Jump to content

RRHS Moon

Member
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Okay

About RRHS Moon

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 01/15/1990

Profile Information

  • Name
    Alex Moon
  • School
    Round Rock High School
  • Location
    Round Rock
  1. The first part of that is right. The K of T is an all or nothing occasion, much like reading 8 minutes of impact turns in the 2ac. That and a good K debater can easily just make fun of you if you don't spend most of the 2ac or at least 1ar on it. I like the arg its just not something that functions well in a policy round. BTW Giroux writes a few cards that say defining words are a type of exclusionary politics whose only use is to exclude discussion.
  2. sparks not illegitmate its just not good. simply impact turning any old arguement doesn't always work; wipeout being a good example, spark being a decent example. rimal is better because it links to everything, especially non nuke war scenarios, so you can read it every round including on the aff. not so much with spark.
  3. i think the bp debate is finshed. rimal debate is always finished though, because its an unbeateable arguement haha.
  4. 1) unless you can prove that US authoritarianism would spill over world wide this arg is a moot point. remember anti-communism in the cold war? thats just gonna happen to us, anti-american authoriatarianism. 2) we fiat. that means we have real advantages. and also everything is a discursive implication, you sitting in silence means no impact cards get read, talking about stuff is all we got in debate. 3) once again power is a fluid entity, having good and bad facets. we solve for bad facets i.e. bush world, dont get robert started on bp. 4) Zalmay works for the devil (RAND)
  5. unfortunatly your wrong. we solve neoliberalism which is the cause of rampant consumerism. thats an external link turn, we can concede we stop authoritarianism, we can stop the cause of crunch, consumerism. jonas doesnt really apply since we dont claim an ethic or extinction. biopower exists post plan, we dont stop it. and i will have to throw in the oRphuls card nobody knows about, yea that one, you know what im talking about.
  6. they get a lead sandwich (the bullet). oh yea and the revolution is already here robert, dont forget, otherwise you will link also.
  7. oh and of course, we allow malthusians to discuss their ideas in the public sphere. eat the L/T
  8. rights malthus doesnt link. we dont increase rights.
  9. did you just say foucault da? I wanna see someone winning U with foucault.
  10. pepsi one, what was the substantial violation? was it the cg is capped now?
  11. i would have to agree almost to the point of being too cynical. but thats the beuaty of debate, we can say stuff is a good idea but don't techinically have to prove its possible, especially in critical debate.
  12. i would say that you would be true in most other instances but what i like about our affirmative is that giroux writes specifically on this point. he is pretty enthusiastic about people being politically engaged and says that can solve for that type of biopolitics. Giroux might also talk about specifically national service and political engagement but if not there is some zizek arguements to be made about acting in the state to break it down. also i checked the aff and giroux does talk about bush's push for de-politicized national being bad and stuff. if this doesnt answer your solvency claims im not sure anything does.
  13. yall are having a good debate on the wrong topic. the affirmative's giroux evidence talks about bush's specific type of biopolitics that he uses to get people to be simple jingoistic consumers. we don't claim to solve for biopoltics or even claim that that is possible. all we argue is that bush's politics are bad and we have a way to change them, which brings me to my next point. im am under the assumption that einstein you are either debate in fairly uncritical areas or that you yourself don't run critical arguements a lot. this is not meant to be offensive, i simply noticed that your arguements about discourse seem to make an unrealistic desticntion between policy and critical discourse. 1) we don't make the kind of ultimate discourse arguements you assume. we define discourse as discourse and nothing else. we like the idea of being able to talk about what is a good or bad idea and wieghing the pros and cons. our plan not really passing would just mean the judge should vote aff becuase he or she isnt allowed to vote for a good idea. 2) any framework arguements you make that try and exclude us are actually what we meet best. the reason i love this aff is because it lives in policy but debate in critical. i think your reasons why are k of T is stupid is answered back by us being topical and also a real policy option. your discourse framework assumes we are simply ciritcal and un-topical.
  14. well thats why you have to make the we meets very good. because then we have proven that your arguement isn't attempting real debate. but that strat doesnt work so well with disads and such.
×
×
  • Create New...