Jump to content

BC_ROCKS

Member
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-28 Unreal troll

About BC_ROCKS

  • Rank
    Longtime Member

Profile Information

  • School
    Bishop Carroll
  1. But dehumanization in Africa doesn't necessarily lead to worldwide dehumanization. NK's nuclear tests and nuclear escalation, on the other hand...can very easily lead to the nuclear war that we're told all affs will cause. Since there's already going to be a nuclear war, there is no more uniqueness.
  2. Nice! Serves them right for using "womyn".
  3. BC_ROCKS

    Ryan Sageser

    http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/15940365.htm I don't know how many of you knew Ryan Sageser from debate, but he was a fourth-year debater, and probably the funniest guy on our squad. When he did our forensics tournament, he dressed up in a black tux, tie, and sunglasses, and did a dance to "Men In Black", along with another debater. It was pretty funny. Anyway, just thought I'd let everyone know...
  4. Okay, considering recent events with Kim Jong Jung II or whatever he's called, and the Nuclear tests in North Korea...might it be possible now to argue non-uniqueness on any DA that links to nuclear war? After all, if KJJII is already going to start a Nuke War, the Aff plan can't contribute, right?
  5. Lol... Technically, T is one of the accepted voting issues, and for good reason. But you have to always provide justification (i.e., it spreads the Neg too thin, and gives the Aff unfair ground) for it to be a voter. You can't just get up and say "T is one of the voting issues; therefore, we win". You have to say "T violations make for an unfair burden on the Neg team, blah blah blah, we win".
  6. This probably wouldn't fly in a round, but how about... "Hey, they're saying Nuke War won't lead to extinction. Don't you think you might suddenly become extinct if someone dropped a 25-megaton bomb on top of you???" Okay, I admit it's not a very serious defense...but hey, if nothing else is around...
  7. Exactly. Most T's I've seen were not written to our case. They were just written generically, with no thought given to things such as interpretation, etc... And then there's the off-the-wall T's like "to" T, "or" T, and then the T where they argued that elimination did not "decrease". I think that these sorts of T's are an example of the evil side of debate-the part that's all about reading as much ev as possible and running as many generic T's and nuke war DAs as you can, with a K and CP to boot. On the serious side, though...they are one of the most used and abused arguments. People "hate T" because of the way it's so often abused. Used properly, however, it's one of the best args in debate. Run it if you can tell that they're not T. Don't run it just to run it. BTW...check my sig.
  8. Well, umm, erm... Next question?? (please??)
  9. Brilliant! I never realized the net benefit you get by balefiring stuff. Or you could always threaten to balefire the Aff. team's plan text!
  10. No...it's actually to hit whatever the problem-causing factor is with balefire. So...on FISA, for example, you balefire FISA. *evil grin* Hmm...Korematsu-I'll have to think about that. How would you balefire a court case?
  11. BC_ROCKS

    UC Screening?

    User comment. Those little green boxes at the bottom of your profile. Or, if someone happens to be giving you negative feedback on all of your posts, the red boxes. Besides giving the simple "positive", "negative" feedback, they can leave comments. And the comments I've received contain nothing more than pure insult.
  12. Ahh...uniqueness! Good catch! Yay! Now the CP is running again!
  13. BC_ROCKS

    UC Screening?

    I hope that doesn't mean you say the types of things that I mentioned in that post during a round:(
  14. *gulp* Yeah, I thought of that about five minutes after thinking of the CP... Hm...
×
×
  • Create New...