@knyte ayee fellow debater

I just figured that's the only place someone could get into radical marxism/smashing the state to that extent.

@Zoe, are you a K debater?

What's that?

What do you mean by state?

A state as in the government. I'm a Marxist-Leninist so I specifically believe in the gradual withering away of the state after the implementation of Socialism, but there's a million other different types of Communists that believe in different ways of achieving Communism.

If Zoe's a K debater, they're definitely not nat circuit... I'm pretty sure Zoe just watches a ton of BreadTube or something.

Dunno what the hell nat circuit is either lol, I watch a few lefty YouTubers but not that often, maybe a Shaun or Hbomb video occasionally. I mostly watch Destiny even though he's a Liberal.

the far left has also gain substantial seats

you mean the European United Left (socialists) which lost 14 seats? or maybe you're talking about Greens but you'd have to be a Farage fuckbuddy yourself to label them "far left"

also what's a K debater?

Edited 6/17/2019 22:05:54

Policy debate is an extra curricular in middle school to college. A K debater is someone who runs arguments like critiques of capitalism. Nat Cir = National Circuit.

I mean, I'm a Marxist so I'm probably a K debater lol

K = kritik, not necessarily a kritik/critique of capitalism per se. I've run K's all over the political spectrum (although, I wasn't really nat circuit, just went to a couple TOC bid tournaments and only made the bid round once).

It's more of a style of argument, not about the substance (i.e., you can run left-wing arguments as traditional "cards"/contentions with a claim, warrant, and impact- that's most comparable to what Zoe is doing here). A K, on the other hand, is an out-of-left-field argument that critiques your opponent's implicit worldview (or something similar). It's like someone runs a traditional argument, and you link them into some problematic ideology (to keep it basic, let's say their argument relies on some racist assumptions). Then you bring out the impacts of the pervasive ideology ("racism leads to dehumanization, and dehumanization is worse than mass murder because X") and offer an alternative (e.g., let's burn America down). You have to win on all 3 parts- link, impact, alternative- to win on the K. The link and impact can be turned (e.g., "actually you're the real racist"/"racism is actually good") and now all the arguments in your K work against you.

K's can get very interesting, e.g., resulting in someone breaking out into poetry in-round. There's also all sorts of interesting things in debate, like theory debate (policing unfair/uneducational behavior in-round to win a ballot).

So a K isn't == making anti-capitalist arguments. It's about critiquing what's going on in round, including at the level of debate itself. A K debater is someone who employs K's often, usually the same few handful of K's if they're very good at it.

I don't know anything about middle school debate parlance but what Knyte seems to be describing is reductionism. As in all authority lacks metaphysical ground so all authority is reduced to absurdity. However, the reductionist falls prey to his own axiom because the authority upon which is argument is to be accepted is not grounded.

While I'd recommend delving further into that line of argument, as advocates for what you call "reductionism" (?) probably have good responses to such an obvious retort, I think I mis-explained what a Kritik is. It's not about the argument but about the level of analysis.

A typical debate just involves the affirmative and negative trading contentions ("X is good because Y" and responses to it). A K goes beyond that level of analysis (just looking at contentions on the flow) and peeks beneath the surface of what's going on in the round. It's not about particular authors or arguments; it doesn't even need philosophical depth.

Or, since "tell" doesn't seem to work, let's try "show": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnlyHkUzD4w

(This isn't a typical K, nor was the person in the video a good debater at the time of the video, but I think it makes my point that a K is about form not substance). You can make the "reductionist" attacks on authority that VV cited above, or the claims against capitalism that Zoe used above, without using a K. However, Zoe were truly critiquing capitalism (e.g., like Zizek does here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_K_79O21hk), then that would be a bit like a Kritikal approach. A critique is a type of analysis; it's like the difference between talking about the, idk, bad character development of Star Wars: The Last Jedi vs. critiquing some deeper aspect, like the underlying concept of "subverting expectations" (or, to use a BreadTube analogy, making a Lindsay Ellis video).

I hope that clears up that off-topic detour.

EDIT: One good point I noticed in VV's response, though- you don't have to respond to K's at a Kritikal level yourself. You can use conventional reasoning to dismantle unconventional arguments. So K's (and theory) aren't extinction-level threats to traditional debate, and honestly traditional policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate are still thriving in high school (middle-school and college debaters are much rarer; debate is mostly a HS activity since that strikes the right balance between being too ignorant to debate effectively vs. being too educated to mistake debate for an educational activity).

Edited 6/20/2019 04:17:57

"debate is mostly a HS activity since that strikes the right balance between being too ignorant to debate effectively vs. being too educated to mistake debate for an educational activity). "

its funny because its true

but marxist leninist like come on, as you yourself mention there are many different strains of communism and you have to pick the worst one....your the enemy within

Edited 6/20/2019 14:31:25

I think fascism is outdated and wrong. Every fascist nation in history has gone down within a short time-period.

china

Fascism is essentially the same atrocity as communism and socialism, the only difference being that whereas communism and socialism openly call for state ownership of all property, fascism holds that some property may be “private”, so long as the government can dictate how such property may be used. Sure, you own the factory, but here’s what you may and may not produce in it; here’s the minimum wage you must pay employees; here’s the kind of accounting system you must use; here are the specifications your machinery must meet; and so on.

