Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/09/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
  2. 1 point
  3. 1 point
    I PMed David for something months ago, when I first created this account, and he hasn't responded yet. I expect he will sometime next year or so if I'm lucky. I don't even know why he wants to own the site if he's not going to do anything with it. A lot more cash would go his way if he sold to someone who plans on improving it. In the meantime, the value of the brand name just decays.
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
    i haven't looked at my nietzche file in ages, but the only way i can conceptualize a dice roll argument making sense is in the context of amor fati? maybe i should pull out the file. if anyone (or more specifically, if any of the, like, 6 people who still use this site) want it, i could share.
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    Your ongoing failure to reply to messages and generally being unresponsive to the needs of this community is shameful, and you should be embarrassed. You are ruining something built by greater people than you, and it is hard to watch something so good die in the hands of someone so incompetent.
  8. 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!
  9. -1 points
    personally, i hate T. its whiny and stupid. why waste your and everyone's time on it, when there are much better things to debate about. i certainly don't think its a good idea to do just T the entire debate. the poor judge and opposing team, it would get so boring. In order to do all T in all your speeches, you would pretty much have to do a T on every word in the resolution. if they're a good aff team they will have answers, and probably win, since t would be the only thing you ran in the round. if you're going to run T do it on one or two good words, and then run disats, etc. it works and looks better. that's my two cents!
  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...