5 ms·

Random question, did you do policy debate in high school and/or college?

by syndicatedjelly 3y ago

Obscurity4340 3y ago
Nah, should I have? Also relevant username ;)
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  The last time I heard someone argue like you, was as the recipient of a negative case in a policy debate round 14 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms#Kritik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_term...
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    []
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    > This section does not cite any sources. (October 2020) Is there an actual article with more substance illustrating what you mean or what this section (#Kritik) was derived from? Also, I'm having a little bit of difficulty in parsing out your overall position with respect to what I've said (do feel I'm doing a bad job of it or what do you mean, exactly?) I definitely was using that (critical theory) as more of an example and only briefly analogizing rather than me trying to seriously argue from that vantage point specifically. Edit: are you saying "heard" as in you were there, or you know the details of the case through reading or maybe both? Whatever the case, is there an actual source available?
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Outside of you
    - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
      Honestly, I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about in any of the comments in this thread. I was just trying to say that I haven't felt so bamboozled since the one time I tried doing policy debate, which was different from the usual form of debate I participated in (Lincoln-Douglas). I was a decent debater, but policy debate was entirely inscrutable. Gish galloping was the name of the game - trotting out as many arguments, as quickly as possible, in as little time so as to trip up the opponent on some minor point they missed. I linked to Kritik because your seemingly random inclusion of critical theory reminded me of this convoluted type of argument which, if not responded to, will lose you the entire round. Everything you said in this thread reminded me of that experience. Good day to you.
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        I think this was a bit tricky in the sense its such a qualitative matter essentially and the heart of the the opposing position seems not really falsifiable (the longer a series runs = crappier a series "becomes" -> the more it dilutes the overall qualitative artistic and intangible entertainment value+prestige of not only the series as a whole but also the individual episodes that precede such enshittification and with which one could hypothetically have previously expressed and documented satisfaction. Regardless of whether this was said outright, the logic here seems to be such. Why don't we just normalize ex post facto law while we're at it? I feel like we all might have gotten a bit lost in the plot here but I will leave you with this quote that I feel corroborates the encapsulation I have presented here: > I tried to vibe with this POV. What's wrong with more content? But it really does cheapen the art/media you used to adore. Even if you try to ignore it, i.e. you don't have to watch / read all the Star Trek content that has been produced in the last 20 years, and after picard season 1 I completely checked out of all of it, but it just kind of makes everything you loved seem so empty. It was all about generating positive cash flows...the whole time. And good night to you sir :)
        Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Also, historical revisionism anyone?
      - 3y ago
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      *passing example

Random question, did you do policy debate in high school and/or college?

Obscurity4340 3y ago

Nah, should I have? Also relevant username ;)

syndicatedjelly 3y ago
The last time I heard someone argue like you, was as the recipient of a negative case in a policy debate round 14 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms#Kritik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_term...
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  []
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  > This section does not cite any sources. (October 2020) Is there an actual article with more substance illustrating what you mean or what this section (#Kritik) was derived from? Also, I'm having a little bit of difficulty in parsing out your overall position with respect to what I've said (do feel I'm doing a bad job of it or what do you mean, exactly?) I definitely was using that (critical theory) as more of an example and only briefly analogizing rather than me trying to seriously argue from that vantage point specifically. Edit: are you saying "heard" as in you were there, or you know the details of the case through reading or maybe both? Whatever the case, is there an actual source available?
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Outside of you
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    Honestly, I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about in any of the comments in this thread. I was just trying to say that I haven't felt so bamboozled since the one time I tried doing policy debate, which was different from the usual form of debate I participated in (Lincoln-Douglas). I was a decent debater, but policy debate was entirely inscrutable. Gish galloping was the name of the game - trotting out as many arguments, as quickly as possible, in as little time so as to trip up the opponent on some minor point they missed. I linked to Kritik because your seemingly random inclusion of critical theory reminded me of this convoluted type of argument which, if not responded to, will lose you the entire round. Everything you said in this thread reminded me of that experience. Good day to you.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      I think this was a bit tricky in the sense its such a qualitative matter essentially and the heart of the the opposing position seems not really falsifiable (the longer a series runs = crappier a series "becomes" -> the more it dilutes the overall qualitative artistic and intangible entertainment value+prestige of not only the series as a whole but also the individual episodes that precede such enshittification and with which one could hypothetically have previously expressed and documented satisfaction. Regardless of whether this was said outright, the logic here seems to be such. Why don't we just normalize ex post facto law while we're at it? I feel like we all might have gotten a bit lost in the plot here but I will leave you with this quote that I feel corroborates the encapsulation I have presented here: > I tried to vibe with this POV. What's wrong with more content? But it really does cheapen the art/media you used to adore. Even if you try to ignore it, i.e. you don't have to watch / read all the Star Trek content that has been produced in the last 20 years, and after picard season 1 I completely checked out of all of it, but it just kind of makes everything you loved seem so empty. It was all about generating positive cash flows...the whole time. And good night to you sir :)
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Also, historical revisionism anyone?
    - 3y ago
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    *passing example