Jump to content
LNUDEBATE

Njfl, Black Swans, Anti-Fragility, And Martyrs Or Heroes

Recommended Posts

hi guys!! ermegherd.

 

so you know the saying "yolo"? 

 

well, it goes with this. 

 

you only live once. why waste it?? 

 

so join the antifragile movement.

 

if you want to spread the word then hashtag it to #antifragile. on instagram, facebook, twitter, or pintrest.

 

don't be a bitch (a.k.a.~ kudos)

 

they are a whoose...

 

we are LNU and we are proud of it.

 

if you don't like us... it's your loss...

 

 

 

to our newbies~~ we are LNU (two consonants and a vowel in alphabetical order) 

we are da bomb.com. our teams are strong and faceless.

 

 

we don't care what you guys say. but we stand up for what we think and do.

 

to our supporters~ you're awesome!! you completed step one. now step two, is to spread it and #antifragile.

 

our debaters are not scared of what you run or say.

 

see you at nationals!! :wavey:

 

jessica

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tumblr_mm96bszILO1s5bb8ko1_500.gif

 

the more you hate us. the more we benefit.

 

antifragile= to benefit from hatred and losses

 

if you are a coach, you're a hella horrible one- shouldn't you be prepping your students for nationals?

 

if you are a debater, you're a hella horrible one- shouldn't you be prepping for nationals?

 

you're probably one of those idiots who make fairness arguments because they haven't blocked out correctly.

 

and talking shit on our team before nationals won't help- you could get rekt by one of our novices.

 

-jessica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just judged the anti-fragile "movement", they were jerks in CX and stated that because they posted that they "might" read Anti-fragile on their twitter page, and that was good enough to justify them reading it

 

hey, this is the coach :D  What an utter tool, you really should not compromise the integrity of your judging objectivity by running to a social debate site and posting about a round afterwards.  I think its fine to explain why you did not like the argument, but to make ad homs in a social forum is just an example of your puerile perspective and indicative of why you should not be judging the tournament.  Its kind of obvious that people who volunteer to judge are probably looking for a power trip to justify their pathetic sense of self worth.  Bully for you, you just mocked a 5th grader and a 6th grader, you big strong man.  Kaitie barton, right?  

 

Would like to discuss round with you at any point, please feel free to engage me in a face to face discussion instead of posting obliquely in a forum.  

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey, this is the coach :D What an utter tool, you really should not compromise the integrity of your judging objectivity by running to a social debate site and posting about a round afterwards. I think its fine to explain why you did not like the argument, but to make ad homs in a social forum is just an example of your puerile perspective and indicative of why you should not be judging the tournament. Its kind of obvious that people who volunteer to judge are probably looking for a power trip to justify their pathetic sense of self worth. Bully for you, you just mocked a 5th grader and a 6th grader, you big strong man. Kaitie barton, right?

 

Would like to discuss round with you at any point, please feel free to engage me in a face to face discussion instead of posting obliquely in a forum.

I will explain why I viewed it this way, to start off, in 2nc CX they justified their action of "anti-fragile", because of the fact that they posted it on their twitter, facebook, tumblr, and other pages, and stated that therefore it was justified. They then went on to state that by the fact that the affirmative, (who weren't used to spreading), tried to read their evidence was bad because that destroyed the "education" created, because the 1ar would then go straight to their coach made blocks instead of doing it themselves. I feel as though that the "anti-fragile" message, would've been better created and used, if:

1. In CX, when the 1nc begins answering questions for the 2nc and obviously angers the 1ac and 2ac, DON'T STATE "are you mad?", after repeatedly hearing yes, they state "i'm sorry, while smiling" It really kills the ethos, logos, and pathos of the team.

2. DON'T SPREAD, some teams aren't used to it, it is obviously unfair for them, because if you are speaking too fast, they can't comprehend what your saying, and if they can't see it either, then they can't debate it. It obviously isn't helping the purpose of "anti-fragile"

3. THE ENTIRE BLOCK, shouldn't be dedicated to anti-fragile, and the 1nc shouldn't just be a feminism K, based off the one word in the entire case "horseman" used as a metaphor. It is a timesuck for the affirmative, because they wasted their time answering it, only to hear the discussion of anti-fragile

4. The affirmative team was very personal in their discussion of the U.S and the transportation infrastructure system, and when the 2nc and 1nr then stand up and say, it doesn't matter, what happened to you involving transportation infrastructure and how you wan't to help fix it isn't important, what matters is how we debate, is infuriating not just as a judge, but as a person.

5. I wouldn't say calling people rude is bullying, sure it may be mean, but the negative team, especially the 1n, were definitely not being kind or at least have the courtesy to at least apologize without gaining satisfaction from seeing the opposite team be distraught and angered by the comments made in the round.

