Jump to content


Popular Content

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

  1. 1 point
    IMO: A. Use Evidence if you have any to disprove their claims. B. Say their Claims are unwarrented with any evidence or anybody else who believes these claims. C. Say that non-Evidence based Debates just lead to a debate of morality and feelings. Not truly evidence, degrades the level of debate that you have. D. Extend Case and do Impact Calc/ Case S K or Case O/W the K E. Framing.
  2. 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!
  3. 1 point
    Can we hear what this aff was now that the season is long over?
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
    Look, intrinsic or not, politics DAs are amazing even if they arent intrinsic to the plan. Politics benefit the activity as a whole because they reward the team that does the work and keeps up with current events. People should know the immediate ramifications of passing a plan and if it has non-intrinsic ramifications...so what? This is like having the US pass an open immigration plan September 12th...probably a bad idea even if the plan itself would have seemed amazing on the 10th. Additionally, politics are uber-educational and since YES the aff plan would probably effect politics, then politics leave a lot more specific room for affirmative strategy that could adequately answer the scenerio or have to do with case (i.e. democrats love/hate our specific aff). I agree, this intrinsicness is not an awful argument, [at the same time, I completely understand why it holds very little water]. (*This post has been modified to better describe my viewpoint)
  6. 1 point
    Politics is a disad to NORMAL MEANS which every aff should defend. If you don't want to cut uniqueness updates, critique the business like a normal person.
  7. 0 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,
  8. -1 points
    i beg to differ. sorry, you meant assistant coaching staff, right? what's immediate about building bipartisanship or spending political capital? ...so it's not a reason to reject a plan, just a cute little observation. you give no reasoning as to how politics is educational; you just say that affs can find link cards going both ways. woohoo. that's not educational. how can you be sympathetic towards judges that ignore ANY argument? that's completely antithetical of what their function is supposed to be. more specifically, i think perming politics disads is entirely legitimate. you just have to be able to defend it. it's not all that difficult and there are several ways to pull it off. just set it up in the 1ac. i also think politics disads are satan's spawn.
  9. -1 points
    Awww everyone said ya'll.are lame, but I figured give every forum the benefit of the doubt, there are different ideas that you could present and they would uniquely inform. Its sad that, I have to combine your names with your tween acronyms to create an "argument". I would say ask your coach what to say, maybe he can puppet you better than you seem to be capable of doing solo, but if I was him id have fallen on a sword. Weaaaaaak.
  10. -1 points
    "war" it's a war machine fueled by the united states murdering over a thousand innocent civilians
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
  • Create New...