Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bobdoleable

  1. john, chris and stevens beautiful faces while they all talk about spaces plz.
  2. look at yall cool kids going to do an e debate...i think we should change the format to a video debate. its about time somebody actually speaks on this. what if yall recorded the speechs with the same time parameters.
  3. another idea i had was increasing the number of free/low cost debate clinics in cities i know in texas this is something that is a major problem for kids is affording camp in san antonio there is one being set up at reagan high school in july..which will try to cut costs while not cutting the diversity in education....i think the nfl system should be reworked to reflect a more ceda tournament style of national tournament how is up to interpretation any ideas?
  4. its context clues, they were double speaking the same way fox news double speaks about racism, there clarification that they werent insulting the kids was just apart of that double speak and you never responded to my idea sooo dont talk.
  5. from terrance shuman and duane for your insulting comments you made towards students on the nfl thread as educators you shouldve held your tongues this discussion cannot go forward until the apology is given to the four debaters in question by those who insulted their hard work and talent. your tongue and cheek performance which you repeatedly claimed you were not insulting the kids accomplishments was just that a performance and a facade, and if anything you are proving that closing the divisions in the debate community is impossible because of polemicists like you, there is no room in this academic community for this hateful form of thinking........ now onto the discussion i believe that debate tournaments should be free and that this should be done by eliminating entries fees and eliminating the necessity for their to be schools to sponser the teams at the tournaments and by requiring that teams bring a judge to the tournament like in college. dueces
  6. i feel like nothing else has to be said congrats kevin and misael and congrats to rowland hall all four of you brush your shoulders off and shake the hate cus for you this forum is purely to congratulate to everyone who is beefing your just hurting our community by fracturing us and there is no space for that when debate teams are struggling to stay alive we need to stay strong and together in this time and continue to try to allow more kids to debate cus it can only help them become more self aware and aware of events in their community and allow them to form opinions on these subjects. a skill which is so necessary in these times we live in...... michael
  7. can some one please post the bracket yall have been out of rounds for like a couple of hours now.
  8. great example of how individual resistance can make a change to ones own environment that can show that maybe college students can change their the way their colleges do business and hopefully make less of a business viva la nyc rev lets take this shit to the streets or at least other instiutions of higher edu sounds like the president of the school is a mega douche
  9. malcom also debated for umkc..just saying
  10. dude you have no idea how much time passes in my daily life when i write you dont lean like me 2. this is not aimed at you lewis just a general comment. are you michael mapes or malcom gordon no you aint which means you dont know how to go for those arguments like they do, just because malcom could do it is not a good standard malcom was a freaking haus as a debater you cant just do things like him.
  11. .......did you read what i wrote..and what you quoted...i didnt say that the ziz defended socialism...
  12. you can counterperm out of soc bad and advocate that......which would be hilarious...if they make perm do both just be like do the perm execpt the socialist parts of the alternative...and extend socialism bad..then you have to win counterperm theory good luck with that mess
  13. i dont think you should defend socialism.....if you are running zizek..... but you really havent been very clear on what kind of cap k you do run. heres a couple of tips.... you should probably say policy making is capitalist and engage them heavy on why being capitalist is a flawed way of thinking as a framework argument. ethical obligation to reject capitalism the daly evidence should be used here. because like then you can make the argument that there socialism arguments is what is holding the rev back its the fear to take the step away from capitalism that allows it coopt us and maintain in its hegemony that is a unique reason to vote negative because you are the only ones who has a unique way to break away from the violence of the socialism turn and the harms of the aff by having the judge rejecting capitalism another way you can flush out this argument is by having your alternative a personal rejection like herrod or kovel or zizek...really just say that the only way we can effect anyone through this round is the people in this round so your alternative is a world where the judge no longer feels oprressed by capitalism the k is a way to show the judge that maybe capitalism isnt the best way of thinking and we should reorient ourselves away from it starting with the judge themselves by signing the ballot....this would take away all of there arguments because ...you dont effect the political...but that should be another link then when they socialism bad you can just say that its capitalist propoganda explain why your alt doesnt link.....then say if there is a risk of a link and we win framework you have to evalute the alternative as a better option then the alt....... also you should probably be making the argument that the alternative solves back for the residual harms of socialism because you are going to make an argument that capitalism is what causes calculations and what allows for structural violence to happen in the first place so if you solve for calculating violence becomes impossible in the world of the alt because you wont calculate.
