. It is supposed to be a value debate (although some new kids on the national circuit are introducing other BS like Kritik's and Progressive). LD is supposed to have a value that represents the highest form of morality that can be achieved in the round, followed by a criterion that measures said value, and contentions supporting the value and how you uphold it.

kritiks are not BS. Having critical thought of power structures and underlying assumptions is a powerful tool in assessing the world. People hate K's because they suck at debating against them.

Kritiks are outside the scope of the debate.

If this were true then the case the K is kritiking must necessarily be outside of the scope of the debate as well

Plus K's are almost always abusive in the sense that they don't work within the parameters set out by the resolution that are implied, an example being a Cap K one of my friends wants to pull on the aff for the Jan-Feb resolution where they critique capitalism and private property in and of itself to affirm the resolution (Resolved: In the United States, Private Ownership of Handguns ought to be banned) even though it is assumed in the US we are working in the parameters of a private property system and the debate and subsequent arguments should be laid out in such a way that they work within said parameters, otherwise you are forcing your opponent to defend the resolution itself whether than their position on it.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 3:36:49 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 11:17:32 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/26/2015 8:26:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Kritiks are outside the scope of the debate.

Lol what.

There's a collegiate debater that gives this example. Suppose we are debating whether or not we should pass a law that makes slave owners not have the legal right to physically attack a slave unless they have to, to protect their life.
Well, I don't think the neg has much ground ... well, if they have access to kritiks they do have room. They can say that the system that the affirmative is operating in [slavery] is inherently flawed ... even if all of his [the affirmative's] impacts are true, they can't be outweighed by the institution of slavery and capitalist ideology.

Hating kritiks is to hate thought that goes against the SQ and attacks fundamental assumptions or systems that are inherently flawed. Debating the merits of capitalism may detract from the resolution, for sure, but it is an important thing to consider when we think if an action is good or bad.

Resolved: the United States ought to have bailed out big banks during the Great Recession. Well, we need to think if the big banks are worthy of existing before we can consider if they are worth being bailed out for. If they aren't worth existing, then why do we have a moral obligation to act in their interests? So, we have to access the kritik that banks and capitalism shouldn't exist, before we can talk about the specificity of the arguments.

Further, kritiks are actually designed to be 'non-unique', as they originate in CX debate, that's the appeal of a lot of them. Instead of giving a unique DA to a plan, you can give this non-unique critique of the systems that are in place, and you can actively make a change in thought of people.

Finally, kritiks allow us to cite the most dangerous philosopher in the West on a normal basis (at least in capitalism kritiks) - the Giant of Ljubljana - the 1990 Candidate for Slovenian President - the man that has no nostalgia for the USSR yet is a communist - Slavoj Zizek!

The issue is their abusiveness as described below, if the resolution implies you are operating within certain parameters (whether it be capitalism, slavery, etc.) then you work within those parameters to make an argument. If you attack the resolution you aren't inherently affirming or negating it, you are only doing it (possibly) by extension of your broader argument. Look to the example I gave below (an actual K someone wants to use) where they would be forcing their opponent to defend the concept of private property in and of itself whether than the merits of private ownership of handguns. It detracts from the resolution and the issue at hand and creates an abusive environment.
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 4:17:52 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 3:32:58 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 9:44:52 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/26/2015 8:26:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 12/26/2015 7:19:33 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:07:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 5:11:42 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Can someone explain how parliamentary differs from the other formats?

LD as previously discussed is more strict in its format. It is supposed to be a value debate (although some new kids on the national circuit are introducing other BS like Kritik's and Progressive). LD is supposed to have a value that represents the highest form of morality that can be achieved in the round, followed by a criterion that measures said value, and contentions supporting the value and how you uphold it.

kritiks are not BS. Having critical thought of power structures and underlying assumptions is a powerful tool in assessing the world. People hate K's because they suck at debating against them.

Kritiks are outside the scope of the debate.

If this were true then the case the K is kritiking must necessarily be outside of the scope of the debate as well

Plus K's are almost always abusive in the sense that they don't work within the parameters set out by the resolution that are implied, an example being a Cap K one of my friends wants to pull on the aff for the Jan-Feb resolution where they critique capitalism and private property in and of itself to affirm the resolution (Resolved: In the United States, Private Ownership of Handguns ought to be banned) even though it is assumed in the US we are working in the parameters of a private property system and the debate and subsequent arguments should be laid out in such a way that they work within said parameters, otherwise you are forcing your opponent to defend the resolution itself whether than their position on it.

