Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MXDebate

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 02/04/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
    Max Elder
  • School
    Manchester Essex Regional High
  • Biography
    Normative and Nowhere to Go.
  • Location
    The Abyss

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  1. I don't know what you are talking about, but my guess is something like... you ran an aff and said something like "because we brought up aids in this debate round we are already solving it via education in round blah blah or whatever" hence a discursive aids advantage then the neg ran a PIC, with a NB, but also claimed to be solving aids? i don't see what isn't legit about it...... but i could be completely wrong about the type of scenario you are talking about.
  2. yeah, when you are reading the narrative.. live it. If you read it like a normal arg and speed through it with no aminmation it reallly hurts you in terms of picking up the ballot on that act.
  3. I think I have almost all that pm/aim/email me and i can look around
  4. Well I dont spend my entire life on C-X, Ive been going on a lot lately to post in this thread, thats more than i have in forever. If you just look around you could easily find lit. Also, so what? you lose one round to the kids who rap, go home and FIND lit. You aren't supposed to be 100 % prepped out on every arg in debate, if you were, there would be no thinking on your toes and no real critical thinking... just reading off pre written blocks and bullshitting in C-X. why don't you stop complaining right now about being reduced to theory and write a block against a rapping aff cause... well... now you know.
  5. actually... I remember reading about organic beings on C-X... If you look aroudn you will be able to find some cards/I'll post them later when im on my own computer. But if you go on C-X you could easily have see it. you could also get up and RAP too... or at least try to and claim you were. Im sure it was an awsome round, those rounds tend to be fun
  6. well what is the reason to embrace the performance and still vote neg? if its a CP it probably doesn't solve or isnt competative. but i dont know I mean there are so many diff types of things you can do it really has to be a specific case or performance if you could elaborate on what you mean, bcs to me "performance" is way too vauge
  7. And what I am saying is that most times when do something like dance, use sock puppets, etc. you have a philosophical undertone and you use philosophy to back up your point. Example: (maybe not the best one) If someone raps their 1AC (which isn't a k its a performance) and then claim that rapping makes them organic beings.. organic beings good - true to ourselves or w/e the argument is. That is a performance with philosophy of the "organic being" behind it. Sock puppets (althought I have never hear, seen, or ran this) I assume use the puppets as an attack on oppression, and read cards, probably philosophical, to back up their performance. and as for Silence, I would be silent for the 1ac or something and then my 2ac would read authors like Zupancic and other philosophers (maybe even baudrillard?) to explain what the performance accomplishes
  8. Yeah sure, you can do a lot of things. If an aff wants to engage you in a kritikal aff, then get engaged. I'll get to some arguments you can run later on.. Sure, Debate is a game. But if you spend so much time playing, wouldn't you rather try to change the mindsets of people in the debate world about issues that you care about? Now I can only speak for myself, but I think its less about the ballot (in my case) and more about the round. yes, me too. I'm not going to stop debating, but you should probably stop calling different types of debate cheating. Who said that performance teams are anti-debate? Kids who run performance arguments or completely K aff's are still debating, just on a more indepth philosophical level. (at least in my opinion) The kids still cut real arguments, and I would argue that personal things that we run in debate are more real than anything else that kids run that aren't really going to happen post round. Why are straight up policy kids too lazy to cut arguements against performance? a) That just simply isn't true - if you want to view debate as only a game then have fun. But Im not going to. I would rather view debate as a place where kids can go and try to make an affect on the world. it IS key for kids to learn about government policy and philosophy. I would say that probably all the performance args have a philosophical undertone, or even are 100% written by a philosopher. This is what is so dumb and naive of you. Debate is ONLY a terrible tool for change when you view it that way. Have you ever thought that kids who run K/performance arguments are trying to change the minds of kids like you who think that can't change anything in the world through debate? Well, I have never hit a "hunggin kittens good". seems like you try to make deep critical things sound dumb because you don't understand them... and kids were worried that the negative would have to come off as an ass.... sounds like you are an ass. Well maybe thats a bad example, I was just giving different types of performance affs that have been run, what about kritikal affs or different stuff like that. Its not that they should win, its that they are able to attach something personal into the arguments that they run in debate. Just because someone reads "debate = biopolitical" doesn't mean they should win. But if they are able to think more critically and in depth about how debate currently functions in the world and the other team just acts like these stupid kids who dont try to debate them, but try to out policy them, then they probably should win. I am better than that, and I dont see why a K aff or one off on the neg all from a philosophical view point while attacking an idea brought up in debate from a different plank, is not a tactical arg. okay, on my "burden" - I am not going to do all the work for you kids but I'll tell you this - you can do 2 things 1. you can attack a K/performance arg and try to our policy them -OR- 2. you can engage them in their own type of debate. 1 - read a shit load of policy args - fiat good, key to real change, framework shit, T, framer's intent, etc. (im sure you all know that) 2 - If someone reads a narrative - get up and read your own. If someone reads a K aff, be engaged in it - find flaws, or even out K them. Zizek and Lacan write some good shit that you could easily make into a K against performances. so (and I can't spell) but spychoanalysis K against this type of debate are reallly stong. no, its about what debates I would have, I'm not speaking for the debate community or K debators in general, Im speaking from what I think about how debate should be. sure some kids try to use performances to get an edge, I dont do that. reading is just ONE example out of the BILLIONS that you could run on the K/performance level. Those kids who would rather debate about philosophy are probably in the RIGHT activity. *** I would just like to point out that I am not speaking for everyone who runs these types of arguments in the debate world, im only speaking for me. Now im not advocating that everyone should run performance or K affs, just that its rediculous to call them cheaters. There is a good balance of policy/K debates these days, and I dont want to get rid of policy, im just simply saying that K's/performances are a very personal way of connecting the debate world to your life or what you believe in.
