Jump to content

Mr_GrinReaper

Member
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Okay

About Mr_GrinReaper

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 10/22/1990

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. why don't you just ban the plan. that seems to solve the perm issue.
  2. you could, but only if your net benefit doesn't link to the 2nc counterplan. which, if it were politics or spending, it probably would. also, this means that the perm on the k solves the net benefit, which makes the counterplan not net beneficial any more.
  3. nonsense reigns supreme, james. welcome to debate.* *lololololololololololol
  4. waitwhat. how do caselists disadvantage smaller programs? lets lay this out: 1. larger schools have more ability to prepare even if this is true, lol, big schools will always have more ability to prepare, more money, more coaches, more debaters. the caselist can ONLY benefit smaller schools by giving them broader access to information and evidence, thus increasing their ability to be prepared. this at least will enable them to focus their research on whatever they feel unprepared for, and will certainly give them access, for example, to cites for arguements that they need, thus making it easier for them to research those positions. 2. larger schools are fat psychological bullies admittedly, i don't know about this whole schools withdrawing business, however, it seems to me that being scared off is more likely as a result of NOT KNOWING what they run than actually being able to prepare for it. its not as if small schools don't want to be competitive, its just that structural barriers make it potentially more difficult. this, it seems, is not really a reason not to have a caselist. --- the reason debate sucks is because people have no idea what people are saying, so they have nothing to say to it. these kinds of debates not only erode the educational value of the activity, but they erode the competitive as well. The reason its 'strategic' to not make your info available is because then the opponent has nothing to negate it with, this closed-off-ness seems to reduce competition to 'who can say the most incomprehensible shit the fastest' and the winner will be the one who outconfuses the other team. i don't know if you've ever been in, or seen a debate that was like this, but its excruciating to watch. no one learns anything, clash is undermined, and its just not that fun. policing knowledge is bad, yo.
  5. really? really? really? probably, if your k is about reps, it probably also implicates policies which arise from those reps. this means that since you are taking probably the same action, you probably still link. also, if you make it exclusively about reps, chances are you rep poor people badly somewhere in your 1nc or the block, if you read a diverse strat. also, fail.
  6. i swear, my hands are clean in this. however, i still love you james hanley. love.
  7. im not sure if i should be horrified or thankful. i guess ill just stick with thankful. you dont want to know who mearsheimer is.
  8. too bad you foiled my plans of hooking up with nerdy highschool kids on a debate website. damnit.
  9. you know, when i say oh james hanley, i really mean oh james hanley, not oh james hanley. i love you james hanley. also, the game.
  10. Social Services are biopolitical. probably this aff would be antitopical.
  11. paranoia. have answers to everything, have answers to their answers to your answers, and when you have answers to everything, still be paranoid that they will run something you dont have answers to. also, persuasion and specificity. impact calculus. DON'T BE AFRAID TO STRAIGHT TURN, force the neg to go for stuff they don't want to, you'll win rounds.
×
×
  • Create New...