Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Lamp

  1. Lamp

    NFL Nats updates

    is abe lincoln making an appearance at nationals this year like he has in years past?
  2. systemic impacts. i could see a lot of teams reading straight up affirmatives and then reading K's of certain impacts of DAs in the 2ac (K of nuke war impacts, cuomo, etc etc -- there are so many others).
  3. Lamp

    NFL Nats updates

    Good luck everyone
  4. This is a very isolated event, but nonetheless pales in comparison to the type of hazing that goes in in the collegiate greek system.
  5. I agree with Dan and Wes. In general, if you are not good enough at a theory debate to defend conditionality or defend more than one counterplan, you are probably not good enough at theory to be defending a word pic, which very frequently just ends up being a debate about competition.
  6. Be sure to stop by the Hawk.
  7. You should check the file that was just put on Evazon. Patrick is a great debater and I am confident in his evidence and blocks.
  8. that link requires a log in
  9. In short, no they will not be able to get away with that stuff. The majority of the evidence indicts the core tenants of these authors. I'm not saying that people won't TRY to make those arguments; I'm saying that if they DO make those arguments, you will be in good shape to refute them. Additionally, I have included specific evidence that prevents teams from making those types of arguments. Here is a clip from an "AT: Not Our Nietzsche" Card: "I suggest, as a counterthesis, that the weeding out of the least attractive elements in Nietzsche's work amounts to either self-deceit or censorship, and that, in any case, this practice keeps us from understanding the whole of Nietzsche's vision." Now, I was hesitant to post that excerpt considering a few people may recognize it, and people have been squawking because they are operating under the false conception that I am marketing my file as 100% New Cards. But I thought it would help answer your question. Next, Synergy is correct that the full citation for that piece of evidence is: Ross 94 (Kelley L., Ph.D., Department of Philosophy, Los Angeles Valley College, Van Nuys, California, http://www.friesian.com/language.htm) First, My selling point is not that my file is 100% new cards. I really can't figure out why this has been misconstrued so many times. My selling point is: This is a file with a lot of very good, battle-tested pieces of evidence AS WELL AS some good, new arguments. My file includes BOTH, and I have no doubts that, if you purchase this file, you will greatly enhance and expand your current kritik blocks. Secondly, I'm not really sure why this file has been the subject of so many attacks by nameless posters, such as Synergy and Rhizome (who because they are nameless have no incentive to moderate their claims). I know that both of you clearly think you are god's gifts to Marketing and you feel it your prerogative to instill your wisdom into me but spare me please. I typed the description, and will gladly field any more questions about the substance of the files, but I'm just going to ignore the random pompous jibes about how I should market my file. Simple enough, if people like my file, and want to build upon their current kritik blocks, and see my fair price, then they will buy it.
  10. It is not geared towards this past year's resolution. It is universal.
  11. I understand this but in an online sales forum, this is nearly impossible to regulate. People can "preview" a file then just take all the cites and recut the cards. Or they can just copy and pasted the cards and steal them directly. If I was meeting face to face with someone, I would surely let them look at a hard copy. But the way this online venue operates is much different because of the regulation issue. That's not my understanding of debate at all. My understanding of debate INCLUDES but is NOT limited to a competitive dialogue where strategy such as breaking new arguments is utilized and often includes an element of surprise. There is a strategic value to making unheard of arguments. The market for this file can choose to debate however they wish. If they want to print an extra copy of their kritik 2AC's for the other team beforehand for added "clash" then go ahead. But I'm not going to rob them of their right to secrecy beforehand by already disclosing the arguments. I never claimed that I produced 111 pages of unheard of arguments. My file description says that I produced a solid file, that included SOME new kritik answers. In addition to those NEW kritik answers are old warrants repackaged in a better way such as is the case with the Conway card. Sure, the Conway card is NOT unheard of, but it is a very good piece of evidence that a lot of teams read against Nietzsche and for someone looking to pay a simple 9 bucks, this is file is no doubt worth it. You will surely expand your kritik blocks with the purchase of this file. If you are asking about the 1AR EXT from the file description, then the cite is: Soffer ’96, (Gail, Assoc. Prof. of Philosophy @ New School for Research, Heidegger, Humanism, and the Destruction of History, Review of Metaphysics, vol. 49) I posted the claims of the evidence. There are warrants in the cards but I didn't choose to post paragraphs worth of evidence; rather, I wanted to post a few sentences that aggressively made useful arguments.
  12. I'll defend my evidence, which is pretty good: Her being a femi-nazi is a) not true and irrelevant. That doesn't indict her discussion of discourse. Plus, even if your argument is that she hates men, that argument is useless. Usually this author is used to discredit the Gendered Language argument. So if someone is reading Gendered Language 99 times out of 100 their authors are "femi-nazis" too. You don't even make an argument here besides "other people say that too!" which that is fine, but I think Conway provides the argument in a more concise, clear, and cuttable fashion. Is trying to bash my file really what you have to resort to to promote your own?
  13. Take this discussion elsewhere. Delete your posts and I will delete mine. Your argument is asinine. It is like saying... in War, if you have more guns and bigger tanks, then you should tell your enemy where you are located. Having new arguments or unheard of arguments is strategic because it silences the other team's preparation and gives you a leg up. Hence, if you don't tell someone what your cards say or who your authors are ahead of time... then voila, they can't research them and have frontlines. Your argument will be, if your cards are so good, then why would it matter if they researched them? Sure, some evidence is so terrifyingly good that it doesn't matter. But still, would you rather read a dope card vs a team that has semi-decent answers or a dope card vs a team that has NO answers? It makes it harder to get out-debated if the other team has NO answers. Under your argument, teams should just post full cites to their affs at the beginning of the year before they have even broken them... That sounds lame.
  14. i don't have to own the source to omit that info.
  15. http://www.cross-x.com/evazon/product.php?id=10760 I am more than happy to field any questions and will stand by the quality of all of this evidence.
  16. Version