  9. .... I think he meant drop a bomb...?
  10. And there are no rules that you can't dance for your 1ac - the way i see it you can do whatever the fuck you want in debate as long as it is justified. I don't see the paralell you draw from running a performance aff to cheating? Don't you think that when the Kiritk first came out 100% policy kids were thinking "just cause they can win rounds doesn't mean that its legitamite"..? debate is always evolving and ever changing. I'm sorry I can't really understand this... are you saying that reading a normal policy 1ac at a slow rate is performing...? I don't know could you just expand on that thought? This makes a really pessimistic outlook on debators. If you, The K, run arguments soley to win and nothing else, then have a fun debate carer, your probably not going to go far... Winning is fun, but I would MUCH rather lose while having an entertaining and fun debate about philosophy or someones life or gays in the military, or the army, or whatever, then win on a boring hege debate for an hour and a half. ] I don't think so at all. The team can have a lot to say, and yes I somewhat agree that most teams probably aren't prepared to have the debate that you want to engage them in, and when you find a team that brings up just what you want them to and talks and makes the good points, then it makes for a GREAT debate round, something much more fun than debating about spending and having the states do your plan... I didnt mean to focus soley on narratives above, i was talking about performance debate in general, be it poems, affs that K the rez, anything. If kids run some type of biopower aff, then engage them in the case, talk about it, and figure out what really can be done. Believe me, there are numerous strats against performance aff's other than "you aren't T", Fuck T. ] But what I am trying to point out is that I personally think that debating about hege being good or bad doesn't get us anywhere. Too often debators are forced to debate something that they dont believe in and that leads to nothing after the round. WHy not engage the other team in a meaningful and thoughtful disscussion about gays in the military ] I dont think debate is about dialouge and argumentation - if it was then why would kids read at 17094 words per minute? And narratives or even just completely K affs still have dialouge. Sure its about making smart aguements and presenting them in an organized manner, but I think debate is more about educaion and awarness. Getting people to realize the status quo in a way that we all don't usually see it as. That why we read inherency and harms... to show how fucked up the world is, then solvency to show how we can solve it....
  11. Synergy.. It saddens me that from someone who posts on Cross-X all day long and probably lives and breathes debate... you still act so naive and un-open to the actuality of what happens in a debate round. If you walk into a debate round, debate for an hour and a half, and have bio terrorism as an impact in your 1ac - the judge votes neg and everyone leaves the round and they start it all over again. But once everyone leaves nothing happens that you claimed would happen if you lost. Everything you said in the debate was never actually going to happen no matter what the judge decided, and all the reasons that you tell the judge to vote for you like "my bio-terrorism adv. outweighs "X impact" because it is faster, kills more, and is more likely to happen" but those are all lies. MAYBE the impacts would happen in the real world of policy making if the plan was actually implemented... but then again most impact scenarios that kids throw around in debate wouldn't even happen in the real world. ---- So what the fuck are we doing? we tell the judge to vote for us to stop nuclear war... and if the judge does vote to stop nuke war... the judge didn't do shit. The ballot was used as a tool to stop something that was never going to happen anyway - so why the fuck did we waste our time, our weekends at touraments, or hours cutting and updating arguments... to stop problems in the world that you DONT ACTUALLY STOP? The only viable answer I can think of that Debate is only a game.. Which I think is a fine answer and if you want to view debate as a game then thats fine with me. BUT - why not view debate as a space for actual change? I mean if you think about it you are given about 30 minutes of every debate to talk about whatever you want... and at least 3 other people and your partener are going to be listening and giving you their full attention... so why not talk about what you BELIEVE in? Why not bring up actually issues that the judge can really make a change with via the ballot. For example there was a girl (I'm very sorry that I don't know her name or more about it) but I know that she was at camp and she had had some problems in her life and grew up very oppressed in modern day society... she never spoke a word at camp touranments... except the last 5 seconds she would say something like "The Oppressed Don't Have A Voice". That is not only something personal, but it makes the judge and the people in the round think of how horrible her life must have been. Narratives are also a good example of this. A team from GDS runs a Reading Good aff in which the girl reads a narrative about how her parents got divorced and she had to go to a new school and she didnt have many firends and she found books and reading to comfort her and help her get through that part of her life *I have to go to class but I'll edit and finish this later*
  12. me too got a lot of stuff to trade PM/ Look below
  13. I think I have UNT's K lab... if thats what you mean I think it wasn't with the origional camp file
  14. OOHHH YEAHHH, beacause Evazon put out a file against an argument the arg can NEVER be run EVER again, god guys we can't run arguments that actually have ANSWERS to them!!! That would lead to some clash in the round.... god forbid
  15. MXDebate


    hahahahah.... hmmm 1 - even if god is "real" that doesn't mean that he is alive 2 - I doubt your block that you have labeled "god is real" answers back any Nietzschean argument at all, but I'd love to see it.
  • Create New...