Jump to content

jmc_va

Member
  • Content Count

    659
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

jmc_va last won the day on August 30

jmc_va had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

54 Excellent

About jmc_va

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 08/15/1969

Profile Information

  • Name
    John M. Cowan
  • Location
    Virginia Beach, VA

Recent Profile Visitors

3676 profile views
  1. jmc_va

    Open Mindedness K

    it was something in the vein of elimination of counter-narratives being an essential part of the otherization / exclusion / etc. cycle. whether you bite it or not is more a question of the alt than the link story: affs exclude. negs open up space for multiple narratives. vote for the better world. or something. it's been 5 or 6 years since i've looked at the argument and i am in full vacation mode right now.
  2. jmc_va

    Open Mindedness K

    ugh. i know we used to run an arg about prescriptive reasoning being a form of violence, but i can't remember the primary author. if it sounds like something you're interested in, shoot me a dm and i can check the backfiles when i'm on my home 'puter.
  3. to add: debaters new to spreading tend to default to one of two speaking styles: a monotonous droning or a weird sing-song where each sentence ends with an upward inflection, like the entire speech is a series of questions. both styles are hard on the ear when you're sitting at the back of the room, judging. you may want to run drills where you go at less than top speed but actually emote. or, better yet, alternate between spreading and emoting. it can help you break bad habits. plus, emoting every now and again in round tends to do good things to your speaker points. i used to call these "righteous indignation drills" when i was running my debaters through them.
  4. jmc_va

    remember when...

    there used to be more than, like, twelve people posting on this site? and there were hundreds of new posts every day? what happened? i've checked out a couple of other sites and it's not like they're any less desolate than this one. where is the debate community hiding?
  5. jmc_va

    Nuke war good

    I mean, a Nietzschean amor fati argument can be deployed against nuke war, but only if your case doesn't bite it, too. But, you know, why not sever your affirmative, concede their body count and then spend the rest of the round embracing death? That would be a hoot!
  6. jmc_va

    Coach Wanted!

    Yeah, I couldn't help you with judging... I'm on the east coast. But if you need help with research, argument selection and construction, etc., I could help. I lean heavily left / kritikal.
  7. there's a documentary about the dartmouth debate institute that shows parents (and students who have never been) what camp is like. maybe get them to watch? http://debatevision.com/video/spew-competitive-world-high-school-debate
  8. jmc_va

    N/A

    i'm also interested in helping and, coincidentally, i'm also in virginia. [insert eerie music of your choice here.] so it would have to be online assistance. i've been involved with policy debate for going on four decades and want to see the activity grow wherever it can. your coach wouldn't have to pay me anything to help out in this capacity.
  9. jmc_va

    Poverty Topic

    I was coaching in 2009-2010 and have the back files. Tell me how to get em to you and I can do it when I get home this afternoon.
  10. i've been involved in policy debate in one capacity or another for (good lord) four decades. the reason some of us "old school" peeps have embraced kritikal argumentation is because of the ahistoricality of policy arguments. we have literally watched the link stories of a thousand das come to pass in the real world and yet none of the impacts have occurred. these constructs are PROVEN to be meaningless. so what does that leave other than the effect we have on one another in the round and as a community? if the focus of debate is education, we should be educating about things that actually matter and have a real impact on the real world, not weighing who has the best strung-together farce that will NEVER have an impact on any of us. all that being said, i have seen hard policy kids OWN the framework flow and they've gotten my ballot. because, if what happens in the room is what matters, the quality of argumentation matters too.
  11. the second seems to be the better file and has the potential for an alt better than critical self-reflection and rejection (although that's all it goes for). the abbott and burke cards in the shell set things up for some juicy stavrakakis stuff, if you wanna go there. i've never been a fan of rejection alts, especially when it's in an argument where multiple counter-narratives are possible (over-identification, non-killing political science, political interiority, etc.).
  12. I'm late to see a movie, so all I looked at was the facts bad card. I'll check out the other stuff when I have more time. The facts bad card is pretty awful. It's telling us that facts are uninteresting / useless unless imbued with implication by context. The entire point of a debate round is to imbue facts with implication by contextualizing them with other facts. If you want something that says what I think you want that card to say, you might find this more helpful, if deployed correctly... Shapiro.docx
  13. okay, the files are attached. let me know if they get truncated or the formatting is ruined or whatever. the k of the project was written for the national service topic and there's a "link" card specific to national service and the morality of custom. but, really, if you read through the argument, you'll see that impulses to "help" or "make things better" also link. you could probably migrate some of the internal impact story into the link and make it super generic. or, you know, you could find some ev specific to immigration policy (either the morality of custom story or the helping the Other story). either or both should be pretty easy to find. there are two versions of the shell, one much shorter than the other. the few answers provided are specific to this particular nietzsche argument... you should have generic nietzsche answers already. if not, let me know and maybe i can dig those up, too. if anybody needs anything explained, they can shoot me a question. Nietzschean Kritik of the Project.doc AT Nietzschean Kritik of the Project.doc
  14. i haven't looked at my nietzche file in ages, but the only way i can conceptualize a dice roll argument making sense is in the context of amor fati? maybe i should pull out the file. if anyone (or more specifically, if any of the, like, 6 people who still use this site) want it, i could share.
  15. jmc_va

    Queer Fem K

    Exactly. Edelman talks about the queer as the representation of a process in the same way he talks about the child as a symbol for a process. And while I agree there's no obvious path from this topic to an exclusively-QT Aff, there's a huge case to be made (excuse the pun) for Lacanian political theory this year. I mean, the whole ego malformation in the mirror stage leading to otherization / threat construction / exclusion clearly overlaps with the topic area. Edelman starts in the same place and any solvency mechanism that addresses one (over-identification, maybe) probably addresses both. I think a Lacanian QT advantage is super workable within that case framework, whether Edelman or bædan. I find Edelman easier to deploy because there's no anarchic baggage to deal with. But, if used properly, either would allow you to preemptively take out impact-based decision calculus. While the rest of case (the geopolitical ego formation stuff) would allow you to preempt "real world" link stories.
×
×
  • Create New...