Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MXDebate

  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.
  16. I have a bunch from both authors.... PM me or get at me via below
  17. BUMP Whats A File? - can you send me the camp nietzsche from this year (just not UNT) can 'Moving On Up' - send me the GDI file? (the aff?) anyone with the Zupancic K?
  18. MXDebate


    Blau's anthro K is amazing thanks for those cards too man
  19. hahaha... "nutjobs" Isn't debate when nutjobs get up and yell at the judge to vote for them because if not the economy will collapse and we will all die from a nuclear war.... the judge signs the ballot against them, we pack up and leave... and nothing happens?
  20. 1. Thats assuming that the performance is an affirmative 2. (I really can't go any further without like talking about a specific performance) if you take Silence for example... saying that no evidence means no warrents misses the whole idea of performance. Just thinking that debate is SOLEY about throwing around cards and fiatting the gov't doing something is naive and just stupid. Debate is about education (be it through change or awareness, etc) and if you think that reading words off of a page is the only way to spur change is wrong. Being silent can spur change in round - and hopefully make everyone aware of homosexuals being silenced in the military. Then later on in life maybe that performance will have an impact on the ppl that witnessed it and it might make them think critically about the issue and something could actually happen (something that fiat doesnt have to offer) 3. Performances do have inherency, harms, solvency - they just aren't spelled out right infront of you on paper. Performances have an underlying message that gets across and through that you can see the problem that is inherently wrong with the status quo in which the performace attacks. many people claim that the performance in and of itself is solvency (their discourse or the images they create etc.) 4. I would say that reading cards on how if the judge doesn't vote aff we will have a terrorist attack on the US (or some random adv) instead I think its smart to talk about how labelling ppl as "terrorists" creates this other, a "us" and "them" dichotomy, and justifies the killing of the other. I feel like rejecting that term and getting ppl aware that the "terrorists" that we talk about in a policy format are ppl too. they experience life and death just like us. Once we can create a new ethic of life can we then realize why anyone would want to attack us in the first place... maybe bcs the US is a "terrorist" in THEIR eyes....
  21. OKAY - I TALKED TO THE KID WHO MADE THIS AND HE WAS RELUCTANT TO GIVE ME THE FILE.. WHICH WAS OVER 250 (I SAW THE INDEX) BUT HE WAS ONLY WILLING TO SEND ME THIS: ________________________________________________________________ Notes on the File 1. This is not a joke. If you intelligently read each card, they make sense and prove a valid point that is better than any other argument anyone can possibly make. 2. This is a performance K. Your discussion of hunting humans increases education. If they disagree, throw a book or something at the other team and claim to be hunting them, thus gaining advantages off the in round discourse. 3. The ev might not be all that great, but this argument was created to catch one by surprise. Enact the performance correctly and you're golden. 4. This is just the shell and some other cards, the actual file is 250+ pages, with 3 more variations of the shell, if this is wanted, you can email me at jwhitler@wfu.edu – and describe your reason for wanting it, I will not just give this out. 5. Dominamos. KRITEEK 1NC 1. Animals are humans—we must hunt humans as if they are vermin. Pest control starts now. Wikipedia. 2007. Today. Bitches. Hunting is the practice of pursuing animals for food, recreation, trade or for their products. In modern use, the term refers to regulated and legal hunting, as distinguished from poaching, which is the killing, trapping or capture of animals contrary to law. Hunted animals are referred to as game animals, and are usually large mammals or migratory birds. By definition, hunting strictly speaking, excludes the killing -though similar techniques may be used- of individual protected animals, such as bears which have become dangerous to humans, as well as the killing of non-game animals, domestic animals, or vermin as a means of pest control. Hunting can be a component of modern wildlife management, for example to help maintain a population of healthy animals within an environment's ecological carrying capacity.[1] In the United States, wildlife managers are frequently part of hunting regulatory and licensing bodies, where they help to set rules on the number, manner and conditions in which game may be selected for culling. The pursuit, capture and release, or capture to eat of fish is called fishing, which is not commonly categorized as a kind of hunting, although many hunters may also fish. Trapping is also usually considered a separate activity. Neither is it considered hunting to pursue animals without intent to take them, as in wildlife photography or birdwatching. The practice of hunting for plants or mushrooms is a colloquial term for gathering. 