Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ilike2DB8 last won the day on December 2 2005

Ilike2DB8 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

29 Good

About Ilike2DB8

  • Rank
    Registered User

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Name
    Proffessor R1235
  • Biography
  • Location
    The ass of the academy
  • Interests
    segwaying around campus
  • Occupation
    dyslexic debate dog
  1. Has CLS declined sharply in popularity recently? It seems like it would be really popular on this topic but i haven't heard much discussion of it. For that matter, outside of the debate community; have any CLS authors written anything useful since the 80's and 90's? Ewww, and shalagg doesn't count.
  2. you have to be able to really break down a violation and so on to avoid becoming repetative for 8 minutes, it also has to be a crush and a total lack of anykind of coherent 2AC responses because otherwise the 1AR loves you way more than they should after the block and/or your partner's 1nr has to be fast and devestating to spread the 1AR out at all. i'm a big proponent of the 'strike fear into the heart of the 1AR' school of negative debating.
  3. if your allocation of tiime sucks. T is a time suck. t shells are short, shortness can lead to time trade offs. 2AC time trade offs can be capitalized on by the block to make the 1AR living hell. 2AC's dont waste time poking around on T violations you know they won't go for...make your answers short and sweet. I'll point out that other than major arguement catagories like 'counter interpretations and so on' the 1AR has more leeway to make new arguements on T than almost any other arguement because if the 1Nc shell is short and intends to get a time trade off, but they DO decide to go for it in the block, they will inevitablly have to make extrapolations and elaborations which the first oppertunity for offensive response to by the aff will be the 1AR. i'm not advocating undercoverage, but when overcoverage is the goal, don't play into their hand either. by the way saying t is a timesuck is not an offensive arguement. any more than saying t is a potato is an arguement.
  4. neg files only really need to be whatever K's you feel like running, in general its good to have blocks on the aff for these, and any k that your aff links to in particular. For instance if you run a race-related case, block out for variations of CRT, heteronormativity, intersectionality etc.. trends in K's vary almost year to year. For some reason i'm led to believe foucault and chaloupka are in, feminism and cls are out right now, i could be way off base in that assertion because i haven't judged much recently. common k's to block out for anyway cls/laws fad, K's of formalism/positivism (basically block out for various forms of 'law bad' arguements feminism various k's of humanism... statism foucault specific biopower that will take care of a significant portion of critical rounds; but if you feel like blocking them out; block out normativity baudrillard zizek CRT chaloupka "critical files you should also have" rights good/bad util good/bad deontology good/bad pragmatism good/bad marxism good/bad dedev good/bad malthus good/bad (mostly bad) realism good/bad hmmm i'm leaving out some but this is sort of a minimalist view of K files -- have the main k's against your case blocked out (if you run border patrol, have your responses to shapiro/heidegger borders bad arguements ready) and then have some files where you can piece together responses to more feel free to expand this list, i'd say these are the most common k's this year. my preferred lazy way to do it is to basically have general blocks for the mainstream versions of certain K's and then just well organized files where you can piece together blocks on the spot to respond to the particular way a neg spins a k. if you have a meticulous attitude towards these args you could prep out for a lot of k's, obviously that would be preferred but its a lot of work and unneccesary if you can think and afford to spare a few seconds of prep time.
  5. Ilike2DB8


    Realism's application to this years's topic The application of various critiques of realism to cases on this years topic is essentially very much the same as it is on almost every domestic topic. There are some cases where it makes more sense than others. And a lot of the strengths in terms of articulating a link will stem from the specific ways that the aff case is constructed in the 1AC more than the actual policies themselves. An oversimplified example of this would be if the case is verdugo and advantage 1 is 'U.S. credibility and Perception arguements, maybe a pinch of hedge good/softpower even, realism is a much stronger arguement than in the next example. A verdugo aff with no mention of 'international perceptions' but instead just a long individual rights good advantage. One would obviously be a more compelling story than the other, though i think a couple of people have already said that a link story might still exist. Judges who are less critical will have a hard time seeing a link to a lot of these affs. Gimmick- You're right that democracy promotion is realist in some ways because the underlying motivation is power politics. To add something to the debate about democracy promotion; the american national style in world politics is notoriously, almost stereotypically defined by the political need for moral superiority. (you know this) The aspects of democracy promotion that resemble kantian liberalism, as well as the entire idea of democracy promotion are both realist ideas. Democracy promotion is entirely self serving while trying to claim to be stemming from ideas of equality, morality, and cooparation and world peace, Its the same kind of realism that created the domino theory and the great game. While framing that picture rhetorically as : "Humanitarian and morally motivated." There are tons of reasons realism is present in democracy promotion, or even human rights promotion by the U.S. Liberalism is the 'raison d'etre' but realism is still the underlying motivation. Funny episode of southpark called 'i'm a little bit country' about the iraq war, its not completely on point but its close to being relevant. I wouldn't run realism much this year and instead would focus on alternative strategies unless the link story is just glaring at you in a round. In the case of hegemony, well you could run realism bad against most hedge good authors but that wouldnt require it to be in 'kritik form' a. link b.etc. but rather just as a part of your hedge bad impact turns. Providing your other turn authors are fairly consistent with your critical ones, saying 'turn with hedge bad' is about as vauge as saying 'turn it with something'
  6. barfing at the thought of losing politics links....if i cant run politics then i quit debate. DAMMMMN YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU's (for making sense)
  7. Ilike2DB8


