Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/18/19 in Posts

  1. 1 point
    Bro why r u obsessed with conflating Vishvak with Het dude. Ask any debater from coppell, Vishvak is Shreyas’ partner, although u might be right that he graduated and also probably right that Het is Shreyas’ new partner.
  2. 1 point
    Ya bro no problem. Though my mistake. Frank Wilderson is for afropessimism not the Pan K. I think Pan writes the pan K.
  3. 1 point
    On Jah, you have to be trolling. Calvin baudrillard writes china war good cards. At least pretend to know the lit.
  4. 1 point
    You are correct good sir. China threat is bad. Coppell RB ran this argument a lot on the negative during the immigration topic. Look into Wilderson as an author since I know Vishvak researched him a lot for his neg strat against most affs.
  5. 1 point
    just impact turn the thread this is a good thing
  6. 1 point
    Which is exactly why I said whether or not the difference exists depends on how you spin. Imo, the distinction doesn't exist in most debates, but there are those that believe T-USfg doesnt make a totalizing claim about the state being good, just necessary for clash, where framework debates tend to come down more to the state goood/bad debate. Just explaining the thinking behind those that claim there is a difference.
  7. 1 point
    Wrong. Framework isn't 'excluding the discussion of the aff,' otherwise 'topical version of the aff' wouldn't be an argument used in framework. At its core, framework is "T+" -- it's a T-USFG violation paired with a methodology/solvency debate. Depending on the aff, people usually pair this with other T violations, such as T-curtail or T-domestic surveillance. This is why you see the familiar 'resolved = legislative action' paired with both T standards (limits and ground) and with cards like 'Law key to address anti-blackness.' If it lacks the latter part it's really just T-USFG. None of this is an exclusion of the discussion of the aff. Unless a team is making poor choices, the whole point is that you can talk about racism, sexism, etc. within the context of legislative action (usually contextualize to the resolution).
  8. 1 point
    Obviously you need to do this. But having framework can drastically help your chances of winning. Plus, if a team is going to be kritikal, they need to be prepped for framework.
  9. 1 point
    the name you put in the speech doc
  10. 1 point
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...