Jump to content

Fizzoley

Member
  • Content Count

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About Fizzoley

  • Rank
    Longtime Member

Profile Information

  • Name
    Jordan Foley
  • School
    Little Rock Central/Missouri State
  • Location
    Little Rock

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    rajin9966

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. if you want are interested at all in Missouri State pm me - i debate there and if you have any questions i'd be happy to answer them
  2. first i will say that i agree wholeheartedly with everything Tinsley just said I will also add that if anyone would like to get access to full college rounds to watch (one of the best ways to get better imo) you can do a number of things 1. debatevideos.blogspot.com - has a bunch of full rounds of some very good college teams 2. pm or email me - our squad has a youtube account we put videos on and if you want to see some we can make that happen
  3. i agree with tinsley 1000% on everything in his post but i want to emphasize that if anybody takes anything from this forum - now or in the future - this point needs to be it. i cannot even begin to imagine to describe the edge you get - and subsequent speaker points - when you cut an argument by yourself and know every card and every warrant in and out. and i dont mean taking camp files and copy pasting cards. i mean sitting on google (or lexis if you have university access somewhere) and cutting every single article you can find for you're aff/da/cp/whatever. my ability to debate went up astronomically when i began to do this and i would expect the same results.
  4. i will say that at Central we also dont have a 'booster club' or anyone at least to my knowledge that provides external funding at any substantial level. When i was there (and from what i understand still happens) we had to foot the bill for even in-state tournaments. we (central) did not and do not operate in a different scholastic environment to my knowledge (still subject to NCLB as well as the infamous 49th ranking) and i think framing my post (and possibly many others) as saying - you all suck lets talk about people who used to be here - i think a more accurate characterization is that there are people who want this community to advance in one way or another and part of that process is the discussion of national tournaments and camps etc. focusing on what 'happens in AR' does in fact include these things as well. And i dont think saying that we should all shut up about it gets us anywhere. I think everyone can agree that funding is always an issue and most schools dont get it (rightfully or unrightfully so), i happened to be in a position where my parents were able to support me and i happen to go to a college that (more than substantially) helps financially to debate. It is unfortunate that you (and im sure many others) are put in such a situation but again i do not believe a reason to simply tell people who want to engage in such a discussion to 'shut up' about it.
  5. although i dont really care who people consider the best ever in Arkansas - i will say that i did debate with Hilary and she is very good and her and I got, what i believe to be, the first TOC bid in arkansas history (only got one and got wait listed and didnt get to actually go). robert and her were a better team than i and her obv, they got multiple bids and actually got to go to the TOC. That aside, i will say that every school should start considering travelling out of state or at the very least attending reputable camps so the quality of debate gets a lot better becuase, at least for me, there is so much more to debate and what i was able to learn in state or even at camps sometimes. I would also encourage people to consider debating in college for a policy squad - even if you didnt go to national tournaments as a high school debater. if you want i can list off tons of debaters who were not debating on the national circuit in HS and dominated in college i can, becuase its a pretty long list. if you like the activity then continue it in college or at least give it a try (insert plug for Mo State)
  6. while it may be true that 2n's feel more comfortable with an argument they have written or take, it is in no way indicative of what will, for sure, be in the 2nr. for instance, say the 2n does a lot of neg work and cuts and/or does updates on multiple negative positions before a tournament. they obv cant take them all in the 2nc so hands them off to the 1nr. since the 2n already knows and is familiar with the entire argument becuase they cut it, it makes it just as likely as any other argument in the block to be taken in the 2nr.
  7. i will add that going for (or planning to) go for what the 1nr went for is a great way to headfake your opponents who think like Clifford. if his time allocation is terrible becuase s/he thought you should only go for args in the 2nc then the argument that the 1nr took for 5 minutes is going to recieve a lot less attention, thus the 2nr going for it makes a lot of strategic sense
  8. lol, next time you go 8-0 and are top seed at the kentucky tournament in college you can legitimately tell kearneyto get better at debate. respect your elders son
  9. also Ledger plays the absolute best joker i've ever seen. his rendition of him blew me away. overall a badass movie, everyone has to see it
  10. anyone else find it kinda funny that a school that has amish teachings has a website?
  11. point taken, its $12 now. i agree, i also think thats even moreso true with the Hillman cards especially if you can utilize the psychology aspect of the K (i guess thats true with lifton too, but Hillman talks much more about the concept of war itself which is a bigger link)
  12. This is a very different and unique kritik that can be used against literally any affirmative that doesnt have specific answers It is (centrally) a critique of the way the affirmative psychologically views war. The cards talk about how the affirmative imgaines a world of invulnerability by attempting to prevent war/conflict etc which creates a psychological states that necessitates constant destruction to any percieved threat. The Hillman alternative says that we should psychologically embrace war becuase it allows for a fuller understanding of the unconcious desire to enter war in the first place and solve the root cause of all war. A great buy for a file you can use over and over again every year The way this K is especially 'cheater' friendly is the focus on psychology, the cards are PHENOMENAL about why psychology comes first (that their ontology cards dont answer). This makes this K very strategic in terms of making the substance of the policy a moot point The price may seem a bit steep but if you take a look at the index you'll understand why. This is not just a stack of cards for you to fumble through. This K is extensively and thoroughly blocked out against not only generic K answers youll likely face (framework, util, realism, etc) but also specific blocks to arguments affs are likely to read against you. There are also very good (and seperate) overviews for the links, impact, and alternative just contact me if you have any questions or thoughts email: rajin9966@missouristate.edu AIM: Rajin9966
  13. Version

    Table of Contents This is a very different and unique kritik that can be used against literally any affirmative that doesnt have specific answersIt is (centrally) a critique of the way the affirmative psychologically views war. The cards talk about how the affirmative imgaines a world of invulnerability by attempting to prevent war/conflict etc which creates a psychological states that necessitates constant destruction to any percieved threat. The Hillman alternative says that we should psychologically embrace war becuase it allows for a fuller understanding of the unconcious desire to enter war in the first place and solve the root cause of all war. A great buy for a file you can use over and over again every yearThe way this K is especially 'cheater' friendly is the focus on psychology, the cards are PHENOMENAL about why psychology comes first (that their ontology cards dont answer). This makes this K very strategic in terms of making the substance of the policy a moot pointThe price may seem a bit steep but if you take a look at the index you'll understand why. This is not just a stack of cards for you to fumble through. This K is extensively and thoroughly blocked out against not only generic K answers youll likely face (framework, util, realism, etc) but also specific blocks to arguments affs are likely to read against you. There are also very good (and seperate) overviews for the links, impact, and alternative

    12.00 USD

  14. im interested in seeing how this thread turns out in any way different than that thread.
×
×
  • Create New...