2. And Technology will pave the way for new methods fo hunting humans. www.enjoy-surveillance.org 2006 Technology will pave the way for new methods fo hunting humans. 3. DNA Proves—we are the same. UUA Forums, “Anonymous” 06. I know humans are animals. Both have DNA and basic chemistry that is needed for life. We are animals. I believe that hunting, for my life, is for gaining food when there is no alternative. I also believe that people should eat what they kill. And people wonder why I don't kill flies Hunting humans must happen now—we must save the planet from overpop. UUA Forums, “Anonymous” 06. When is human hunting going to be allowed? There's enough of us on this planet and we all know when there is an over population of a species, we must thin it out and keep it from overpopulating. So it's obvious hunting humans is more than past due it's time. It can be done all over the world in all sorts of environments so it should appeal to everyone, even us non-hunting individuals. I'm just not sure how many of us would want a head of a human mounted in a living room. Who knows, maybe some would. The World is Genocide. You Are genocide. We must kill humans and the living dead. Lyrics by MISFITS – Being lyricized to you right now. [sING THIS FOR THE ADDED AFFECT] Upon this threshold of disaster The birth of the eleventh plague The fires burn at night I begin to doubtthe smell of burning flesh Will ever fade away The touch of death is all around us A thousand corpses block our wayA man-made germs makesalmost everyone commit Suicide Just to rise and eat their dead Night of the living Dead We're hunting humanswhaoo-ooo We're huntinghumans whaoo-ooo We'rehunting humans whaoo-oooIt's killing time every day I can't control this eerie feelingAn evil scrteaming in my headI don't think I'll last the nightThere is no cureFor this genocideOr resurrection of the dead Night of the livingdead We're hunting humanswhaooo-ooo-oo.... ALT—we must adopt the mindset of “kill or be killed” and recite this poem 4 times daily. Poetry by Thomas Hardy Had he and I but met By some old ancient inn, We should have set us down to wet Right many a nipperkin! But ranged as infantry, And staring face to face, I shot at him as he at me, And killed him in his place. I shot him dead because— Because he was my foe, Just so: my foe of course he was; That's clear enough; although He thought he'd 'list, perhaps, Off-hand like—just as I— Was out of work—had sold his traps— No other reason why. Yes; quaint and curious war is! You shoot a fellow down You'd treat, if met where any bar is, Or help to half a crown. AND, There are many cumbersome ways to kill a man.You can make him carry a plank of woodTo the top of a hill and nail him to it.To do thisProperly you require a crowd of peopleWearing sandals, a cock that crows, a cloakTo dissect, a sponge, some vinegar and oneMan to hammer the nails home. Or you can take a length of steel,Shaped and chased in a traditional way,And attempt to pierce the metal cage he wears.But for this you need white horses,English trees, men with bows and arrows, At least two flags, a prince and aCastle to hold your banquet in. Dispensing with nobility, you may, if the windAllows, blow gas at him. But then you needA mile of mud sliced through with ditches,Not to mention black boots, bomb craters,More mud, a plague of rats, a dozen songsAnd some round hats made of steel. In an age of aeroplanes, you may flyMiles above your victim and dispose of him byPressing one small switch. All you thenRequire is an ocean to separate you, two Systems of government, a nation's scientists,Several factories, a psychopath andLand that no one needs for several years. These are, as I began, cumbersome waysTo kill a man. Simpler, direct, and much more neatIs to see that he lives somewhere in the middleOf the twentieth century, and leave him there. -- Edwin Brock
  22. performance in deabte is really interesting actually - Your 1AC paints a picture for your judge and shows something in the sqo (X) - whats wrong with X, and how your plan can solve it. While performing you can attack X in the squo and attempt to solve it. Just like fiating a policy option and reading cards, you could read a poem, act out a skit, draw a picture, whatever. For example - Silence You could stand up during the 1AC and not speak throughout the round and then in the last 5 seconds say something like "Gay's Don't Have a Voice in the Military" or just start speaking in the 2AC about how you chose not to speak because gay's cant speak freely in the military, so we dont speak freely in debate. You can claim that your performance attacked the oppressors of society and make some debate = the military and debators = soldiers. Once we decided to bring up the issue we educated and with the ballot we can spring a movement outside of debate. I don't know just something off the top of my head...
  23. If your going for a critical 1AC im sure Judith Butler would love to write most of your 1ac
  • Create New...