Jump to content

ihangfromgallows

Member
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Okay

About ihangfromgallows

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 10/11/1988

Profile Information

  • Name
    Kyle Leinbach
  • School
    Delone Catholic HS, GMU
  • Biography
    If I was lived in the 60's I'd be @ Woodstock; If I lived in the 20's I'd be @ a speak-easy.
    It's just how I roll...
  • Location
    Small town, conservative, white, christian, south central PA
  • Interests
    Bass Guitar and, of course, Debate
  • Occupation
    Hippy

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    IHangFromGallows
  1. See masondebate.org for more information, or feel free to contact me at ktleinbach@gmail.com.
  2. and even if you found some rediculous way that it could produce pot, it's a simple as isolating the male plants from the females and it will prevent germination.
  3. For the most part i agree with kyle. however the strategic/abusive brightlline is more closely related tothe types of args. obviously, 4 t's and 2 da's is too hard to maintain. also, for this example it would be hard to find a coherent story on either side of the round. over doing it on advocacies is probably bad too. i can see maybe 2 cps, or a cp and a k. but anything outside of that would be way to confusing to elicit a decent round. idk, i'd prolly say four args is a good generic off number. like a t, 2 da's a cp, and case would be an easy story. leaves you time to impact the t in the block, and animate the policy debate. however, if you would go for more than four off, i think it would be least abusive and more sttrategic to kick a few of em in the block. idk, that's just me
  4. wrong, and dumb. a) arcane arguments are bad - they promote the elitism and hegemons discussed earlier. you are getting so far away from the original arg its rediculous... the point is that the learing curve is huge. different avenues of logic are fine, as long as the forum's integrety is preserved. seriously why should a freshman in high school be forced to learn things that are not usually tought until upper level undergrad courses or higher. this leads to the poor clash and education, but i'll get to that later... c) my a and b function as a link... you don't assume the fact that policy debate is a self-sustaining community. that being said, it is important to preserve the integrety set forth by those before us. this is important for 2 reasons. 1) keeps the elders judging. the learning curve arg's apply just as much to them. if we alienate the policy debaters from "back in the day" then the activity has lost the crucial member, the impartial observer that sorts everything out from the desk in the back. 2) doesn't over-intimidate novii. sure debate is inevitbly elitest and isn't for everyone, but that doesnt justify the pressure the learning curves place on them. not only do they have to make the transition from socially active kid to politically aware member of society, they have to learn about events in the target area of the topic in detail that the majority of population ignores... but hey, i've got an idea, lets throw in the last 150 years of philosophical developements on them. each year is a new generation of people that could be in the activity from a month to the rest of their lives. they are crucial to ensure the cyclic nature of debate doesn't collapse you do puish team A if the argument in question is destructive to the activity [enter framework]. your argument only makes sense in a context where ignorance is solely because of apathy. the debate world is not this simple. you ever new novices and ever returning vetrans that are bombarded year after year with a new policy topic. as if that werent enough you throw in all the k hacks and you've got a formidible library unto itself. at that point limits have exploded. without some kind of sensible limit on the learning curve and research burden there is no hope. first, it kills predictability because of the rediculous numbers of aff and neg strats. without predictability there can be no clash, no discussion, and thus no education. second your argument for new avenues uniquely links. it makes the bredth acidic to the activity. you reach a point wher the is so much to be learned it necessitates less depth of pre round edu which kills the in round depth and clash. with no inround education and a out of round education that is all but unmangagable, on top of keeping up with grades in a new environment, the high school freshman is sooooo f*cked. and then the kid quits. i've seen it happen. seriously, the retention rate for highschool and college novii is way below 50%. maybe... but then maybe you should i don't know, put down your post-structuralist bullshit and do some investigation into classic virtues and vices, more specifically humility in self, respect for the sanctity of the activity and ohhhh how about getting off the pretentiousness train.
  5. no, i understood what he was saying. But, 1) your response is exactly why i said they are illigit. WRONG FORUM! 2) my arg was that if it fails to test the policy, it does not justify voting against the aff. but i'll get to that down here. ok there are a couple of concerns i have here: 1, the perm...wrong again, my perm was not simply do both. brett says, understanding first (i.e. k, before the policy and the fw its dependent upon, which is a fiat based interp). i say ok, spread understanding via discussion that we have had, but retain fiat (or fw, which ever) for purposes of maintaing the round. this means that the perm is do both, idk, in different worlds. 2, the nature of a k - brett and i agree k is an advocacy. advocacy is multi-faceted, it has a reason to reject aff (ie the link/imp) and the alternative to aff. when you propose it as a fw, and not an advocacy, it includes no reason to vote neg.... all it would say at that point is your fw (not you policy) is bad, prefer x fw. ok... so what? that means the aff can clairfy its impacts within your fw. this is why it needs to test the policy if it is going to justify a neg ballot. it needs to show why the plan is bad, not the fw. in that sense, a legit k would say ur plan increases likelyhood of x, which is bad, heres an alt that solves this (and maybe the case too). thats what im saying about policy implications, not that it has to be comparitive to my policy stuff.