You can't really kritik on the aff ;) there's no alternative ;) ;) ;)

Plus it's easy to kick.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 4:30:34 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 4:17:52 AM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/27/2015 3:32:58 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 9:44:52 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/26/2015 8:26:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 12/26/2015 7:19:33 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:07:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 5:11:42 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Can someone explain how parliamentary differs from the other formats?

LD as previously discussed is more strict in its format. It is supposed to be a value debate (although some new kids on the national circuit are introducing other BS like Kritik's and Progressive). LD is supposed to have a value that represents the highest form of morality that can be achieved in the round, followed by a criterion that measures said value, and contentions supporting the value and how you uphold it.

kritiks are not BS. Having critical thought of power structures and underlying assumptions is a powerful tool in assessing the world. People hate K's because they suck at debating against them.

Kritiks are outside the scope of the debate.

If this were true then the case the K is kritiking must necessarily be outside of the scope of the debate as well

Plus K's are almost always abusive in the sense that they don't work within the parameters set out by the resolution that are implied, an example being a Cap K one of my friends wants to pull on the aff for the Jan-Feb resolution where they critique capitalism and private property in and of itself to affirm the resolution (Resolved: In the United States, Private Ownership of Handguns ought to be banned) even though it is assumed in the US we are working in the parameters of a private property system and the debate and subsequent arguments should be laid out in such a way that they work within said parameters, otherwise you are forcing your opponent to defend the resolution itself whether than their position on it.

You can't really kritik on the aff ;) there's no alternative ;) ;) ;)

People can run a kritikal aff, its just less common than the neg.
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 4:35:37 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 4:30:34 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/27/2015 4:17:52 AM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/27/2015 3:32:58 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 9:44:52 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/26/2015 8:26:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 12/26/2015 7:19:33 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:07:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 5:11:42 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Can someone explain how parliamentary differs from the other formats?

LD as previously discussed is more strict in its format. It is supposed to be a value debate (although some new kids on the national circuit are introducing other BS like Kritik's and Progressive). LD is supposed to have a value that represents the highest form of morality that can be achieved in the round, followed by a criterion that measures said value, and contentions supporting the value and how you uphold it.

kritiks are not BS. Having critical thought of power structures and underlying assumptions is a powerful tool in assessing the world. People hate K's because they suck at debating against them.

Kritiks are outside the scope of the debate.

If this were true then the case the K is kritiking must necessarily be outside of the scope of the debate as well

Plus K's are almost always abusive in the sense that they don't work within the parameters set out by the resolution that are implied, an example being a Cap K one of my friends wants to pull on the aff for the Jan-Feb resolution where they critique capitalism and private property in and of itself to affirm the resolution (Resolved: In the United States, Private Ownership of Handguns ought to be banned) even though it is assumed in the US we are working in the parameters of a private property system and the debate and subsequent arguments should be laid out in such a way that they work within said parameters, otherwise you are forcing your opponent to defend the resolution itself whether than their position on it.

You can't really kritik on the aff ;) there's no alternative ;) ;) ;)

People can run a kritikal aff, its just less common than the neg.

Kritikal literature/focused arguments =/= Kritik ;)
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 4:44:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 4:35:37 AM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/27/2015 4:30:34 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/27/2015 4:17:52 AM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/27/2015 3:32:58 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 9:44:52 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/26/2015 8:26:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 12/26/2015 7:19:33 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:07:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/26/2015 5:11:42 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Can someone explain how parliamentary differs from the other formats?

LD as previously discussed is more strict in its format. It is supposed to be a value debate (although some new kids on the national circuit are introducing other BS like Kritik's and Progressive). LD is supposed to have a value that represents the highest form of morality that can be achieved in the round, followed by a criterion that measures said value, and contentions supporting the value and how you uphold it.

kritiks are not BS. Having critical thought of power structures and underlying assumptions is a powerful tool in assessing the world. People hate K's because they suck at debating against them.