    Table of Contents If you do not feel comfortable when the 1NC includes a kritik, then this file is for you.It is OVER 100 pages of evidence, for UNDER $10, including broad 2AC strategies as well as NEW kritik busters, not old re-hashed summer camp cards. Here are some lines from cards:A2: Discourse Shapes Reality" In fact, as the counterexamples indicate, such linguistic structures such as gender determine little about thought and nothing about the world."A2: Nietzsche"Nietzsche, of course, thought the strong can and should disengage their sympathies from the suffering of the weak. I think this is a mistake. One's world is impoverished by such disengagement of sympathies."Here is one of the MANY pre-written extensions in the file:"1AR – Extend [Author/Date*] - it is an indictment of the ontology of the alternative - it is historically inaccurate and cannot be divorced from nationalistic ideological propaganda - Heidegger’s differentiation between Roman and Greek culture is rooted in the question of whether or not will-to-power is a valid German ideal"The evidence in this file is battle-tested and is of the highest quality.*Omitted for Preview

    9.00 USD

  17. Lamp

    Gas Tax AFF

    if he is going to give out cites, he might as well just give out the whole file for free.... regardless, i would say that if i were in high school, i would without a doubt buy this file. this aff is incredibly relevant to lives and allows you to develop a story for the "lay" judges in addition to being able to compete in a high-paced, technical debate. brian's evidence is top-notch too.
  18. Iowa offers more debate related scholarships. KU offers almost none. KU is not cheap for out of state students. But KU obviously has been more successful than Iowa.
  19. Lamp

    Nuclear Euphemism K

    Check it out: http://www.cross-x.com/evazon/product.php?id=10747 A steal for only $4.
  20. Version

    Table of Contents This file is a criticism of using euphemisms to describe nuclear occurrences. It includes several modules for difference phrases that might be used. A simple, generic K which is an absolute must have to protect yourself against the proliferation of new, unpredictable affirmatives, especially at the beginning of the season. I have included comprehensive frontlines to the most common affirmative answers and have thrown in a piece of affirmative evidence at the end.You will not be disappointed with the quality of evidence in this file. It is exceptional.Lastly, the file is in MS Word formatting for your convenience.

    4.00 USD

  21. I agree with all of this. I wouldn't say that there is a distinct difference between St Marks and the other tournaments you are listing there. All of these tournaments have a tremendous judging pool and are the most competitive. You will hit the best teams here. I think you should also note though that if you cannot fill out a preference sheet well, then what tournament you go to does not really matter. I'm not implying this about you. I'm just saying that all of the complaints I have heard about those tournaments with regards to judging usually come from teams who were striking NDT winners or coaches of NDT winners, etc. I strongly, strongly disagree with this. In theory, this is true, but in practice it is not. The competition is fiercest at the Octos Bid tournaments. That is why they give out more bids there. It is because there are more qualified participants at those tournaments. I will not name any particular tournaments but coming from Kansas I am well versed in competing at the late-bid level tournaments in the Midwest. I can personally say that receiving bids from Greenhill and Glenbrooks (which I did) was way way harder than receiving a few semi's bids. Here is my advice, take it or leave it: Be strategic with your tournament selection. Quite frankly, there are some tournaments in the country that none of the very good teams go to. The trick is for you to find these and go to them. You can select tournaments where you can get pounded by the best teams or you can select tournaments when you can pound kids who forget to read their plan text. I would suggest, if budget permits, you go to both. Go to the best/hardest tournaments early on in the year, such as Greenhill and St Marks. You learn the most by getting beaten by teams way better than you. You can also observe the nuances the best teams are putting on their arguments, and then prepare against them. After you go through this learning process, go to the worse, easier bid tournaments later in the year. That way you have gone through the growth process and are well-versed in the topic, much more so than the locals who are just on cruise control at the finals bid tournaments.
  22. Lamp

    Maine East

    True. She graduated from Maine South. But Maine East likes to take credit for her anyways, just like Occidental likes to take credit for Barack Obama.
  23. Lamp

    Top 15 in Kansas

    everyone does. that's why i cry myself to sleep everynight.
  24. Lamp

    Top 15 in Kansas

    interesting how zero SME people are on your short list.
  25. Lamp

    Top 15 in Kansas

    all i know is that the best debater in KS is brett bricker everyone should agree
  • Create New...