The far left comprises the pure forms of all the rights-violating social systems: communism, socialism, fascism, Islamism, theocracy, and anarchism (i.e., rule by gangs).

The far right comprises the pure forms of rights-respecting social systems: laissez-faire capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism. All of which require essentially the same thing: a government that protects and does not violate rights.

The middle area consists of all the compromised, mixed, mongrel systems advocated by modern “liberals,” conservatives, unprincipled Tea Partiers (as opposed to the good ones), and all those who want government to protect some rights while violating other rights; whether by forcing people to fund other people’s health care, education, retirement, or by forcing people to comply with religious or traditional mores regarding sex, marriage, drugs, or what have you.

Source: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/

Edited 6/24/2019 18:55:05

the only difference being that whereas communism and socialism openly call for state ownership of all property

Socialism and communism don't advocate for state ownership of all property. They advocate for common ownership of the means of production. Common ownership doesn't have to be state ownership, cooperatives are for example another form of common ownership. They certainly do not advocate the state should own all property, even in the USSR private property existed.

The far left comprises the pure forms of all the rights-violating social systems: communism, socialism, fascism, Islamism, theocracy, and anarchism (i.e., rule by gangs).

Okay so you basically make a personal definition of far left as anything you personally don't like, that doesn't really leave anyone more clever on anything or provide an argument for anything
If anything is a rule of gangs it's capitalism. A tiny, rich elite wields power over the economy, if the government or people do anything they don't like, they can move out or try to sabotage the economy. They can funnel immense amounts of money into campaigns and lobbyism to exert far more influence than an ordinary worker. Not only do they dictate politics in many countries, but in workplaces too capitalists can rule like gangs to reap most of the value created by the workers for themselves.

The far right comprises the pure forms of rights-respecting social systems: laissez-faire capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism. All of which require essentially the same thing: a government that protects and does not violate rights.

A government that protects the "rights" of a rich elite to siphon wealth off the working masses but doesn't care for the homeless, people born into poverty, people being unfortunate to catch diseases or workers spending 60 days a week and making 1/1000 of a landlord or capitalist. That's not a notion of rights that even makes any sense.
I pay 40% in taxes but I have more than enough to eat, wear and stuff, as a finished master student I was used to an income less than 1/4 of what I make now, would I feel my rights are violated if I paid 50% to make sure there were cheap public housing being built for the working class? 55% so future students could have a decent stipend? 60% to make sure nobody had to be homeless? No, I would say our rights would be improved and be happy nobody should fear such a fate. Would I be less incentivized to work? No, fortunately I find passion in it (I can understand those who don't) but I see it as everyone's duty to contribute according to their ability. However I would definitely feel everyone's rights would have been violated if taxes were cut and I had to buy my own health insurance... Knowing all the poor people who then may not afford it and knowing it would probably be even more expensive and less efficient (compare USA's health costs to other western countries... no thanks!)

Government ownership of markets tends to raise costs because a government is a monopolizer; monopolizers are free to raise prices and lower the quality of their services without consequence. The US healthcare system and the US university system suffer from socialism, not free market capitalism. Subsidizing a company and then forcing people to buy their products leads to skyrocketing prices.

you dont know alot about that it seems

Edited 6/25/2019 12:37:08

I just instinctively read your post in a gay, lispy voice. If you would respond with a post confirming that you are a normal person I will carry on with due respect.

Government ownership of markets tends to raise costs because a government is a monopolizer; monopolizers are free to raise prices and lower the quality of their services without consequence. The US healthcare system and the US university system suffer from socialism, not free market capitalism. Subsidizing a company and then forcing people to buy their products leads to skyrocketing prices.

In fact it's often the exact opposite. Capitalism by itself often generates monopoly situations where a large fraction of what you pay for goes to subsidize a rich elite's sports car collection. By having the government take over you can often lower the costs in these cases.
When I first moved I moved to state-built housing for students. There are laws for the rent in public housing that they have to follow the costs of maintaining/renovating the buildings, and no profit can be made. This means the rent was less than 400 USD per month for a room. If I had to look for these kinds of apartments on the market in Copenhagen they would be at least twice as expensive, and the same goes for regular rent apartments. The public, non-profit apartments are far cheaper than private for-profit rent apartments. Capitalism simply does not work to lower the costs as you claim. The same goes for healthcare.

I just instinctively read your post in a gay, lispy voice

What even is a gay voice that doesn't even make any sense. Gay people all have different voices just like any other group of people

Socialism involves government monopoly by definition, free market capitalism may or may not involve monopolies. Corporate monopolies in democratic, capitalist countries are usually the result of government lobbying and government regulation reducing competition for the corporations that lobby successfully. In the case of natural monopolies, such as telecommunication services, government regulation is the only defense against private monopoly, but the problem is that a government monopoly isn't preferable to a private monopoly per se.

Social media is an example of a private monopoly that needs to be regulated by the government. The solution wouldn't be to turn social media into a government monopoly but to legally bind the corporations that control the platforms to a set of rules of fair play.

I'm always amazed how little people know or understand about Socialism, Communism, Marxism, etc.