Finally 6. I would definitely would have voted on anti-fragile it is a legitimate argument, IF, executed properly, but dropping the entire case, spreading the entire argument, and the 1ac arguments regarding having any change means doing the 1ac, means that I had to default to the affirmative side. I did not wish to insult the entire LNU debate, but from my in-round experience, from what i've seen on the forums, I made a judgement call if it hurt the members or you, I apologize,

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey, this is the coach :D  What an utter tool, you really should not compromise the integrity of your judging objectivity by running to a social debate site and posting about a round afterwards.  I think its fine to explain why you did not like the argument, but to make ad homs in a social forum is just an example of your puerile perspective and indicative of why you should not be judging the tournament.  Its kind of obvious that people who volunteer to judge are probably looking for a power trip to justify their pathetic sense of self worth.  Bully for you, you just mocked a 5th grader and a 6th grader, you big strong man.  Kaitie barton, right?  

 

Would like to discuss round with you at any point, please feel free to engage me in a face to face discussion instead of posting obliquely in a forum.  

did you read The X Factor's post or what

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will explain why I viewed it this way, to start off, in 2nc CX they justified their action of "anti-fragile", because of the fact that they posted it on their twitter, facebook, tumblr, and other pages, and stated that therefore it was justified. They then went on to state that by the fact that the affirmative, (who weren't used to spreading), tried to read their evidence was bad because that destroyed the "education" created, because the 1ar would then go straight to their coach made blocks instead of doing it themselves. I feel as though that the "anti-fragile" message, would've been better created and used, if:

1. In CX, when the 1nc begins answering questions for the 2nc and obviously angers the 1ac and 2ac, DON'T STATE "are you mad?", after repeatedly hearing yes, they state "i'm sorry, while smiling" It really kills the ethos, logos, and pathos of the team.

2. DON'T SPREAD, some teams aren't used to it, it is obviously unfair for them, because if you are speaking too fast, they can't comprehend what your saying, and if they can't see it either, then they can't debate it. It obviously isn't helping the purpose of "anti-fragile"

3. THE ENTIRE BLOCK, shouldn't be dedicated to anti-fragile, and the 1nc shouldn't just be a feminism K, based off the one word in the entire case "horseman" used as a metaphor. It is a timesuck for the affirmative, because they wasted their time answering it, only to hear the discussion of anti-fragile

4. The affirmative team was very personal in their discussion of the U.S and the transportation infrastructure system, and when the 2nc and 1nr then stand up and say, it doesn't matter, what happened to you involving transportation infrastructure and how you wan't to help fix it isn't important, what matters is how we debate, is infuriating not just as a judge, but as a person.

5. I wouldn't say calling people rude is bullying, sure it may be mean, but the negative team, especially the 1n, were definitely not being kind or at least have the courtesy to at least apologize without gaining satisfaction from seeing the opposite team be distraught and angered by the comments made in the round.

Finally 6. I would definitely would have voted on anti-fragile it is a legitimate argument, IF, executed properly, but dropping the entire case, spreading the entire argument, and the 1ac arguments regarding having any change means doing the 1ac, means that I had to default to the affirmative side. I did not wish to insult the entire LNU debate, but from my in-round experience, from what i've seen on the forums, I made a judgement call if it hurt the members or you, I apologize,

hi.  were you talking to me. i am sorry i was busy doing your dad.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi.  were you talking to me. i am sorry i was busy doing your dad.

And this post right here is proof that you're not worth our intellectual time. Good day.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this post right here is proof that you're not worth our intellectual time. Good day.

Cross-X: In possession of intellect.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took me until now to realize that the quotation in your signature has the words out of order. I am exhibit B.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-X: In possession of intellect.

At the very least, when I say "our", I can reliably say my own. I spent at least a half hour of my time working that second post from an angry rant to a strongly worded rebuke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey, this is the coach :D  What an utter tool, you really should not compromise the integrity of your judging objectivity by running to a social debate site and posting about a round afterwards.  I think its fine to explain why you did not like the argument, but to make ad homs in a social forum is just an example of your puerile perspective and indicative of why you should not be judging the tournament.  Its kind of obvious that people who volunteer to judge are probably looking for a power trip to justify their pathetic sense of self worth.  Bully for you, you just mocked a 5th grader and a 6th grader, you big strong man.  Kaitie barton, right?  

 

Would like to discuss round with you at any point, please feel free to engage me in a face to face discussion instead of posting obliquely in a forum.  

 

hi.  were you talking to me. i am sorry i was busy doing your dad.

If you are the coach that explains a lot.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit, their coach (the OP of this thread) just sent me the most deliciously insane "ask" to my debate blog in the nearly 3 years I've been running it.  I haven't posted it on the blog yet because for some reason my posts at almost five in the morning don't reach a lot of people but here is a sneak peak for y'all:

 

"This is matt contreras Yeah, being number one seed in the country and losing to "we can drop shit because we habe to ride the bus" is really shitty. Ask the judges yourself if theu understood kurzweil of narcissism movement turns. Hey I didn't think about you onectime between our last conflict foolio, but I guess you don't have much else to obsess over. Like really, a college or pre college (I don't know who you are, you tool) debater has been waiting to pounce? Get a life, and resoind faster" 

 

It took me an hour to decypher this message, ask my fellow debate insomniacs online about who this was anyway, what the hell they're talking about, etc.  I'll make a proper response to this tomorrow but I am kind of horrified that this sort of individual is influential in the upbringing and formulation of young minds.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...