Jump to content

NathanTheBarbarian

Member
  • Content Count

    166
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Good

About NathanTheBarbarian

  • Rank
    catalyst
  • Birthday 05/05/1989

Profile Information

  • Name
    Nathan Bashaw
  • School
    Michigan State
  • Location
    East Lansing
  • Occupation
    catalyst

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    raise theanchors
  1. Dasein is the being that questions it's very Being; namely, human beings. But it's not particular humans, it's the concept of being human. At least, that is a lot closer to how Heidegger talks about it in Being and Time than what the other people said. I don't know what the debate Heidegger nonsense is.
  2. i think the motion passes. unanimously. somebody order a plaque.
  3. the solvency mechanism is not just in the "solvency contention" of your 1AC. Yes, you should be reading solvency cards for your specific mechanism, but it relates to your entire aff. Your internal links to your advantages are probably mostly based off the mechanism.
  4. Nathan Bashaw East Lansing, I debate for MSU willing to assistant coach but only for a tournament by tournament basis nbashaw@gmail.com
  5. i love me some justin, but i feel like i could add a bit to his explanation heidegger's essay that got debaters all hot and bothered was "the problem concerning technology." what he meant wasnt ipods and computers, but rather the tecnological, manegerial mindset. this is the problem/solution stuff that justin talked about. The main reason why heidegger thought that was bad was it made us forget about being. being, or desain (i think the way heidegger said it-correct me if i'm wrong) is something that heidegger was concerned with for most of his philisophical life. how to define being, etc... he was a huge influence on the existentialists. so the reason why this technological thinking is so bad is it obscures being. people become a standing-reserve, ready to be deployed and serve their task, they become cogs in the machine. plus, technological thinking and that form of crude utilitarianism is the reason why we have the ability to destroy the planet at the flip of a switch. that is my understanding
  6. i dont know if it shows us the whole performance, and you cant really hear what they say when they say stuff in it. but its really interesting because if it didnt have the two words "slavoj zizek" in the title of the show i would have looked at it completely differently, searching for something that reminded me of one of his works. i came out with nothing notable. i'll watch it again later though. i am perplexed.
  7. SDI is also a really good camp that has not been mentioned. they have great instruction and a really really good price, especially for 3 week
  8. i agree, space is pretty sweet there are some good strategic tricks to it, like we solve your terminal impact cause we pwn in any war, and china space mil inevitable.
  9. i guess but i got more neg rep for "ass kissing" or something like that douchebag thats jealous of teddys sexyness i guess? idk we're all sexy
  10. to sort of extrapolate on what jon was saying, I think kritik debates favor the team who understands them more. what i think is strategic about kritik debate is: A) you pretty much control the ground of every round. especially in high school. people dont really want to debate you and just make it an issue of framework. Especially if you are running a critical aff. you should understand the argument better than the other team. if you dont you are either really unlucky or shouldnt be running it. This specialization allows debaters to cut lots of specific links, block out their file, and know their argument. what makes this different from getting really good at a states counterplan and running that every neg round is that states isnt hard to grasp. states do plan. what may or may not be a good thing is often teams exploit another persons misunderstanding of the argument. especially if it is a more obscure argument. obviously critical literature is much more dense than any other type of lit in debate, and it can work to your advantage if you know it you are prepared and the other team has a superficial understanding. This also happens more often at the high school level.
  11. the best specific intellectual card ive ever seen is probably owen. thats the first card of my foucault shell, the framework. I prefer to advocate the judge evaluate the round from the perspective of the specific intellectual and then have some other alternative like, geneology (sp?) or power mapping or something. i guess those are the same thing.
  12. you guys misunderstand what the text should be, you dont ban the peace corps teaching english you just increase funding except in the areas teaching english. paired with the in=throughout argument that solves alot of your competition problems. also 2AC clarification is bad because you spike out of stuff like the counterplan.
  13. who let the kid on cx? there is a lesson to be learned here, control your novices, especially middle school ones
×
×
  • Create New...