Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Okay

About grandpa

  • Rank
    Registered User
  1. yeah, none of the fellows from uk ever went to the toc and, two teams from my high school that had people go to the toc that went to uk really didn't and, uk's debate team sucks even though they made it to semis at the toc in 2003 finally, harvard kt are the worst team ever even though they won the copland and are teaching at uk
  2. I'm interested to hear what people thought were the main reasons they won/lost aff rounds this year. Particularly, I'm interested in people discussing specific aspects of cases they ran for a long time this year, and what strategies they found most/least effective. Just curious
  3. Olmstead isn't the standard for this kind of search in the status quo. Check out Kyllo v. U.S. 533 u.s. 121 (2001). In summary (paraphrased and accurate to the best of my knowledge), the supreme court held that thermal imaging devices do violate the fourth amendment (is an illegal search)when law enforcement uses technology that isn't genrally in useabout to search that person's home without a warrant. "..where, as here, the government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore detials of a home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a search and is presumptively unreasonable w/o a warrant". (Scalia, from the majority in Kyllo).
  4. Hey all- Ran into a critical argument that I haven't heard before several times this while judging. The critique's thesis was the U.N. is a front for western colonialism, with genocide/biopower implications. The link was basic "u.n. action = colonialism, you use the U.N. for PKO so you link." Anyways, during c-x the aff asked the neg why the neg had any kind of pre-fiat out of round implications. The neg replied, "well, our argument will persuade you to rewrite your case so it's not colonialist, and that's how our movement will start." The aff asked, "well we don't have any intention of rewriting our case based on this critique, so why do you have prefiat implications?" neg answers "well, if you don't rewrite the case, you're entrenching colonialist thinking and you lose the round based on the fact you reject our movement in the real world". Another team made this same argument about "we force them to be less _____ist and rewrite their case, starting our movement" (from a different school) and I dropped them for the same framework/theory reasons. I totally didn't buy this. The aff argued convincingly that they could NEVER rewrite their case to be 'less colonialistic' since the critique's link if off of generic u.n. action, and that there was no chance of the aff rewriting their case after the round since they just wouldn't do it, and therefore there was no prefiat/out of round implications. The aff also extended the usual policymaking/roleplaying/realism good framework defense. I vote aff, since the neg goes big for the critique in 2nr (and the block dropped a link turned disad COLD that the aff extended in the 1ar). Give an oral critique, and the neg team goes ballistic, basically arguing 'they didn't read enough evidence, we did a better job with the critique on the flow and the disads don't matter because of our out of round implications'. Am I missing something theoretically here? I think I made the right decision, but the team I judged travels nationally and went to decent camps. If I don't know what's going on, educate me. I'm not a critique expert, but I think this argument is bogus.
  5. new alliance=solid I smell top seed and 2nd and 5th speaker awards, oil mechanix ownz u
  6. Hardt and Neghri, lil buddy. Your friendly neighborhood librarian will hook you up-it's either in the library or you can get it on loan from another library or from whatever college is close by.
  7. Bush reelection = 911 * 484149849489846514351564984864653416531464164863546354 I don't know if that's worse than the sun explosion or dinosaurs though
  8. grandpa

    Spanos help

    I understand where you're coming from, but I think that rolling with shannahan's radical critique of debate only works for a few teams. If you're on the national circuit and you have the right panel and you were mentored by shannahan at ddi, it may work out. however, I don't think most people in this thread have the theoretical background or the judging pool to pull it off. although I understand your arguments, one thing that can make this position disadvantageous is time tradeoff. the argument is very abstract, takes a lot of time to explain, and it takes the negative a lot more time to answer the affs positions (if they read spanos indicts, talk about the context of the evidence, make realism good arguments, perm arguments, fiat theory arguments). Although teams like the Haze, WGLF, and Fullerton can pull it off, I think there are easier strategies that would work better for the vast majority of debaters.
  9. I've heard a NASA tradeoff scenario a frightening amount of times-people love that space impacts debate
  10. grandpa

    Spanos help

    Here's what Spanos said: Dear Matt, I have been aware of the way high school (and college) debaters have mangled my work for quite some time now. I don't know how my books got into that circuit. My intentions in writing them was/is not to appeal to debate. The very idea of institutionalized debate--where it doesn't matter at all what side one takes--is anathema to my way of thinking. In fact, you could say that my books in a fundamental way are intended to demolish the phony "pluralistic" thinking that kind of debating foster. Thinking (and the language we use to make it manfifest), in other words, should make a difference in a world, especially in the United States, which calls itself civilized and free but in reality is barbarically corrupt and unfree, which always invokes the language of justice to conceal the terrible injustices it perpetrates at home and everywhere in the world, that celebrates the individual while reducing him her to what Foucault calls useful and docile body and Heidegger, "disposable reserve. And this is precisely what the kind of "thinking" debating (as practiced in debate tournaments) IS NOT. But the fact is that, like or not, my work has been appropriated to this debate scene. And there's not much I can do about it. Who could are people like you, who seem to be aware of the fact that there's something rotten in the debating state Denmark, that it actually violates the very essence of the kind of thinking I am struggling to articulate. So, I understand your renunciation of high shcool debating. But if you really want to make your opposition felt, you should return to the debate circuit and make it your purpose to challenge the reductive distortions your debater colleagues impose on my kind of thinking. _________________________ Although Shannahan is a very smart and innovative thinker, it seems Spanos himself believes his works are distorted as currently ran in debate rounds.
  11. grandpa

    Spanos help

    to the o.p.- I think all the info you need is at http://www.ndtceda.com/schoofs
  12. I agree with Darkness and Ankur
  13. WGLF just made me spit my coffee all over my computer screen from laughing
  • Create New...