Kritiks are outside the scope of the debate.

If this were true then the case the K is kritiking must necessarily be outside of the scope of the debate as well

Plus K's are almost always abusive in the sense that they don't work within the parameters set out by the resolution that are implied, an example being a Cap K one of my friends wants to pull on the aff for the Jan-Feb resolution where they critique capitalism and private property in and of itself to affirm the resolution (Resolved: In the United States, Private Ownership of Handguns ought to be banned) even though it is assumed in the US we are working in the parameters of a private property system and the debate and subsequent arguments should be laid out in such a way that they work within said parameters, otherwise you are forcing your opponent to defend the resolution itself whether than their position on it.

You can't really kritik on the aff ;) there's no alternative ;) ;) ;)

People can run a kritikal aff, its just less common than the neg.

Kritikal literature/focused arguments =/= Kritik ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 5:18:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 3:36:49 AM, Objectivity wrote:

The issue is their abusiveness as described below, if the resolution implies you are operating within certain parameters (whether it be capitalism, slavery, etc.) then you work within those parameters to make an argument. If you attack the resolution you aren't inherently affirming or negating it, you are only doing it (possibly) by extension of your broader argument. Look to the example I gave below (an actual K someone wants to use) where they would be forcing their opponent to defend the concept of private property in and of itself whether than the merits of private ownership of handguns. It detracts from the resolution and the issue at hand and creates an abusive environment.

I'll go ahead and give you a brief background of my highschool debating.

I was taught by a debater known for singlehandedly making the smallish school I attended to nationally competitive. He did so not only because he was f*cking good, but he was also fond of running really kritikal lit and a lot of really good, really nasty Ks. He qual'd for the TOC his senior year.

I spent my three years debating the local and state circuit (I wasn't anywhere near as good as he was), and I was fond of running Ks revolving around the lit of people like Nietzsche. I had a fair amount of success. On here I'm known as one of the few people who actually know how to correctly run a K, and probably the only person who is actually willing to do so in the environment that is very much anti-K.

With that being said, here's the problems with your above points:

The first point I want to make is that not all Ks are attacking the resolution. If anything they're the weaker side of Ks because those are the easiest to prep out and be able to answer (Cap Ks don't really change much, even if the resolutions themselves change). Hating Cap Ks because they're abusive is like crying about how people bringing up stats about gun legislation is abusive -- it's stupidly easy to prep for, so it's your fault for not really being prepared to actually talk about it.

Moreover, resolutional Ks do actually negate the resolution. Take last year's Jan/Feb topic (the one about a living wage). If my argument is that implementing a living wage is an extension of capitalism and give all the usual impacts about why capitalism is god-awful and how we ought to reject cap in every instance that we can, the necessary conclusion to be drawn from this don't implement a living wage because we need to be rejecting cap. That's a normative conclusion that we can draw from the K and apply it back to the resolution to negate, much like I would draw a conclusion from your contentions and value/criterion framework and use that to affirm. Properly crafted resolutional Ks *do* actually negate the resolution.

And furthermore, insofar as the negative is either disproving the resolution or showing that the resolution can't be evaluated normatively, it's stupidly easy for the negative to win. Presumption arguments are much easier for neg to make.

And even if nothing of the above is actually true, your reasoning for why it detracts from the debate and creates an abusive environment are entirely unfounded. Ks are just arguments, made of claims and warrants and impacts just like any traditional LD case. There's nothing inherently more "abusive" about them. And how does forcing people to consider alternative viewpoints and come up with ways to defend their arguments from kritikal positions detract from the debate? If anything not running Ks would be more detrimental because standard traditional positions will always be more limited than kritikal positions. There's infinitely more kritikal positions that can be made, thus allowing for more things to learn about and more things and more different things to discuss within each debate round.

But secondly, aff-specific Ks are much stronger than resolutional Ks for a lot of different reasons: a) they're much more diverse and dependent on what the aff runs for their case, thus making them harder to prep out, and b) specifically crafted to deal with a specific kind of aff, making the link stories for how they apply to the debate less sketchy and a lot stronger.

