Leaderboard

Sounds like there was a Lack of clash in that psycho debate

Said wrote orientalist mainly as a critique of western perception of the middle east

For the 2AC My condo block is: "Condo bad is a voter- skews time and strat, not reciprocal, infinitely regressive, creates a moving target, and dispo solves their offense – our interpretation is that the neg gets 1 conditional advocacy" The offense/defense should usually be the same with the skews time/strat, not reciprocal, etc. but you should choose what your interp is be it they get one condo advocacy, dispo, unconditional, 2 condos. whatever you can articulate the best or works better for the round. should be a pretty blippy argument and you need to slow down a bit and pause a second to make sure the judge flows all the arguments. In the condo debates that I've had I've found your interp of dispo is the best way to win the debate because your interp allows for neg and aff control of neg strats and forces a bit more strategic thinking than reading a bunch of adv cp's. If you're gonna go for it in the 1AR/2AR make sure there is some real in round abuse (you only read perms and impact defense, for example) so you can prove that abuse.

I would agree with you, but only partially. The thing is that students will always be kids and therefore not have the power. If they are told by an adult not to run an argument because its dumb or worse- that they "can't"- that student is much less likely to run that argument. I know first hand (sorry for the anecdotes here), being told kritikal arguments were against UIL rules by a very conservative coach (bless her soul, she is the most wonderful woman I have ever met). Another time I ran "new in the 2" and new ev in rebuttals and was told by the judge I couldn't. At camp my teachers constantly beat down STOCKS and debate and at nationals I was screamed at for running a planked plan. As far as complicated argumentation that is over many debater's heads, I believe it is the educator's job to foster an atmosphere where students may develop their own arguments even if the are more simple. Instead some coaches encourage lazy debate by either writing debater's affs for them or giving them open ev because those arguments might be better than what the students could write themselves.

and...?

On your (a), the terms do not ask whether the material I posted would be reasonably believed or that the admins would want to punish it. The terms only ask whether I, the poster, know the material is false or inaccurate. I admit that I know "2+2=5" is both false and inaccurate. So, I have violated the terms. Whether those terms are actually binding or whether the admins will choose to punish me for the violation are separate issues. My argument is that the terms are too restrictive and posting "2+2=5" should not be a violation in the first place. On your (b), the solution to address falsity is to post a correction. If someone is demonstrably wrong, and refuses to respond to comments or other communications that offer a correction, then they will just look dumb and everyone will judge them accordingly (just as happens in the forums when arguments are made with faulty factual premises). Being wrong on the internet should not, by itself, be a violation of terms of service. (Even ignoring the "2+2=5" bit, I also definitely violated the copyright term by posting the terms themselves, which I do not own the copyright to. Sure, that posting counts as Fair Use under copyright law, but these terms of use for the private website don't care about Fair Use or any other exceptions to copyright.) And chaos, reading is for losers. You're better off with your head in the sand...

I disagree - a. Those who control the blogs will think reasonably. Saying "2+2=5" is something that most admins would not in their right minds delete because many would either see it as an unknowledgable falsity or as just minor inaccuracy that would ot affect the whole post. Your example does not work in the context of cross-x.com. b. I think that any blog should try to prove a point/argument - this is what all blog posts do (even your own, for example). Somebody who does this with falsity would mislead people and give them inaccurate information, which would take away the whole point of the post and make blog posts far more uneducational (using my example - what if your whole post was based off of quotted information from legal terms that you knew were not in the terms at all. Then this whole comment would be useless, and this whole post would have had no warrant to read).

Why thank you. My coach wanted me to write one for novices and I decided to post it for all to read.

What points? Because I'm pretty sure I'm dead on about it. Also, I haven't plagiarizer at all.

Edward Said