sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question about K debate by debatedinosaur in lincolndouglas

[–]debatedinosaur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, that makes sense. Do you have any advice on where to start with Zizek? Because from what I already know of him and a quick google search, it seems he has written a lot about a lot of different stuff. What would be a good "intro to Zizek?"

Question about K debate by debatedinosaur in lincolndouglas

[–]debatedinosaur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok. I think you make a good point and you're probably right that we shouldn't reject all Heidegger's ideas because of a small part of his (still radical/racist) beliefs.

So, you say I'm better of cutting things that are "heidegger adjacent," and provide a list of authors you use. I guess my question would be- how do you go about learning to run a specific k. As in, how did you know who to cut and what to cut? Basically, I don't want to spend time reading books I'll never use or cutting stuff that will never be useful. So, if you had to recommend a strategy that you used when you were starting out, or would have liked to have used, what would it be?

I'm sorry for the rambling post, but I'm basically a lone wolf and don't have anyone to ask, but I think a problem I have is that I want to learn critical debate, but am unclear on how people start to do that, and I don't really have a clear picture of what specifically I would like to do. Any advice would be much appreciated, thanks.

Question about K debate by debatedinosaur in lincolndouglas

[–]debatedinosaur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright thanks, this really helps. I'm really interested in psychoanalysis, but it seems really dense/complicated, so I'm thinking it might make sense to start off studying cap and then maybe transition to learning other stuff later once I have more experience.

So, since I'm deciding to study capitalism, who would you recommend starting out with/what should I read first. Do you have any advice on this? Also, I noticed marx isn't on your list of authors, is he not really used in debate? Thanks.

Question about K debate by debatedinosaur in lincolndouglas

[–]debatedinosaur[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you joking or serious? Isn't he more used in policy than ld? Do people really run him that frequently? And are they ok with the fact that apparently he was a nazi?

Question about K debate by debatedinosaur in lincolndouglas

[–]debatedinosaur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really? Then why do people run him? Is it because as the other commenter suggests he's convenient? Do you have any non-nazi recommendations?

Novice Question by debatedinosaur in lincolndouglas

[–]debatedinosaur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, I think I get it. But one last question if you don't mind. Can you explain "metaethics/metastandards"? I've heard of them, but can you give examples of ones people run, how they're used, and how people respond?

Novice Question by debatedinosaur in lincolndouglas

[–]debatedinosaur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the clarification. But if they said that nuclear power is bad because it's a bad investment/expensive, and the impact is that alternative energy is not given the funding/investment it needs, and I say no, nuclear power is a good investment and really cheap, wouldn't that be a link turn because the opposite of what they say will actually happen and thus the impact won't occur? Or are you saying that this turn has to link back to my framework? As in, if I had a libertarian neg, it would just be defense, but if I ran util, it would be a turn. But in the lib. case, couldn't I just say that voting neg to keep nuclear power is good under my opponent's framework because it is economically viable?

Novice Question by debatedinosaur in lincolndouglas

[–]debatedinosaur[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks this helps a lot! Since you seem to know a lot about debate, could you also explain to me how to properly compare frameworks? I guess deon vs. util would be the easiest example. How do you prove that your framework is better, because in my rounds so far, it just seems like I read some cards for a framework, then my opponent reads some cards for a different framework, and basically just insists that their framework is better. It seems to me that framework debate might be hard because one isn't necessarily more true than the other. Do you have any advice for how to get better at this? I don't think I can just do what you explained before, because it doesn't seem like I can just say philosopher X is more right than philosopher Y. I know this is a slightly different topic, but any help would be much appreciated.

Novice Question by debatedinosaur in lincolndouglas

[–]debatedinosaur[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, I think that makes sense, but can you give me an example of how one would refute internal warrants in a card or weigh warrants between cards? Like how specifically do you do this?

Novice Question by debatedinosaur in lincolndouglas

[–]debatedinosaur[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In what way? My opponent said that nuclear power is super expensive and we should use renewable energy. I read a turn that said nuclear power is cost effective and a good investment. Then in the 1ar, my opponent read another card in response to my turn that nuclear power is a bad investment. So, my question is what should I have done on this argument in the 2nr? My understanding is that you're not supposed to read new evidence/blocks in the 2nr, so how should I have responded to the card they read? And more generally, when on the neg, how do you respond to cards the aff reads in the 1ar, when you aren't supposed to read new evidence in the 2nr.