UPSB v4
Spammer's Bin / rant about the jan-feb LD debate topic
-
Date: Thu, Jan 13 2011 01:29:47
if you aren't a debater and aren't familiar with some upper-level debating concepts for lincoln-douglas and policy, this probably won't matter much to you. the current resolution is: (I'm paraphrasing i think) In the united states, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. sooo................ :rant: this is a retarded fucking resolution. I mean, come on. This was already tried at VBI in cali, and it was shitty. There is a huge range for the definition of juveniles, and everybody knows that debate over definitions is about as fucking lame as it gets. Karlyn Gorski, who taught at VBI, told me that the most compelling arguments she heard were morality-based. This ties back to 'ought' being used in the resolution. this always presents problems for me because LD judges are too fucking stupid to understand T shells (not theory, topicality. its a policy stock issue with the same interp violation standard voter format as theory), so i keep getting fucked by judges who think they know theory-type arguments but actually don't. By the way, shitty judges piss me off; some bitch gave me a 19 (HOLY SHIT!) JUST for spreading in an LD round. but anyway, I am not able to run my fave theory-based argument against things dealing with ought, so the debate always progresses to morality and then to... deontology. urgh. I hate debating this; in both worlds deontological violations will always occur, so we need to look to negative utilitarianism to try and best reduce the harms that will occur. people can't get this stuff through their thickass heads. This kind of debate is concerning a very small community, so utilitarianism tends to fall through the floor on most debates. Util is awesome, and it irritates me that it isn't seen as much with this resolution because debaters are too stupid to realize that we aren't talking about net benefits for society, but for the community the resolution parametricizes the debate to: the united states, and particularly juveniles who commit violent felonies. bah furthermore, the topic is heavily saturated in bullshit. the statistics concerning juveniles and crime and stuff are as limp as my dick when I look at michelle obama, because A. nobody gives two shits about doing good studies concerning this kinda stuff, and B. most results are given as percentages, and C. kids lie, which fucks up results majorly. Having to source indite a pamphlet's worth of evidence is almost as bad as debating definitions. this makes the debate further inclined to deontology. the topic was definately picked by a bunch of assholes, for two reasons. A. there is no nuance or PIC or kritik you can run with this resolution. The higher echelons of debate are becoming more and more heavily influenced by policy, and the cranky old judges who think we shouldn't be doing what lincoln and douglas didn't do dont like it, so they pick resolutions that suck ass. I hate these guys; they're the people who intervene during rounds and don't know what an RFD is. B. The resolution is a bunch of deontology BS, and I hate deontology because it is impossible to achieve consistency with deontological ethics, but judges don't seem to realize this. rant off.
-
Date: Thu, Jan 13 2011 04:21:37
@chili pepper you do debate? nice, i did PF for 3 years nationally
-
Date: Thu, Jan 13 2011 04:44:09
tl;dr. If you split that into paragraphs, i would have read it and understood it a lot better.
-
Date: Fri, Jan 14 2011 02:08:03
since rants are meant to be well formatted, which is why they're rants also, nice strat. you shoulda done LD/policy tho :P we make fun of PF and congress alot :llama:
-
Date: Fri, Jan 14 2011 03:10:10
lol policy is the worst of the debates then congress then ld
-
Date: Fri, Jan 14 2011 08:04:32
chili pepper wrote: since rants are meant to be well formatted, which is why they're rants
say wahhhh -
Date: Sat, Jan 15 2011 01:05:12
SHIT THREAD!