  6. How typical of a k-debater, all talk, no action.
  7. on top.... if understanding is the first step and that is the role of the k, and fiat is allusory, why cant the perm solve? spread an understanding of x implication, but retain fiat for purposes of this debate. i mean, duh, fiat isnt real, but it's neccessary to have a debate about policy. but, even if the k has real world effects, that ballot is only defensive, it only prevents said imaginary action from taking place. it does nothing to change minds of people out of round. sure, k's have lost and genocide and imperialism continues, but on the opposite end, k's have won and still nothing has been done. it only affects the people in the room, and in that sense, while we make take it out of the round, it only has in round implications now onto the bottom, ok so the k is an advocacy, when run as a whole. but can the link/implication not function alone as a turn? obviously, work would have to be put into animating a scenario, but i feel it can be done. i dont know, i guess the issue here is that, while the k may be interesting and/or true, i think it is in the wrong forum unless the policy implications are discussed... otherwise how does it test the proposed policy? and articulating links really doesnt discuss the policy implications, it just says that your plan is x. bottom line, the k is an argument, its a tool, used to win debates, regardless of what out of round advocacies debaters hold. in round thats the only way it functions, why else would anyone run it? i still dont think you understand what i mean by mechanics... link turn, impact turn, perm. These are all things that a new debater gains comfort with, usually, in the context of da's and cp's. im not saying that the k shouldnt be taught as an advocacy ("correctly"), i'm saying why avoid the similarities? i take a stance against your marginalizations of the similarities, not the stress of the differences. so i leave you with this challenge. if you really think that all of these arguments have real world implications, and that you have talent in teaching the k the "correct way," write an article on teaching the k to novice debaters.
  8. dude, outside of the alt its no different than a linear da, mechanically., i get what your saying, but for purposes of debate, you answer the first part the same way you do a da. i mean yeah, framework is an inround issue... but since we're talking about it... hows is the world of the k any less imaginary? so ok, the role of the ballot becomes a check on the implication. but in that sense the ballot only serves as defnese against the ideology progressing any further. now, how many times has a k, true or not, lost? and how many times have the implications happened? they dont happen anymore than the impacts of case do. ok, im not disagreeing with you. i think the problem is that einstein and i are talking about how the k and its alt functions mechanically, not in actuality, inround. the k is an advocacy, i agree, and you answers need to be writtin with an understanding of it as an advocacy, however, it also needs to answer it from the link/impact sense. you cant just say its untrue because x, like you would any other simple advocacy. u need to frame it within that link/impact/alt context. which is all i'm trying to get at. the said novice who is seeking an undestanding of the k, needs to be aware that it is complex, and has parts, and as a means of education it is effective to relate those parts to more comfortable territory, like a da, then explain the nuances. and yea, dan's good post did go ignored...
  9. 1) the only way a perpetuation of the assumption occurs should be an aff ballot, meaning yes it is kinda like a da. to me the k is equivelant to say, a realations da with the corresponding consult cp. 2) claims that it links before plan passage are bad for debate, the aff needs only to defnend that the aff plan is a good idea and that it fits underthe rez. this means neg defends either the status quo OR another action (i.e. a cp). the alt calls for a rejection of an ideology which neccesitates the rejection of the squo and plan, but fails to take any real action because the alternative does not test the action taken by the aff, merely ideology already present. 3) dude all einsteinthe12th is saying is that the only reason to reject the aff (assuming its agreed to be topical) is that it causes something bad. its his second point. if it didnt cause something ba, there's no reason to reject the aff. you even say the rejection is predicated upon the aff increasing the probability of x. and the article you post even implies this. "The kritik argues that there is a harm created by the assumption created or used by the other side." -see my number 2 for why the latter part is bad. 4) k impacts still function effectually like a da, they just do so at an incremental level. making the link and impact a linear da with a "non-traditional" impact.
  10. grr, just because it is accepted, it doesnt mean it is right.
  11. isn't copetitive ego kinda contradictory? isn't competition a characteristic of the id?
  12. i tried that one round when an aff speced like enforcement, funding, and agent. "the aff must spec in list format what all they are spec-ing, otherwise i get confused about what grund i actually have and this whole debate goes down the crapper."
  13. didn't they have a president spec too?
  14. eh, i mean if you had a decent t block, maybe. but its deff an efx t issue, government funds this and then that increases health services. thats not even reasonably efx t. its almost like your changing the agent
  15. it is def cause we are intelligent, but sometimes don't like to apply it to school, and like to apply it to copetition and info that matters
×
×
  • Create New...