Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


REDLEADER last won the day on September 14 2017

REDLEADER had the most liked content!

Community Reputation



  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/23/1977

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
  • Occupation
  1. http://www.zizekstudies.org/ Someone needs to start a Journal dedicated to my thought. Synergy, I hope you'll see this project to fruition.
  2. pretty simple really, adv are hunger, de-dev (eating rich destroys economy/industrial ability), malthus, and cap.

    Death K

    deathcult lol. but why not go with the lumley ev; it can be used to create a more nuanced (tricky) argument. (“The Sinking Myth of Progress”, http://www.goodshare.org/progress.htm)
  4. jon sharp is the greatest man alive. any factual errors he made shall compel history itself to change to match his description of foucault.
  5. of course you can. better question is can you convince judges you're right.
  6. lies. building a system for it is easy and much much cheaper. even if you have a shitty combo of hardware for osx, you can get it done without too much effort; hell i have leo on my 680i.
  7. idiotic. Instead of providing you a large or full context of the article (albeit set to a smaller size) the team got the card from, teams will just completely cut out middle sections and split their formerly big cards in to three or more small ones. Moreover, no brightline and certainly not a voting issue as the others have pointed out. Moreover, my eyesight sucks, and so i cant read things smaller than 18pt, so any card smaller than that should be thrown out and teams that read them should lose, 'mirite? Or god forbid you don't have your evidence all available in braille for my partner.
  8. in a debate round, the claim is that meditative thinking is a prerequisite for successful action because the technological thinking inherent in the 1AC conceals important aspects of reality. questioning of ontology allows us to see more clearly what action (if any) should be taken to address a supposed problem. the negative should claim that the harms outlined in the 1ac are the result of calculative/technological thought and that by opening up space to see that this form of thinking is merely one reality among many and not reality in and of itself, the negative provides a manor to better address the "problems" the technological system keeps claiming justify its use: indeed, the negative will conclude that the "problems" are not only a result of the technological mindset but can only be addressed by a rejection of that mindset: that the aff simply smears on another bandaid to try to cover the gash through the heart of human subjectivity (and in fact will probably infect the wound). the tricky alt will claim that it does not preclude all uses of technological thought, and in fact, will claim that after successfully disconnecting our view of reality with exclusive technological thinking, that we can engage in technological thought without being bound to it. also, if all else fails, ontology o/w and is a prerequisite to value to life. so sitting around, smoking weed, and thinking about da-sein is more important than preventing global nuclear omnicide anyway*. *especially since said omnicide isnt real/is a product of technological thought.
  9. it doesn't function. [and thats kinda the point.]
  10. its not just a series of tubes!
  11. heres the litmus test for arguments: dale gribble might support/believe it --- right wing it could be mis-attributed to baudrillard without anyone noticing --- left wing
  • Create New...