    I dont even like being 'connected' to any academy. if you look at my post above i think you can infer my position on who is and who isn't 'part of the academy' i think 'academy' is a ridiculous idea. i would say people actually affected by IR policies have more of a right to consider themselves part of the 'academy' than most scholars and students. I saw no peniswaving. Consult Dr. Freud on that one, you're daydreaming. Honestly Borky, i meant no disrespect to anyone here, gimmick is a jerk, and not making sense, so i just thought she deserved a taste of her own medicine.That and I was soooo amused by the statement that waltz is realism in the academy because its sort of true and untrue at the same time and the irony slays me in like 8 ways. As for treating like idiots, well i wasn't trying to say that you're an idiot or anybody else; but you are sure acting like one now. accusing people of peniswaving and so on seems above you, i think the word for whats going on here is projection. Oh and also sophmoric ps. Scu i think you're confused because he was talking to me, the gradschool peniswaving thing might have been directed at somebody else i dont know.
  8. Ilike2DB8


    were you typing with invisable characters that i'm just not seeing or what? i'm not trying to be a dick here but how exactly did i misinterpret what you said? realism...nowadays....nowa....new..noooow..neo....neorealism..... ohhhhhh i get it; you're a freaking genius! neorealism IS realism nowadays! Here i am still thinking that god i feel dumb! maybe you can give me some advice on how to go about getting banned. substantial contribution: Waltz's work came later than Carr, Morganthau etc, obviously the changes that took place in international politics from 1930-1952 or so warranted a little bit of an adaptation of the traditional realpolitik ideologies. The reason i wouldn't consider his "realist nowadays" is because it completely moots the distinction between his work and Morganthau and Carr and others and basically nullifies the coined term neorealism...although maybe realism 2.0 would be a more catchy title anyway. i really do get the point you were making, i just think you deserve somebody out there that tries to piss you off for no reason. karma.
  9. i think we have an ideological difference of opionion about what constitutes a federal governement action. the resolution does only mandate USFG. true, but a supreme court action, or an executive order, or an internal memo, or an action of the dept of treasury, or whatever is a USFG action. The term "united states federal government" applies to each of those individual actors. There is absolutely no real world basis for a "USFG" action that is not one specific entity acting. Whether its congress or the executive or judicial branches, the USFG is made up by all of them collectively, and any action by any individual branch is a USFG action. Thats just from a non-debate perspective. it makes for better ground too.
  10. Ilike2DB8


    For anybody who wants a refresher on IR theory or wants a study guide for their basic INR classes this is a clever little cheat sheet.. http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm you'll note that waltz is discussed by everyone in "the academy" as a neorealist not realist. "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." Mizzark Twiz-iz-ain (i keep asking for directions, trying to find this academy but i keep getting lost or sidetracked, perhaps its a chimera...)
  11. i think some people are misunderstanding the test case fiat arguement... nothing to do with the sc fiat being bad or multiactor fiat or anything like that at all. test case fiat is only needed when there isn't an existing case in the status quo...there are thousands of existing cases, its never really neccessary to fiat a test case, if it is; you're better off not using the courts to enact the plan/cp.
  12. thats a real insight into our intelligence communtiy; president: hey go peform immoral operations in 100 countries to get us the criteria for war, heck kill millions of indiginous people while you're at it. intel community: sir, yes sir, we've got nothing better to do SIR! tlf- thanks for posting this, i'ma use it in one of my papers i'm writing, is that teh whole article and cite and stuff? just wanna make sure! see i knew you weren't the pedantic bastard you pretend to be, you do have something to contribute!!!! bravo!
  13. haha depends on what country the corperations are operating in, look at delmonte in guatamala. neocolonialist multinationals are THE DEVIL mkaaaay
  14. Ilike2DB8

    Plan Plan

    whoa whoa whoa, everyone here has a big penis, there's no need to try to out piss one another, ankur you and tshu like plan plan, i like plan plan, (not as a strat, just as a possible framework) but hey, we all have big jimmies so lets just sit around and be cool. no need for bickering, lets get this forum back to the 'helpful' stature it should have. lets try to make a differnce, change the world, and contribute something positive...chillllllll seriously though, thinktank, you sound like you are misunderstanding something and ankur you are sounding elitist....tshu you sound grumpy, ankur you sound grumpy too as a matter of fact ankur-you were able to reintroduce me to debate theory after having left the game for a couple of years with one post in a 'topical counterplans legit' forum (in which your post brought flashbacks to years of highschool debate, ddi, the transition into college debate, coaching and judging etc...") and you cant set aside you guys' ego for a second and just try'n outdebate this mo fo? c'mon i mean i know he's being a prick (thinktank: you are) but c'mon. rise above it; you're much older and more mature. yo think tank- your posts make more sense than 99% of the people's on this website so hold your head high and just say to yourself 'hey, my experience at this point in my debate career has me thinking my way, theirs has them thinking their own way" whatever, agree to disagree, or debate, dont get caught up in a silly pissing game when you could be cutting cards, its not worth it man!! Tshu---- you're a fucking genius man, we all listen to your posts, i look forward to hearing your opinion every damn day so just keep it positve as well! dont let people get you worked up just because they disagree with you, highschool debaters are fickle and believe what helps them win, i never ran plan plan in highschool, few do, they're taught not to, understand the culture, as i'm sure you do. its not nearly an intellectual culture as it is a 'winning culture'....camps, coaches, and lame judges contribute to this but hey, changing it doesn't depend on changing this one kid's mind. you and ankur have good ideas, put them out there where they belong and dont belittle them by getting into machobitchesque peeing competitions!
  15. Ilike2DB8

    Plan Plan

    Never trust the P-0 P-0?
  • Create New...