Jump to content

Shes legal in dog years

Member
  • Content Count

    5878
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Shes legal in dog years last won the day on December 2 2016

Shes legal in dog years had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-1000000038

About Shes legal in dog years

  • Rank
    The Sacrifice

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • AIM
    tomqferguson
  • MSN
    tferg88@hotmail.com
  • Yahoo
    tferguson88

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. how did u get such a bad rep bro?

  2. evan, i got your back. Also, put on your hate blockers bro.
  3. Can't surf cross-x while in class like some of us? Dylan, there's not a single reason why you can't contribute positive to the discussion. saying 'lol zizek sucks' is stupid, unproductive and makes you look more like a tool of the 'lets hate zizek' crowd headed by alex g. and his clones. You're not making arguments against this specific interaction between Baudrillard and Zizek. You aren't offering solutions for whatever [stupid] problems you are pointing out.
  4. You're right - those fancy cards about how zizek causes violence and is made fun of in the academic world aren't really as great as you are wishing they are. I don't read/coach teams to just 'say' zizek, i cut very topic specific internal links to those positions (the nuclear catatsrophe aff for example has fantastic internal links to questioning our relation to ideology or shit (biomass) its relation to ideology). This is a similar instance in which we can talk about poverty and its relation to subjective violence. Who access those impacts first? How? Why? 'these are fundamental questions. these are momental questions'. You're right though, you're answers to those positions are ballin, right?
  5. Good luck. This is the internet after all..
  6. big fucking deal. Foucault was a HUGE douche and no one talks bad about him. Nietzsche pushed a lady down the stairs, does that mean people should stop reading him? if you're best argument is 'he's a dbag' then you get get on your knees and suck this cock because no one cares.
  7. And, if you did your research you would know that there is some fact to that specific European gang.
  8. As for you hot shot, for every 1 card you have saying one thing, a good neg will have either a deeper understanding of that lit base and/or will have 5 cards answering that back. Lets line by line these positions - destroys leftist politics What's the impact? Rorty and racism? Zizek/Bard will say that these leftists politics are bad in the first place. Something about sustaining the system perpetuation racism. destroys progressive politics Progress for who? Nazis probably. Kills reform reform bad judge. reproduces hyperreality Oh snapz. Wait - the negative will always have better and more specific links to the affirmative than your generic 'lol you reproduce the system' cards. Destroys culture Multiculturalism bad, judge? ID ptx bad? Single issue movements? Pain in Identity? All these things are impact turns to this. Antifeminist (fem K counter) lol Destroys resistance You mean the same type of resistance that the negative is equating you with and is saying is bad, right? Hyperreality wrong and disabeling That's a killer argument. BAUDRILARDIZLE USES THE WRONG ANALOGY! Reproduces modernity There's not even an impact that that! Baudrillard = Capitalism Round winner right there.
  9. Oh My God. Zizek Profits Of His Kritik Of Capitalismology!! Holy Fucking Shit! Everyone! Stop! Now! We Need To Figure Out A New Argument That Isn't Co-modified By Shitty Da Baiters And Realize That What We Sai In Da Bait Is A Lie. Jesus How Could This Fucking Happen. Fuck! /edit/ wigliff block fail.
  10. I have no idea what the teams running the argument say to these silly arguments but as someone who uses these mind games for years against project teams i can safely say that you're not getting anywhere with this. A few things. A. If they show why they win, it's a defacto reason why you lose. This isn't always true but it's more true in this case. They aren't excluding you. Unless you are saying women shouldn't be in debate, in which case all their impacts to patriarchy being bad probably are reasons why you should be left out. Now, if you're right about 'exclusion being inevitable' then that means the ballot should focus on who excludes less people/who would include more people and they are just on the right side of that debate. B. Their 'you like the resolution/are a policymaker/etc' indicts are more than good. There are many, many authors who argue that before we can evaluate legislation we should examine the language and methodological foundations of said legislation. I cut 50 cards a week on this question iin relation to native american exclusion in policymaking. C. You say 'but that'll destroy debate' as the terminal impact, they'll say two things: 1. They make a better world of better debate/argumentation by making us ethical debaters via rejection of switch-side debate/embracement of not losing our identity. 2. So what if they destroy debate - debate is bad as is. Their evidence is prescriptive of your evidence, your evidence isn't.
  11. POWER TO THE PEOPLE! ...i type that as i am sitting in my native america class watching a movie over native american assimilation.
  12. btw, i'm kidding. I have researched a lot on the issue of women in debate and how to address the issue so if anyone does need help then feel free to back channel me. heh.
  13. Universal healthcare for the poor. Woot
  14. Silly aaron. Don't you remember that white-male policy debate is good
  15. Dylan, you do know that zizek did that abercrombie book as a pure joke....right? LIke, he even came out and said 'lolz'
×
×
  • Create New...