4 ms·

I'm a young person myself and I sometimes find myself thinking like a stereotypical conservative curmudgeon. Not really in terms of typical "US conservative val

I'm a young person myself and I sometimes find myself thinking like a stereotypical conservative curmudgeon. Not really in terms of typical "US conservative values" but rather "I'm stubborn about my opinions". I think some of the more recent discourse is valuable but a lot is radical to the point of absurdity. I like the phrase "have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out". I think I'm better at this balancing act than a lot of "young people". Based the article, the usage of these kritiks seems to sometimes be quite damaging to productive debate: > For example, many leftist judges will not accept a response to a Marxism kritik that argues that capitalism is good. Instead, debaters have to concede that capitalism is a bad system and make other leftist arguments like, “it’s capitalistic to fail to argue for the topic” and “Marxism isn’t the most effective response to capitalism; instead we need to look to other critical theories" > Kritiks are often (although not always) strategically employed by students from big, well-funded debate programs. Their opponents—who often attend schools with fewer coaches and resources—may not be familiar with the dense philosophical arguments. Also, I disagree with the premise that "reform is hopeless and the only solution is to burn it all down", so I guess I won't quite see eye to eye with these people.

ang_cire 3y ago
The article is straight lying about judges, though. They're cherry-picking ones (which they know, so they specifically claim otherwise without then explaining how they're not) that they can use as left-wing bogeymen. > Based the article, the usage of these kritiks seems to sometimes be quite damaging to productive debate There is a very valid discussion that the community itself is having about K-Aff *solvency thresholds*, but that is not what this bad-faith author is talking about. I live in the Bay Area, and no one in even the hyper-liberal debate circuits here would blank and eye, much less automatically vote against you, if you ran Cap-good. Most people outside of the debate community are probably unaware of the specific round that sparked off all these right-wing "debate is indoctrinating kids with leftist ideas!" articles, but this reaction is hilariously proving the point of many Critical arguments.

ang_cire 3y ago

The article is straight lying about judges, though. They're cherry-picking ones (which they know, so they specifically claim otherwise without then explaining how they're not) that they can use as left-wing bogeymen. > Based the article, the usage of these kritiks seems to sometimes be quite damaging to productive debate There is a very valid discussion that the community itself is having about K-Aff *solvency thresholds*, but that is not what this bad-faith author is talking about. I live in the Bay Area, and no one in even the hyper-liberal debate circuits here would blank and eye, much less automatically vote against you, if you ran Cap-good. Most people outside of the debate community are probably unaware of the specific round that sparked off all these right-wing "debate is indoctrinating kids with leftist ideas!" articles, but this reaction is hilariously proving the point of many Critical arguments.