  14. bobdoleable


    throwing up some love for jack, i miss that kid. who won the award this year?
  15. bobdoleable


    hey peeps..and old frequenters ....of the texas forum does anybod remember the discussion that happened on the akins forum from last year...i was having some remembering time.....of last year and some how came across that forum...anyway i miss everybody who i havent seen in a while from austin/texas debate. and people who i have seen lately...but yeah...i hope all is well with everyone... michael
  16. he wasnt probably creepy or weird your friend just didnt get it hes the ziz......he does things that dont make sense and would come off creepy or weird...if he was a human....execpt hes not..hes just the ziz
  17. alright...so nathan tells you that...as long as you nuance your generic framework cards its going to be tight ....... what the hell does have to do with what i said....absolutely nothing 1. you need to be finding reasons why your author is saying the kritiks method has to come first..reasons why kappler says questions involving system of ethics come first..that is not fucking specific framework arguments based on the author you read..heres of an example of a specific argument ........deleuze and guattari say that question of desire are apriori to political questioning because we have to understand how desire mediates the rest of our interactions in the world........this is a reason why your ks impacts come first because ...if you dont look at desire politics becomes an irrelevent game facisms..and we dont recognize the lack of connections caused by not looking our desires....THIS IS A FRAMEWORK ARGUMENT THAT IS MADE BY THE AUTHORS NOT BY AN AUTHOR WHO ISNT GERMANE TO THE K 2. i dont understand why you want to promote the idea that you kids dont have do research they can just read generic k cards.....this sounds alot like what policy debaters do o dude its cool its a k i am just going to read shively and lewis like always...its cool dude it will work.....same thing dude this bleiker evidence is so hot it talks about why individual dissent is key to political questions because we have ot look at who we are in our potlicial questioning I AM TOTALLY GOING TO RUN THIS WITH MY NIETZSCHE K .............WHAT THE FUCK DOES NIETZSCHE HAVE TO DO WITH INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS...................or fucking political questioning...absolutely fucking nothing.... look kid...dont listen these people giving you generic cards ...read more of your author and find out what they say when it comes framework if you ahve anymore questions feel free to email me ...and ill get you started on the right track with whatever argumetn you are making.... bobdoleable@gmail.com 3. the cuts of the kappler evidence are atrocious
  18. at some point i thought it might be relevant to this discussion for us to talk about specificity of framework arguments 1. giving some freshman a bunch of cites for cards that they dont know how to access isnt going to make them better at making critical framework arguments 2. you guys probalby lose a bunch of debate rounds because people think your framework arguments are generic...like impacts..that arent specific to the k that being said hey ..kid...what you should do is first read up on whatever k position you wnat to read..and find out where that author makes the argument as to why whatever method "alternative way of thinking acting or whatever" is either beneficial to politics...or why it has to be a prerequiste to any political questions....this will give a more germane internal link to the impact cards they are spewing at you ...
  19. at some point i thought it might be relevant to this discussion for us to talk about specificity of framework arguments 1. giving some freshman a bunch of cites for cards that they dont know how to access isnt going to make them better at making critical framework arguments 2. you guys probalby lose a bunch of debate rounds because people think your framework arguments are generic...like impacts..that arent specific to the k that being said hey ..kid...what you should do is first read up on whatever k position you wnat to read..and find out where that author makes the argument as to why whatever method "alternative way of thinking acting or whatever" is either beneficial to politics...or why it has to be a prerequiste to any political questions....this will give a more germane internal link to the impact cards they are spewing at you ...
  20. you want to email the guy who runs adminstration of the camp mrcox@utexas.edu if not look at the site...google utdebate camp
  21. ..not the kritik specifically the alternative....
  22. good debaters would see the main strategic flaw in reading this k...that you can impact turn the alt...for 8 minutes...and nothing else matters.....
