Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/19/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    You have ruined this site.
  2. 1 point
    You have ruined this site.
  3. 1 point

    Version 1.0


    Nuclear malthus is the argument that a large, full scale, nuclear war would be good for the world. The argument is tricky because it gets to make smart uniqueness claims about the inevitability of nuclear war and human extinction which often obviate affirmative responses. Now is a great time for nuclear malthus! Recent NASA studies on limited nuclear war still lose to the same tricks as always, and teams are less prepared than ever to deal with a big-stick impact turn. This position also couples well with any number of critical positions. The file is 130 pages long and contains blocks to every argument I know of. The file is ready to use out of the box.


  4. 1 point
    Hello, I am done debating you. Your debates lack a clear and consistent structure, they are extremely dull, and most importantly, your Moderator is a horrible arbitrator. I gave you one live debate, and that is more than fair. You only wanted one live debate and my rules explicitly said me debating you was contingent on you leaving this site alone. Additionally, post the link to the video of our debate so the members on this site can hear it. We have waited patiently for a week, but you have prolonged the video. To the members of this site: I am sorry for the Manhood Academy coming back to this site. I thought we were rid of them. If they continue to plaque this site, I am sorry. I do not wish to debate them anymore for the aforementioned reasons. Best Wishes!
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    in regards to the other teams heg advantage: "the reason i voted negative is because i didn't buy the aff's hydrogeny advantage... what is hydrogeny anyway? Well... never-the-less, neg wins because the aff didn't make it clear to me what hydrogeny was" and if that wasn't bad enough- one time we ran nietzche with a judge from a catholic school, and we used the christian morals bad shit: *entire ballot is blank* *i have one speaker point, my partner has ZERO.* and at the bottom of the ballot it read, "this was a complete waste of my time."
  7. 1 point
    This wasn't actually on the ballot, but it was part of an oral critique after the round. We were neg. The Judge: "I voted aff because I didn't really buy the kritik and I thought you put all your eggs in that basket." Me: But I kicked out of the kritik in the 2NR... The Judge: "Well... you talked about it..."
  8. 1 point
    "Split the block." "Don't run speed K."
  9. -1 points
    how is this funny?...unless you are making fun of yourself for being a dumbass and running a speed k and then double covering it in the block...go back to novice douche
  10. -1 points
    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,
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
  • Create New...