But even these kinds of Ks are still fair. All Ks have the same basic structure and the same basic structural weaknesses. It's not hard to understand that if you perm a Ks alt, you're winning on the K debate. Or if you winning on no links on the K, then the K doesn't matter. And this is all without even getting into the actual substance of the different Ks and addressing the impacts. This is all just examining your arguments and seeing how they apply to the K. This should be stuff you don't even need to take prep to do (unless the K is really just convoluted to hell, in which case the necessary response of "this K doesn't make any sense" should be painfully obvious).

What annoys me the most is about all the people who complain about how Ks are unfair, yet don't take the time to actually learn how they work. I use to think the same way until I was taught about how Ks actually work and started working with them more myself.

One thing I would suspect, and I know is true of myself in a lot of situations, is that a lot of times people run Ks not because they're the most strategic or best suited argument to make in the specific round they're in, but they know that if they run it their opponent won't know how to respond and it'll be an easy win. 90% of the Ks I've run on here fit this description. There's very few people on this site I'd say actually understand how kritiks work well enough to be able to easily deal with one in a round.

Unless the most strategic argument to make would be running a K, I would never run a K against someone like whiteflame or bluesteel. Why? Because I know that they're familiar enough with how Ks are structured and a lot of the lit surrounding kritikal arguments that if I'm just running one for the sh*ts and giggles, that they'll take a fat dump on me and I'll lose.

So as a general PSA to anyone: Do you wanna see less Ks? Learn how they work and how to actually deal with one in a debate round. Then start stomping on every K that you see. Show people who are looking at how you debate that you can handle kritikal arguments and that if they want to run one on you, that they better be ready for a hard debate. You'll encounter a lot less Ks.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 5:18:47 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
And yes, kritikal affs are a thing. The alt usually revolves around the lines of "affirm and do x".
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 5:24:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 5:18:10 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/27/2015 3:36:49 AM, Objectivity wrote:

The issue is their abusiveness as described below, if the resolution implies you are operating within certain parameters (whether it be capitalism, slavery, etc.) then you work within those parameters to make an argument. If you attack the resolution you aren't inherently affirming or negating it, you are only doing it (possibly) by extension of your broader argument. Look to the example I gave below (an actual K someone wants to use) where they would be forcing their opponent to defend the concept of private property in and of itself whether than the merits of private ownership of handguns. It detracts from the resolution and the issue at hand and creates an abusive environment.

I'll go ahead and give you a brief background of my highschool debating.

I was taught by a debater known for singlehandedly making the smallish school I attended to nationally competitive. He did so not only because he was f*cking good, but he was also fond of running really kritikal lit and a lot of really good, really nasty Ks. He qual'd for the TOC his senior year.

I spent my three years debating the local and state circuit (I wasn't anywhere near as good as he was), and I was fond of running Ks revolving around the lit of people like Nietzsche. I had a fair amount of success. On here I'm known as one of the few people who actually know how to correctly run a K, and probably the only person who is actually willing to do so in the environment that is very much anti-K.

With that being said, here's the problems with your above points:

The first point I want to make is that not all Ks are attacking the resolution. If anything they're the weaker side of Ks because those are the easiest to prep out and be able to answer (Cap Ks don't really change much, even if the resolutions themselves change). Hating Cap Ks because they're abusive is like crying about how people bringing up stats about gun legislation is abusive -- it's stupidly easy to prep for, so it's your fault for not really being prepared to actually talk about it.

Moreover, resolutional Ks do actually negate the resolution. Take last year's Jan/Feb topic (the one about a living wage). If my argument is that implementing a living wage is an extension of capitalism and give all the usual impacts about why capitalism is god-awful and how we ought to reject cap in every instance that we can, the necessary conclusion to be drawn from this don't implement a living wage because we need to be rejecting cap. That's a normative conclusion that we can draw from the K and apply it back to the resolution to negate, much like I would draw a conclusion from your contentions and value/criterion framework and use that to affirm. Properly crafted resolutional Ks *do* actually negate the resolution.

And furthermore, insofar as the negative is either disproving the resolution or showing that the resolution can't be evaluated normatively, it's stupidly easy for the negative to win. Presumption arguments are much easier for neg to make.

