kritikal 'policy' debate

I think you forgot the finals trophy, because those teams usually go on, while teams that run identity are usually autisits

not sure what 'autisits' means but it sounds incredibly ableist, you definitely shouldn't use words that are so close to 'autistic' to be demeaning :-(( I could be wrong abt what this means but it still reads as super offensive also! check the bid list again, identity teams are doing incredibly well this year on the national circuit. Blake is an example where a ton of identity teams won against really well established policy teams it happens a lot more these days the point of the post was never even mocking policy teams, just people who made fun of others for the discussion of their identity. no need to be defensive, fw=\=making fun

yikes! sorry k debaters probably solve for everything, our advocacies either lead to policy reform in front of a policy judge or do literally nothing except present good modes of knowing in front of k judges, and we’re not topical. also sorry you only ever go for framework and t and keep losing because you’re underprepared :+)

Mm it’s a real shame that you don’t understand that framework is the only thing to go for because you gotta hold the wall, also refusing to be a part of K on K violence and be an apologist is not being underprepared :)

this feels really unnecessary dude... "the wall" is always evolving, the inability to define a kritikal aff means that your idea of framework, unless it's mutable and not based in "preservation of traditional debate" (spoiler alert: we already lost traditional debate, hypo-testing isn't a thing anymore) is probably bullshit anyway. framework can be a good thing, but it can also be a sign of extreme under preparedness and reading a file your long-graduated varsity cut for you in 2009. k-on-k violence is a really shitty way to describe engagement w ideas - it's a reasonable way to discuss an aff esp. when it could be something as simple as a cap k. additionally: what does it mean to be an apologist?

I don’t really understand the reason for terms like homonormativity/homonationalism besides to single out gay people in particular for not being radical enough and conflate aspects of their identity that they’re oppressed for with privilege/oppressive social structures. I mean nationalism is hardly endemic to gay men in particular and yet homonationalism as a word still exists.

honestly? fuck jasbir puar and the queer suicide bomber

follow for more bubblegum pastel kritiks