Jump to content

theantithesis

Member
  • Content Count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Okay

About theantithesis

  • Rank
    WHITE DEVIL GO HOME
  • Birthday 04/24/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • AIM
    theantithesis827

Profile Information

  • Name
    Evan
  • School
    BHS
  • Location
    Burlington
  • Interests
    Watching television
  • Occupation
    Telemarketer
  1. I'll cut cards, coach, and judge for a floor to sleep on and a plane ticket from seattle. I debated for burlington and did well there, etc. - Evan
  2. If any teams in the northwest are going to Berkeley, I'm located in Seattle, and I want to coach or judge at the tournament. If not, I know the odds are fairly low, but if any school could give me a ride to Berkeley from anywhere closer than Seattle, I'd appreciate that a lot too.
  3. so, i debated at Burligton HS in VT, but im moving to seattle for a while, so, here are my qualifications. I had five bids to toc, at Wake, GDS, Glenbrooks, Ohio Valley, and Harvard. I had numerous speaker awards, including third speaker at Lexington, and third speaker at Bronx. Hire me. You wont regret it. I might not chec this webstie for a while, but you can email me at croatoancalling at gmail.com.
  4. Nowhere yet. I'm living in a collective in Burlington until I figure all that out.
  5. 1) I'm cheap. Cost of transportation, place to sleep, and food. 2) I'll judge, coach, cut cards, whatever. 3) I did well last year, getting five bids to TOC and numerous speaker awards. You'll have access to all my backfiles. Get pumped. -Evan
  6. Fine, let's roll with that. Why does the miniscule possibility of you converting someone outside the round matter (and more significantly, why does the ballot mean that your efforts to go into the community and raise the black flag will be anymore successful) Since this began as an argument about running non-unique disads, people accept the state irrelevant to what happens in the round. Feltcher. issues with this a) You don't run an alternative, so your kritik endorses the status quo. The fact that the plan constructs the state's existence means that people making demands on the state now have already constructed its existence, so for better or for worse, the state exists. Your argument is that by struggling to deconstruct the root of the state's authority, the authority will go away. Fact is, regardless of how hard much we say they dont exist, at this point, they do. c) Since the state is here, that means deconstructing our need for government also menas deconstructing government in order to change anything, because regardless of what power Bush actually has, he certainly thinks he has enough power to kill us all if we ignore government, and so does everyone else, so he will. dumb. our stance as the affirmative is that changing each individual person's mind about end strength is good. it doesn't matter if it changes anything, because changing the minds of every individual in the world is necessary for a world where your alternatvie solves to emerge, whereas we need to convert less people, and are more likely to because we're not....insane. At worst, this proves why your framework is arbitrarily constructed so that the affirmative is forced to lose. You certaibntly don't get to decide my framework, good pal. No. If you don't understand the way basic argumentation works, you don't have to post on a debate forum.
  7. That's so dumb that I think it just gave me AIDs. The discourse of "the state should take action" is certainly not unique to the round. 100% guarantee you have no reason why arguing for state action to increase end strength in a debate round constructs the state any more than a) Everyday demands put on the state and your alternative of having the government slowly deconstruct itself, which assumes the existence of state power. [to anyone who's interested at this point, Baudrillard writes pretty phenomenal cards on this] Cool. If the judge votes aff, I can go out and locally campaign for an end strength increase. The thing is, neither thing is going to happen. It's probably just as important to discuss the global implications of policy options in our day to day lives as it is to run around like dumbasses, throwing out terms like "deep anarchy" (deep eco maybe? green anarchy? not really sure what this is, and neither does google). Kropotkin is rolling in his grave right now. Seriously. It's not even that I disagree with what you're trying to say; it's just that the way you're trying to say it is atrocious. Try again.
  8. Absolutely not. I'm pretty sure this doesn't mean anything anyway, but even if it did, you'd still be wrong. Let's follow the logic of this statement. Advocating policies in round is something we, as debaters, are able to do as a means of educating ourselves as participants in the political process, but we are not able to establish the policies. You are saying that debating kritiks is better because we can discuss advocacies, regardless of whether your advocacy actually causes "anarchy" to occur. Here's a hint; they're the same things. xcat dick 4 lyfx
  9. You're right. Disads have to have uniqueness. Statism can't ever have that.
  10. I debate in the Northeast. and I want to edit people's posts to make them look dumber then they already are (which is generally a Herculean feat) (Which means you're all dumb...in case you didn't pick up on that). blah blah blah I know about tournaments and stuff. But seriously. Evan Weiss Johnson III
  11. this tournament was cancelled, primarily because I fabricated it.
  12. Who else qualled?
  13. Or Edgemont. Or Bronx. Or Lexington. Or Oak Park River Forest. Or Burlington. Or Hanover.
×
×
  • Create New...