Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. TheSnowball

    would you read these in round?

    The martyrdom K seems commodifying of Rosa Parks as well as of the ballot.
  3. happychicken

    White Nationalism DA?

    Hey y'all. I've hit this white nationalism DA at tournaments over and over again and keep losing to it. It's just saying that the plan (refugees) causes a bunch of whites in Congress to get mad, backlash and get nukes = extinction. I get that the i/l stuff makes no sense on how whites in congress get nukes on US soil, but am unable to come up with any other args for the 2ac. Any help?
  4. MattYee

    would you read these in round?

    I've run rosa parks before. It works with the right judge but remember judge adaptation is key. Bullying K and White Privlege K are meh. Facts bad is as bad as it asserts facts are.
  5. Yesterday
  6. Last week
  7. MrEragonSaph

    Camp??

    Eh. Could do better.
  8. Preeves22

    Camp??

    Getting coached by david kilpatrick and Nico Juarez? Instant winner. Please do that.
  9. Excellent! Our debate might be a bit later than late-Februrary (more like early to mid-March) because of all the testing we have going on for us these next few weeks, but we'll keep you posted on when the debate will be. Your support means a lot to us!
  10. I'll judge, assuming you still need one. Paradigm: I am tab. I only judged a handful of rounds on the China topic. I prefer traditional policy oriented approaches, but there's nothing wrong with nontraditional arguments. I generally lean negative on questions of topicality for small affirmatives, and lean affirmative on questions of generic counterplan legitimacy or K theory questions. I like hearing innovative arguments, sometimes even when they're a bit rough.
  11. AlistairTheKDebater

    would you read these in round?

    the double bind version is much safer
  12. AlistairTheKDebater

    would you read these in round?

    the rosa parks thing isnt bad needs a better card for a warrant maybe id be real careful
  13. seanarchy

    would you read these in round?

    cards have context though - other cards. that's why you read other cards - to give context. that aside this card says something different than what you think. it's literally just saying that trivial statistical data (like how many people in a room) is useless without a story, which even before you get to other cards, is usually implicit in a single card. most cards tell a small story of their own described in the tag.
  14. OwenK

    would you read these in round?

    its not terrible its just saying facts that stand alone (cards) are bad because they have no context
  15. hkuang

    would you read these in round?

    White privilege K. Unoriginal take on inequality in debate. Link of omission with no clear answer to the perm. No explanation of the alternative or why the ballot is key. None of the cards have cites?? Bullying K. I guess if your opponents are bullies? Then it's more efficient to read theory. The bystander cards could be useful against a Rutgers NDT Finals type performance. Rosa Parks. Just no.
  16. jmc_va

    would you read these in round?

    I'm late to see a movie, so all I looked at was the facts bad card. I'll check out the other stuff when I have more time. The facts bad card is pretty awful. It's telling us that facts are uninteresting / useless unless imbued with implication by context. The entire point of a debate round is to imbue facts with implication by contextualizing them with other facts. If you want something that says what I think you want that card to say, you might find this more helpful, if deployed correctly... Shapiro.docx
  17. I want honest opinions on all of these docs that are attached. They are intended to be read as poilcy cards and if u like them say so and feel free to take them! facts bad.docx white privilege K.docx bullying K.docx Rosa Parks.docx
  18. XrossEcramination

    have you seen this CP?

    I think what you're talking about is an out of round dialogue CP, which basically just says that the ideas of the K should be discussed, just not in the context of a competitive debate round, because it's impossible to fully explore an idea with the time and side constraints of debate, and because the competitive nature of debate makes it hard to engage in good dialogue or education. I would advise against reading this argument, because it's not particularly good and there are some pretty good and easy to come up with answers that will usually beat it. These are some good answers 1-In round discussion is key to truth testing the aff because out of round dialogue provides no incentive to point out flaws because there's no competitive aspect-means out of round dialogue can't build effective projects 2-There's no model of what debate would look like in the world of the CP because it links to everything, not just k affs-their model would be that everyone leaves debate to talk about stuff outside of it 3-Perm do both solves-if it's good to talk about the aff at all, then talking about it within the round in addition to out of round is net better
  19. StephenR

    Continuous/Durable Fiat

    Ok thx
  20. StephenR

    have you seen this CP?

    I ran into a CP (for a traditional aff, not a K one) where they just took a bunch of immigration experts and consulted them about the plan, it was pretty abusive there was no real net benefit, so it was easy to counter.
  21. jmc_va

    Nietzsche Explanation

    okay, the files are attached. let me know if they get truncated or the formatting is ruined or whatever. the k of the project was written for the national service topic and there's a "link" card specific to national service and the morality of custom. but, really, if you read through the argument, you'll see that impulses to "help" or "make things better" also link. you could probably migrate some of the internal impact story into the link and make it super generic. or, you know, you could find some ev specific to immigration policy (either the morality of custom story or the helping the Other story). either or both should be pretty easy to find. there are two versions of the shell, one much shorter than the other. the few answers provided are specific to this particular nietzsche argument... you should have generic nietzsche answers already. if not, let me know and maybe i can dig those up, too. if anybody needs anything explained, they can shoot me a question. Nietzschean Kritik of the Project.doc AT Nietzschean Kritik of the Project.doc
  22. spaceyyy

    have you seen this CP?

    a while back i saw some CP for K affs that was advocating for some kind of community discussion/campfire whatever, to address the aff's critiques. i thought i saved it but i can't find it anywhere. do any of y'all know where to look or any similar CPs?
  23. seanarchy

    Kant's Categorical Imperative

    There's a lot wrong about this, but I'll just point out a few things. 1) util is not "preventing bad consequences in general" - it's promoting the greatest good for the greatest number, or in it's negative version, preventing the greatest harm for the greatest number. Util is consequentialist, consequentialism is not util. 2) your description of Nietzsche is a description of stoicism. Nietzsche is not concerned with happiness, but with nobility or greatness as an operative way of being - one which is explicitly indifferent to pain and pleasure as guiding principals. Also, what you've described as afropessimist fatalism is actually Warren's black nihilism, which is distinct and is only a call for political fatalism. 3) at the point where you consider "having goals" to be consequentialism, you sort of smush together multiple philosophical perspectives in a way that isn't very helpful - for example, Kant wants everyone to act in accordance with duty (it is his goal to convince people of this), not because it has "good consequences" but because it is critically justified. 4) I have no idea why you think Derrida is not a part of "modernism, post-structuralism, or postmodernism," or why these are even remotely equivalent terms - "everything past humanism is essentially util" is super not true. Like not even a little. Util is a humanism. Kant (not a utilitarian) is a modern philosopher. Bentham (the OG utilitarian) is a modern philosopher and humanist. Nietzsche (not a utilitarian) is a proto-postmodern and proto-poststrucuturalist philosopher - not a humanist. Deleuze (not a utilitarian) is a postmodern and post-structuralist philosopher - not a humanist. Derrida is a postmodern, at first structuralist and later post-structuralist literary critic who commented on philosophy - not a humanist. Wilderson does not fit neatly within these categories but is certainly anti-humanist, anti-utilitarian, and anti-consequentialist in a conventional sense (since genocide exceeds a rational empiricist register). 5) very confused as to why you think it's a logical leap to apply explicitly prescriptive ethical theories (philosophical ones, sometime postmodern or non-utilitarian ones) to situations calling for ethical prescriptions. This is basic applied ethics. It's an entire field which is definitely not pure consequentialism.
  1. Load more activity
×