Login

*benji* · 10-28-2023, 06:58 PM

*benji* · 10-28-2023, 08:47 PM

[Image: F9gMvbGWEAA32K2?format=jpg&name=900x900]

[Image: F9hN3WQacAAMdbK?format=jpg&name=small]

Puffy Fucking Baby · 10-28-2023, 08:56 PM

why does he keep this up, everyone thinks he's a dickhead wtf?

*benji* · 10-28-2023, 08:57 PM

Nintex · 10-28-2023, 10:48 PM

*benji* · 10-30-2023, 05:24 AM

*benji* · (This post was last modified: 10-30-2023, 11:55 AM by benji.)

Spoiler: (click to show)

Uncle · 10-30-2023, 05:09 PM

HaughtyFrank · (This post was last modified: 10-30-2023, 06:15 PM by HaughtyFrank.)

People really flipping back and forth between "actually no one was beheaded" and "actually it was justified they were beheaded"

But at least some americans can roleplay that they'll get beheaded for using a bathroom

Eric Cartman · 10-30-2023, 06:52 PM

(10-30-2023, 11:39 AM)benji wrote:

Spoiler: (click to show)(click to hide)

Slaves didn't mass produce goods, they farmed the inputs for them. The industrial revolution is what made cotton plantations financially viable, the plantations in America mostly didn't bother with cotton before then. This should be fairly obvious as the supply (cotton) would have massively exceeded the demand (the ability of factories to process it), driving the price down severely. After the productive capacity increased the demand increase would boost the price convincing the plantation owners to go into cotton. This same process is also what would make slavery non-financially viable shortly thereafter as the price of free labor undercut the value of holding slaves. (Why did the slave holders agree to ban the international slave trade? It increased the value of their assets by monopolizing the supply.) Thanks reading across texts!

Fact check:
China has singlehandedly produced more CO2 emissions over the last decade than the UK has over its entire history to date including the entirety of the industrial revolution where we were just literally fucking rolling coal straight into the atmos

HaughtyFrank · 10-30-2023, 07:44 PM

[tweet]https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1718838176318656830?s=20

[/tweet]

D3RANG3D · 10-30-2023, 08:31 PM

What is their resetera account?

*benji* · 10-30-2023, 08:44 PM

(10-30-2023, 05:09 PM)Uncle wrote:

Gary Ridgway, John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy all operated in America. Checkmate, atheists. Smug

*benji* · 10-30-2023, 09:35 PM

HaughtyFrank · (This post was last modified: 10-31-2023, 03:48 PM by HaughtyFrank.)

I've heard of something like this before and for some reason it gets rewarded.

Though anytime I've seen one of these debate tournaments it was profoundly stupid, so no idea if anything of worth is being lost anyway

Nintex · 10-31-2023, 05:25 PM

Kids are stupid and thats fine, the problem is when adults accept the stupidity and start to bend the rules.

What they are doing is not debating. All these kids are learning that yelling shit about trans genocides is the most valuable skill and the answer to any challenge or problem that exists.

In 30 or 40 years from now they'll all die because complaining about a non-existent trans genocide and waving rainbow flags is not solving their water or food shortages and anyone who disagrees has long been cancelled or send to jail.

*benji* · (This post was last modified: 10-31-2023, 05:31 PM by benji.)

(10-31-2023, 03:44 PM)HaughtyFrank wrote: I've heard of something like this before and for some reason it gets rewarded.

I remembered this from the OG thread and tracked it down, turned out it was you who had posted it:

But that actually wasn't the article I was thinking of, trying to find that article I found these that contain some more hilarious examples:
https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-debate-community-is-an-insane
https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-national-debate-tournament-as

But this was the one I was thinking of:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/how-critical-theory-is-radicalizing

Quote:However, in recent years, many debaters have decided to flat-out ignore the assigned topic and instead hijack the round by proposing brand new (i.e., wholly unrelated to the original topic), debater-created resolutions that advocate complex social criticisms based on various theories — Marxism, anti-militarism, feminist international relations theory, neocolonialism, securitization, anthropocentrism, orientalism, racial positionality, Afro-Pessimism, disablism, queer ecology, and transfeminism. (To be clear, traditional feminism is out of fashion and seen as too essentialist.)

These critical theory1 arguments, known as kritiks, are usually wielded by the negation side to criticize the fundamental assumptions of their affirmation side opponents. Kritik advocates argue that the world is so systematically broken that discussing public policy proposals and reforms misses what really matters: the need to fundamentally revolutionize society in some way. For example, if the topic was “The U.S. should increase the federal minimum wage,” the affirmation side might provide some arguments supporting this policy. But then the negation side, instead of arguing that the government shouldn’t raise the minimum wage, might reject spending any time on the original resolution and counter-propose a Marxist kritik.2 Here’s an example of how the negation might introduce this kritik:

Revolutionary theory is a prior question — the aff [proposal about raising the minimum wage] is irrelevant in the grand scheme of capitalism... [You as a judge should] evaluate the debate as a dialectical materialist — you are a historian inquiring into the determinant factors behind the PMC [first affirmation speech] — The role of the ballot is to endorse the historical outlook of the topic with the most explanatory power... Vote negative to endorse Marxist labor theory of value.

HaughtyFrank · 10-31-2023, 06:14 PM

I don't know much about debate tournaments, but from what little I've seen one big part of it seems to be how you can avoid actual debating. A decade ago or so, I remember reading an article about how speed debating became the new hotness, where participants would just quickfire as many arguments as possible to overwhelm the competition

*benji* · 10-31-2023, 06:32 PM

It's because that's how they score debate, you get points for mentioning certain things, so by saying as much as fast as possible you can rack up more points. If the other team went slowly and made the better argument they could still lose on the points. Both teams are therefore incentivized to do it that way. Luckily they found a way around it by refusing to even debate the topic!