Jump to content

Lamp

Member
  • Content Count

    897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Lamp


  1.  

    If you dont think nuclear war is going to be the most common impact, what is?

     

    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).

    • Upvote 1

  2. Oh no c'mon, a sensible university like Liberty would never overreact like that. According to the letter of the law I would say 6 reprimands plus a 25.00 dollar fine. However, I guess my post could be considered "immoral" in which case it could be 30 reprimands, 500 dollar fine, 30 hours community service and possible expulsion. This may sound totally outrageous, but I can't make this stuff up. . . https://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=1378

     

     

    that link requires a log in


  3. When you say A2 Nietzche/Foucalt/Misc. k author do you just indict them or do you take on their arguements- basically will the other team be able to say "Not our Nietzche" and get away with it?

     

    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)

     

     

     

    The Ross and Conway articles have been around for a long while so they're probably not the best ways to preview these "NEW kritik busters." You're going to need to do a better job convincing people that these are new cards if that's your selling point.

     

     

    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.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1

  4. I don't think this is what Loghry is going for. There is a great difference between cutting a file for debate purposes and cutting a file to sell. If your file is worth a grain of salt/ isn't a triage of shitty high school camp files it would make sense that you would want to preview it. This is advertising 101, if I was somebody who wanted to buy a file to "slay the k" I would first want to know what I am looking at, if the little bit that I'd seen was worth a crap I would be more tempted to buy it.

     

    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.

     

     

    I guess your understanding of debate is one where people don't debate, they just try to beat people with concessions. That's cool, I guess, especially if you want to be challenged or have true dialogue.

     

    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.

     

     

    Guess what, the best critique answers have been responded to a number of times. People like Zizek are not going to respond to ridiculous arguments, it would be a waste of time. If your file is a bunch of arguments that have never been made before I would question the legitimacy of those arguments within philosophical circles.

     

     

    When you're saying 'these are new answers' in your description i expect to have NEW answers, not the same old BS.

     

    Every time a new book or article comes out bashing my home 'digger, Churchill or the Z I notice that the same, lame arguments and warrants are used and the core arguments are still the same.

     

     

    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.

     

     

    All I'm trying to say is be legit, Danny. Share your sources, it will help you sell your file and, likely, look better in the long run.

     

     

    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 am sure the evidence in the actual file is wonderful and awesome - but the sections you posted were Warrant less assertions.

     

    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.


  5. I'll defend my evidence, which is pretty good:

     

    Google is a friend to all:

     

    AT: DSR - Cite

    http://www.friesian.com/language.htm (who, btw, the author is a feminazi who hates men).

     

    Her being a femi-nazi is a) not true and B) 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.

     

    AT:Nietzsche - Cite

     

    http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/MPsy/MPsyConw.htm (btw, the argument the card makes has been used countless other times by other authors *cough* look at my twix file on evazon under "AT: NIETZCHE section *end cough*)

     

    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?

    • Upvote 1

  6. you do have to own a source to sell it. see the countless previous discussions on this site as well as the bit i posted in the gas tax thread.

     

    i realize it's your file and you want to sell it, which i do the same thing, but you should be aware of just what it is you're selling. i don't understand this cult of secrecy that's involved in some debate circles. if the file's good then the FILE is good and it doesn't matter if everyone in the world has every single cite in the file, their file wouldn't be the same, and hopefully, wouldn't be as good. stand by your work, goddammit! any monkey can turn out a thousand pages of cards, but what's that really worth?

     

    edit: i want to clarify one thing, i by no means am making this out to be a reason why the file shouldn't be purchased. that's something you can decide for yourselves based on the merits of the contents, description and reputation of the author.

     

    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.


  7. 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.


  8. To whoever said that U of Iowa was the best debate team out of the cheap public universities. Have you heard of KU debate? I mean its kinda of a big deal. People know them. I dont think KU is much more expensive than Iowa either....

     

    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.


  9. St. Marks is, in my opinion, the best tournament given the criteria you listed above. The judging is by far the best- the MPJ system + the quality of the pool assure you only get judged by top critics. Also the tournament is run incredibly well- they have it down to a science.

     

    If you are looking to travel a very full national circuit schedule:

     

    (depending upon where you live)

     

    Ghill, St Marks, MBA, Emory, Harvard or Berkeley are typically characterized as the powerhouse tournaments.

     

    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 always found that octos level bid round tournaments were the easiest to BID at because you only have to win one outround (and typically if you are good enough to bid, you should be clearing at these tournaments regardless)- 1/4 and 1/2 bid+ tournaments require multiple elim wins. That's not to say there not good/should not be part of your schedule- However if you are looking to bid- make sure you incorporate the big octas level tournaments into your schedule (along with 1/4+1/2+final bid tourns)

     

    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.

    • Upvote 1

  10. Actually, I think Clinton just went there her Junior year. Seems her parents travelled quite a bit.

     

    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.


  11. I'm assuming the initial list, like the Missouri list, was intended to be for active debaters only. Where all-time Kansas performance is concerned, Donnie's and Alex's lists barely scratch the surface. That is probably a discussion for a seperate thread. Names to be discussed would include Godley/Frank (yes, THAT Thomas Frank), S. Dvorske/Bartling, Am. Sufi/L. Hyten, Gottleib/Francisco, Kensinger/Menendez, Ahuja/Radhakrishna, Nunns/B. Walker, Baker/Weiner, and Egan/Parkinson. And also those four-speaker teams from Topeka and Hutch that made the national finals in the 1930s, whose names have been lost to history.

     

    As it happens, I'm fairly sure neither Proctor/Hall nor Jennings/Miller ever qualified to NFL Nationals. Miller/Oyler were eliminated in the runoff round during their only NFL appearance.

     

     

    interesting how zero SME people are on your short list.

    • Downvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...