And even if nothing of the above is actually true, your reasoning for why it detracts from the debate and creates an abusive environment are entirely unfounded. Ks are just arguments, made of claims and warrants and impacts just like any traditional LD case. There's nothing inherently more "abusive" about them. And how does forcing people to consider alternative viewpoints and come up with ways to defend their arguments from kritikal positions detract from the debate? If anything not running Ks would be more detrimental because standard traditional positions will always be more limited than kritikal positions. There's infinitely more kritikal positions that can be made, thus allowing for more things to learn about and more things and more different things to discuss within each debate round.

But secondly, aff-specific Ks are much stronger than resolutional Ks for a lot of different reasons: a) they're much more diverse and dependent on what the aff runs for their case, thus making them harder to prep out, and b) specifically crafted to deal with a specific kind of aff, making the link stories for how they apply to the debate less sketchy and a lot stronger.

But even these kinds of Ks are still fair. All Ks have the same basic structure and the same basic structural weaknesses. It's not hard to understand that if you perm a Ks alt, you're winning on the K debate. Or if you winning on no links on the K, then the K doesn't matter. And this is all without even getting into the actual substance of the different Ks and addressing the impacts. This is all just examining your arguments and seeing how they apply to the K. This should be stuff you don't even need to take prep to do (unless the K is really just convoluted to hell, in which case the necessary response of "this K doesn't make any sense" should be painfully obvious).

What annoys me the most is about all the people who complain about how Ks are unfair, yet don't take the time to actually learn how they work. I use to think the same way until I was taught about how Ks actually work and started working with them more myself.

One thing I would suspect, and I know is true of myself in a lot of situations, is that a lot of times people run Ks not because they're the most strategic or best suited argument to make in the specific round they're in, but they know that if they run it their opponent won't know how to respond and it'll be an easy win. 90% of the Ks I've run on here fit this description. There's very few people on this site I'd say actually understand how kritiks work well enough to be able to easily deal with one in a round.

Unless the most strategic argument to make would be running a K, I would never run a K against someone like whiteflame or bluesteel. Why? Because I know that they're familiar enough with how Ks are structured and a lot of the lit surrounding kritikal arguments that if I'm just running one for the sh*ts and giggles, that they'll take a fat dump on me and I'll lose.

So as a general PSA to anyone: Do you wanna see less Ks? Learn how they work and how to actually deal with one in a debate round. Then start stomping on every K that you see. Show people who are looking at how you debate that you can handle kritikal arguments and that if they want to run one on you, that they better be ready for a hard debate. You'll encounter a lot less Ks.

Due to the fact that I only have 1.4k characters left and this is a topic that I could discuss along with the mechanics of LD for days I'd rather continue this via private correspondence if that's alright with you.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 5:26:09 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 5:24:08 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/27/2015 5:18:10 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/27/2015 3:36:49 AM, Objectivity wrote:

The issue is their abusiveness as described below, if the resolution implies you are operating within certain parameters (whether it be capitalism, slavery, etc.) then you work within those parameters to make an argument. If you attack the resolution you aren't inherently affirming or negating it, you are only doing it (possibly) by extension of your broader argument. Look to the example I gave below (an actual K someone wants to use) where they would be forcing their opponent to defend the concept of private property in and of itself whether than the merits of private ownership of handguns. It detracts from the resolution and the issue at hand and creates an abusive environment.

I'll go ahead and give you a brief background of my highschool debating.

I was taught by a debater known for singlehandedly making the smallish school I attended to nationally competitive. He did so not only because he was f*cking good, but he was also fond of running really kritikal lit and a lot of really good, really nasty Ks. He qual'd for the TOC his senior year.

I spent my three years debating the local and state circuit (I wasn't anywhere near as good as he was), and I was fond of running Ks revolving around the lit of people like Nietzsche. I had a fair amount of success. On here I'm known as one of the few people who actually know how to correctly run a K, and probably the only person who is actually willing to do so in the environment that is very much anti-K.

With that being said, here's the problems with your above points:

The first point I want to make is that not all Ks are attacking the resolution. If anything they're the weaker side of Ks because those are the easiest to prep out and be able to answer (Cap Ks don't really change much, even if the resolutions themselves change). Hating Cap Ks because they're abusive is like crying about how people bringing up stats about gun legislation is abusive -- it's stupidly easy to prep for, so it's your fault for not really being prepared to actually talk about it.

