BezosFuturist

wrong

no evidence for this

lets use another analogy here;  if I ask if you want cake, and you say that you do not want cake, because cake has bread, and you do not want extra carbs, and I say "How dare you assume that my cake has bread?", that would be total nonsense, right?  obviously bread is an essential component of cake, so not wanting to eat bread is a perfectly sound reason for not wanting cake.  Sort of like rejecting a certain ideology inherent in advocacy for a resolution is a perfectly sound reason to reject it, to negate it.  that said, while not all K's state that the resolution cannot be debated, saying that something can't be discussed is also an act of negation and thus squarely within the bounds of the resolution.  so even your interpretation of what a K is, while not always accurate, does not prove that a K is nontopical.  if you are saying that how a statement of advocacy (a resolution) is worded is immoral or incorrect, you are by definition negating it.  negating is defined as "to show something to be wrong or to be the opposite of what was thought, or to cause something to have no effect"   (cambridge dictionary).   something can be 'wrong' either because it is not correct or because its not morally acceptable.  the aff is tasked with defending the entirety of the resolution, every word of it.  if even one word of it is wrong or immoral, the resolution in its entirety is.  thus showing that a part of the resolution is worded inn a way that is immoral or wrong is negating it.  

a K does not by definition say that we can't debate the resolution.  i guarantee you will find no source that says an integral part of a K is saying that we "can't debate" the resolution.  also attacking an underlying assumption of the resolution makes a K topical.  imagine if in day to day discourse we only responded exactly to what someone said word for word without drawing inferences about what their statements assume.  if someone told you they supported declaring war against iran, for example, that implies that they support a government, since only governments can wage war.  if i said "i do not support war with Iran because I am an anarchist, and thus do not believe in governments at all" that WOULD be responsive to what they said.  its weird that people will acknowledge this but then if I called my argument an "anarchist K" they would say its now nontopical.  to be clear, what you and others don't like is that people don't engage the resolution using only the arguments that you think are acceptable.  the attacks on K's are always purely about limiting the scope of debate.

A K has multiple parts, it functions pretty similarly to a stock issue argument;  here's how you do it;

 

 The Link:  In order for a K to be topical, you have to link in to the other sides advocacy, so you have to establish that their side of the debate is intrinsically linked to whatever the topic of your K is.  An example of this might be that if you are running a Colonialism K on a foreign policy topic, you have to show how the other sides advocacy is linked to Colonialism.

  Impact:  Once you have "linked in" to your opponents advocacy, it is pretty much the same as a stock issue argument.  You run harms/impacts of whatever destructive ideology or system that your opponents advocacy is supporting.  So if you were running that Colonialism K, you would run harms of colonialism.  If you found some card that said that Colonialism has caused 50 million deaths in the past century, you could run a harm of "violence".  Colonialism causes violence, your opponents advocacy is linked to colonialism, thus your opponents advocacy causes violence

 Alternative:  You have to have an alternative to whatever ideology or system you are running your K against.  

Hello!  I haven't really introduced myself on DART yet, but I am Objectivity from DDO. I don't have a lot going on for the remainder of my Winter break and wanted to contribute something to the DART community that hasn't been done yet (to my knowledge); a DART live debate tournament.  I think this could provide added value to the DART community because it would force debaters to make the best argument that they can with little to no prep time, instead of giving them days, or even weeks to prepare a response to their opponents argument.  The debates would be done over Google Hangout, and the format would be similar to a Lincoln-Douglas debate (high school debate category).  As the host, I would facilitate and judge debates, with the assistance of one or two experienced debaters.  To get this off the ground, I want at least 6 interested people.  I will start signups now and keep them open for at least the next week.  

enthralling

RM owned le epic style 360 no scope gangweeders rise up

Can my black friend join the site?  Pictured below

Until we get a voice chat here, the DDO hangout link 

 https://hangouts.google.com/call/pC02yCsR_Irgi80Ualg8AAEE

I lurked for a while but stopped participating bc the quality of the site nosedived. Glad to be back now though.

 I recently stumbled upon an article that perfectly sums up our current political climate.  The activist right has long been known for its censorious attitude and paternalistic social views, centering around the argument that people ought to be protected against certain "dangerous" ideas.  The conservative stiffs now have equals on the left in the form of rabid progressives.  Communist China had the Red Guard, who enforced conformity in their local communities by harassing and even assaulting people who they viewed as insufficiently patriotic.  Progressives have an army of "woke" Twitter sleuths who similarly harass people who do not give absolute fealty to far left social principles.  

"The woke world is a world of snitches, informants, rats. Go to any space concerned with social justice and what will you find? Endless surveillance. Everybody is to be judged. Everyone is under suspicion. Everything you say is to be scoured, picked over, analyzed for any possible offense. Everyone’s a detective in the Division of Problematics, and they walk the beat 24/7. You search and search for someone Bad doing Bad Things, finding ways to indict writers and artists and ordinary people for something, anything. That movie that got popular? Give me a few hours and 800 words. I’ll get you your indictments. That’s what liberalism is, now — the search for baddies doing bad things, like little offense archaeologists, digging deeper and deeper to find out who’s Good and who’s Bad."

  Thoughts?

Objectivity.  You?

Paleocon is probably the best way to sum up my views but still doesn't explain environmentalism

Yas King

I am an anti-corporate, pro labor, environmentalist, nationalist, luddite.

 Change my mind

I am 

My Arch-Nemesis

 http://www.picluck.net/media/1000795400600581156_1937267332

I'm Steve Rodgers