Jump to content

Marxist_Thinker

Member
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About Marxist_Thinker

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 04/02/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • AIM
    msubound2006

Profile Information

  • Name
    Karl
  • School
    Marxist School of thought
  • Biography
    I am a kritkal thinker
  • Location
    Communism Land
  • Interests
    Postmodernism
  1. I think that it is fair to say that has nothing to do with you, sir.
  2. Could Pembroke close out quarters at a tournament? Monumental.
  3. Hulk your logic is bad. Whats the reason not to we meet? In a world in which T is competing world you would want to compete in their world and create your own. Or at least competing interpretations. It's a question of framework on T. Your Answers to T can be critical and still read a we meet. See Wayne MT from the courts topic they did just that.
  4. Marxist_Thinker

    WSOP

    Former Parkway South policy debater, and a pretty damn good one at that, Craig Boyd is in the cash at the WSOP NLH 6 handed event. You can follow the action on pokernews.com or on twitter at craigthedeac. Just wanted everyone to know some cool non debate news for a previous missouri debater.
  5. You sound like Kobe Bryant played in MSG when he dropped a boat load of points on the Knickerbockers. TEAM FIRST!!!!!! YEAH!!!!!!!!!! Lebron could have broken the single game scoring title in that game and I still would have said that. He couldn't get it done. I love the guy. I love the Cavs! But he couldn't get it done. Blame his team mates, they stood around like bums.
  6. Breaking News: Dwight Howard Learned To play Offense!!!! Oh God, Lebron Dethroned!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  7. Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOOOOOOOOOO THUNDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  8. Final 4 controvery areas have been posted to the cedadebate.org site. Excluded from the list is immigration.
  9. I think that the inverse of your statement is probably more likely to be true. The topic is dry and boring. The paper isn't very well developed, not like IMF, Russia, or Nukes. I think that the problems with bidirectionality are multiple and the TC isn't interested in having to spend the first day dealing with issues of bidirectionality. While there are probably some of those issues with the Nukes topic it is limited to generating bidirectional advantages off of a plan that only goes one direction.
  10. I think that the argument is probably that the body modification/queer/manipulation arguments would be able to be better fleshed out in a round versus the "traditional" arguments that you metnion Antonucci in Biopower. Those debates often become about abstract things totally unrelated to the arguments in the original K. ie with your example of biopower it often becomes about heg or realism, and probably not in the community now like it was a few years ago. The arguments made against Nietzsche, butler, heidegger are much more nuanced arguments and curtailed against the specific argument. I tend to think that Johns interpretation of what kind of resolution a K team might like is dependent on the K team. I think that there are teams that are more down the middle that would love the policy resolution because they are rolling generic big IR K's or generic Nuke K's but the teams like OU CJ, Wayne FM, NW BM were reading very specific K's that would have been read at either end of the spectrum. My interpretation of specific is in regards to the resolution and ideas being debate as opposed to the specific case. Maybe Gabe and Matt are a bad example because they were reading a lot of generic Zizek arguments but Gabe on the courts topic was reading some pretty specific arguments. However a more straight up team that is reading the K like Dartmouth CS was probably were enjoying a more right leaning resolution. Either way the statements that you are making are true Antonucci no matter which way the resolution leans K teams will read the K. Resolutions are not generally crafted for exlcusion purposes and I dont think that is the case here. I do think that the crafters of the "taboo" topic probably think that they wrote in some inclusion for their specific squads but exclusion was probably not anything that they had in mind. On the question of the topic; I think that Chris is right the nuclear topic that JYeates sub is by far and away the best. Working in a framework where your preference of papers is decided based on persuasion of arguments presented in the paper for what would create the best resolution, this is true. The arguments made in the paper are by far the most persuasive. The arguments about the timing of the resolution, the longevity of the impact of the resolution, and the "living" factor with the resolution changing throughout the year are great. To call bring greater attention to one argument that the resolution would change throughout the year is probably the most convincing. The topic is formed, framed, and picked to ensure the best education for the community, in theory. By the time the NDT rolls around the topics are generally pretty stale save a few teams breaking new at the NDT or districts in rare cases. This makes for a great change from first semester to second which would exponentially increase the educational breadth of the topic, I would think.
  11. I thought that I would add a bit to what KEv said. I agree with him. I think that the argument that Greenwood was trying to make was a hot argument just not made the right way. Fiat gets you that the plan will be passed. However fiat cant get you that the plan would be enforced. I think that this steals a whole host of negative ground arguments. Such as K/CP ground and some solvency arguments. I will post more later
  12. Ummm the topic committee meeting is May 31st-June 2nd at KCKCC. I will be there, I will try and keep posted on here about is going on there
  13. Is anyone aware if this affirmative was cut by a camp?
×
×
  • Create New...