Moreover, resolutional Ks do actually negate the resolution. Take last year's Jan/Feb topic (the one about a living wage). If my argument is that implementing a living wage is an extension of capitalism and give all the usual impacts about why capitalism is god-awful and how we ought to reject cap in every instance that we can, the necessary conclusion to be drawn from this don't implement a living wage because we need to be rejecting cap. That's a normative conclusion that we can draw from the K and apply it back to the resolution to negate, much like I would draw a conclusion from your contentions and value/criterion framework and use that to affirm. Properly crafted resolutional Ks *do* actually negate the resolution.

And furthermore, insofar as the negative is either disproving the resolution or showing that the resolution can't be evaluated normatively, it's stupidly easy for the negative to win. Presumption arguments are much easier for neg to make.

And even if nothing of the above is actually true, your reasoning for why it detracts from the debate and creates an abusive environment are entirely unfounded. Ks are just arguments, made of claims and warrants and impacts just like any traditional LD case. There's nothing inherently more "abusive" about them. And how does forcing people to consider alternative viewpoints and come up with ways to defend their arguments from kritikal positions detract from the debate? If anything not running Ks would be more detrimental because standard traditional positions will always be more limited than kritikal positions. There's infinitely more kritikal positions that can be made, thus allowing for more things to learn about and more things and more different things to discuss within each debate round.

But secondly, aff-specific Ks are much stronger than resolutional Ks for a lot of different reasons: a) they're much more diverse and dependent on what the aff runs for their case, thus making them harder to prep out, and b) specifically crafted to deal with a specific kind of aff, making the link stories for how they apply to the debate less sketchy and a lot stronger.

But even these kinds of Ks are still fair. All Ks have the same basic structure and the same basic structural weaknesses. It's not hard to understand that if you perm a Ks alt, you're winning on the K debate. Or if you winning on no links on the K, then the K doesn't matter. And this is all without even getting into the actual substance of the different Ks and addressing the impacts. This is all just examining your arguments and seeing how they apply to the K. This should be stuff you don't even need to take prep to do (unless the K is really just convoluted to hell, in which case the necessary response of "this K doesn't make any sense" should be painfully obvious).

What annoys me the most is about all the people who complain about how Ks are unfair, yet don't take the time to actually learn how they work. I use to think the same way until I was taught about how Ks actually work and started working with them more myself.

One thing I would suspect, and I know is true of myself in a lot of situations, is that a lot of times people run Ks not because they're the most strategic or best suited argument to make in the specific round they're in, but they know that if they run it their opponent won't know how to respond and it'll be an easy win. 90% of the Ks I've run on here fit this description. There's very few people on this site I'd say actually understand how kritiks work well enough to be able to easily deal with one in a round.

Unless the most strategic argument to make would be running a K, I would never run a K against someone like whiteflame or bluesteel. Why? Because I know that they're familiar enough with how Ks are structured and a lot of the lit surrounding kritikal arguments that if I'm just running one for the sh*ts and giggles, that they'll take a fat dump on me and I'll lose.

So as a general PSA to anyone: Do you wanna see less Ks? Learn how they work and how to actually deal with one in a debate round. Then start stomping on every K that you see. Show people who are looking at how you debate that you can handle kritikal arguments and that if they want to run one on you, that they better be ready for a hard debate. You'll encounter a lot less Ks.

Due to the fact that I only have 1.4k characters left and this is a topic that I could discuss along with the mechanics of LD for days I'd rather continue this via private correspondence if that's alright with you.

Hell, I don't care where you want to discuss it.

And before you go into a "mechanics" of LD and how LD wasn't meant to have stuff like Ks and theory and all that fun stuff in them, be prepared for me to laugh at you. A lot. Because that argument is very, very, *very* bad.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 7:58:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 9:35:36 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:10:45 PM, debatability wrote:
At 12/25/2015 5:20:54 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/25/2015 12:39:57 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Lincoln Douglas is really the only format (aside from British parliamentary) used by DDO'ers. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with it.

Thett would fight you for saying that

i will fight u too!

public forum is by all means superior!

It's adorable that you think that :)

lets debate it

im dead serious this could be really fun