Motion: This house believes that the US should issue guest worker visas, under which minimum wage laws would not apply. OG: Cambridge OO: Oxford ML CG: Harvard CO: Tel Aviv
Can't stand the case from CO here. The economics are almost a silly as OG's misinterpretation of how comparative advantage works. The political philosophy is garbage. The squirreling is obnoxious. It's like they tried to prep their case to try and trick me specifically into opposing the opp side of the debate. I mean why the fuck would you squirrel in an argument that's even more losing for you than the one you're already having.
@@eggmon3813 what does that mean? Is me hating an argument three years ago and then posting that I hated it deep? I don't even remember what video this was
@@spacebiggles randomly hating on ppl who consent to recording is pretty cringe. Like, would you ever be cussing people out and calling their case "garbage" to their face? It's really fucking rude. Idk why people lose all common decency when commenting on A PUBLIC PLATFORM THAT THE PEOPLE WATCHING CAN SEE. Tel Avivare goated and this is just so disrespectful to them. But in terms of what it ain't that deep means, it means a person running an argument you don't like isn't enough reason to do a REALLY weird and rude comment.
@@eggmon3813 that's a reasonable explanation. It was definitely a bit rude. For the choice of language, I apologise. On the other hand, I think that I wrote what I did primarily because I am an immigrant in a country with exploitative guest worker visas, and at the time someone had just died in immigration detention in the region that oversees my residence status, after she was refused medical care. I was reacting to the offensive level of indifference towards a group that I myself am part of, in having a debate about no minimum wage guest worker visas in which it is practically taken as a given that immigrants should not have the same flimsy labour rights that ordinary workers have. Later, I found that the case had been publicly praised as an excellent example as a principled argument, so the community as a whole has a much different view than me, possibly the least relevant person in all of debating. Should I have been more tactful or just shut up? Yes. Did I have a legitimate grievance with the debate in this video? Also yes. I have had people come after me for years because they were upset they drew a round in academic. I can agree that it's unpleasant to be publicly chewed out over debating and that we should aim to improve the way that we communicate our frustrations with one another, my TH-cam comments included. However, I disagree with the idea that nobody should ever criticise someone else's speech or adjudication. Things you're saying in a debate or adjudication are still things you're saying, and just as debaters I've never met in a TH-cam video are real people, immigrants being talked about in debating rounds are real people too.
@@eggmon3813 It's the RR, no one denies that these people are top-tier debaters. What's weird is how offended you are on their behalf. @spacebiggles wasn't insulting them as people, they were criticizing the case. Respond on the basis of the criticism itself not because they went after your idols
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #2 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RMhUgxxD49Q/mqdefault.jpg)
what is the rank?
Panel 1: CG>CO>OO>OG
Panel 2: OG>CG>CO>OO
@@debayanbhattacharya7247 For OG, you either ran a shit case or the best one
Can't stand the case from CO here. The economics are almost a silly as OG's misinterpretation of how comparative advantage works. The political philosophy is garbage. The squirreling is obnoxious. It's like they tried to prep their case to try and trick me specifically into opposing the opp side of the debate. I mean why the fuck would you squirrel in an argument that's even more losing for you than the one you're already having.
it ain’t that deep
@@eggmon3813 what does that mean? Is me hating an argument three years ago and then posting that I hated it deep? I don't even remember what video this was
@@spacebiggles randomly hating on ppl who consent to recording is pretty cringe. Like, would you ever be cussing people out and calling their case "garbage" to their face? It's really fucking rude. Idk why people lose all common decency when commenting on A PUBLIC PLATFORM THAT THE PEOPLE WATCHING CAN SEE. Tel Avivare goated and this is just so disrespectful to them.
But in terms of what it ain't that deep means, it means a person running an argument you don't like isn't enough reason to do a REALLY weird and rude comment.
@@eggmon3813 that's a reasonable explanation. It was definitely a bit rude. For the choice of language, I apologise.
On the other hand, I think that I wrote what I did primarily because I am an immigrant in a country with exploitative guest worker visas, and at the time someone had just died in immigration detention in the region that oversees my residence status, after she was refused medical care. I was reacting to the offensive level of indifference towards a group that I myself am part of, in having a debate about no minimum wage guest worker visas in which it is practically taken as a given that immigrants should not have the same flimsy labour rights that ordinary workers have. Later, I found that the case had been publicly praised as an excellent example as a principled argument, so the community as a whole has a much different view than me, possibly the least relevant person in all of debating. Should I have been more tactful or just shut up? Yes. Did I have a legitimate grievance with the debate in this video? Also yes.
I have had people come after me for years because they were upset they drew a round in academic. I can agree that it's unpleasant to be publicly chewed out over debating and that we should aim to improve the way that we communicate our frustrations with one another, my TH-cam comments included. However, I disagree with the idea that nobody should ever criticise someone else's speech or adjudication. Things you're saying in a debate or adjudication are still things you're saying, and just as debaters I've never met in a TH-cam video are real people, immigrants being talked about in debating rounds are real people too.
@@eggmon3813 It's the RR, no one denies that these people are top-tier debaters. What's weird is how offended you are on their behalf. @spacebiggles wasn't insulting them as people, they were criticizing the case. Respond on the basis of the criticism itself not because they went after your idols