  23. ..........zizek basis his theories of why capitalism is bad using oedipus as the model for which capitalism creates bad ways of desiring..and says we have to destroy this desire of capitalism... that links into dng because....dng say taht when you allow for rigid modes of thinking like capitalism is always bad you allow for a micro fascism over teh way you think because you are stuck in the world where capitalism is always bad...... there alternative is to allow for new possiblities and new interaction to occur by re orienting ourselves in a way thats not fascists where we allow connections to occur everywhere .....this impact turns zizek...... .......this is why you shouldnt run ks together... you dont even know about the literature your talking about this links back into my bad k debate arguments.... and your belief that policy debate is always bad is just as fascist as any politics debater...policy isnt a bad kind of debate its only when policy debatesr believe that other forms of debate dont matter that they become fascists and want to exclude those debates voices to achieve there final vision of debate...i dont understand why you dont do that when you say that politics debate is bad for debate..you are being just as fascist as a policy hack...
  24. a. good teams win debates because they are....well, good. Give them baylor briefs or squirrel killers and they'll still win rounds. 1. good teams win debate rounds because they can exploit their opponents weaknesses like being able to recognize where they can internal link turn links into the k or having links internal link turn eachother because the philosophies interact. 2. good teams also will be able win vague alts theory...with this shitty argument b. non-unique: as i said above, critiques most of the time will encompass a few different methodologies into the link/impact debate anyway. 1.BULL SHIT-...........running zizek and deleuze and guattari together would be a terrible idea bu the link level agress.right...this is what leads to terrible k rounds is this belief that shit can be mixed togehter this what leads to bad k files because nobody takes the time to explore literature this is what leads to me getting a headache having to judge these terrible high school kids. c. really, what is the warrant? because it's easier for the aff to turn? not really - it forces the affirmative to deal with the mechanics of the critique rather then spend more time on "realism guud". You screw up the "ID politics bad" arguments and spend time only on "fear of death =>" then you conceded a dis-ad to case/perm. You spend too much time on "ID ptx" and not enough time on the security discourse links, then you conceded a turn for the impact debate. 1.........yeah but if the alternative is a bad idea who cares if they win that we lead to identity politics and if we are saying that identity politics leads to fear of death who cares.....thats why its easy to make logical arguments against these big stupid ks.... 2. look k community as one of you i am trying to get you to do orginal research. if you go more indepth on researching you arguments instead of making generic stupid mash up arguments you will learn your shit better and you be able actually explain you answer to things......and why your view of the world is good for debate.....right now you dont know what that means
  25. ...thats why reject isnt an alternative...because that is what allows affs to say no impact no alt because...alternatives are so shitty you have no idea what the hell they actually are doing and theres only a chance the affirmatives is a better idea.... 2. if a kritik of bad language is run a stragey it should be rejected all together because it is necessary not saying the language bad and that the team believes that it is but its like..they should be rejected because of bad language..that is what most language ks are saying is bad.......so this was a terrible example .....example was non sensical. 3. you dropped that reject would lead to vague alts debates....and vague alts debates when the alternative is vague..destroy any chance of a negative winning the round. A. the threat of impact turns are non-unique. that threat is always there. B. lol @ "your framework arguments outweigh your framework arguments dont matter if your alternative is a bad idea" no you dont get it. 1. if they impact turn your alternative and say your alternative is a bad idea because it leads to violenc eand exclusion or whatever....then it doesnt matter if you win that ontology comes first because questioning ontology would lead to violence..... 2. this didnt answer my argument as to why answering 9 minutes of impact turns is easier then spliting it between 2 alternatives.and 2 ks where htey have to read condo bad and link and impact level arguments..... a. if they dont put alot of offense on and alternative then you can extend it and gives worth to your link and impact arguments because there is a chance the alternative can solve for the negative mindset. ANSWERING OFFENSE IS HARDER...thats logic.... 3. if you win external net benefits to your framework arguments then maybe can you ..... fathom...... saying framework out weighs but those net benefits would have to solve for bad parts of the aff or alt...aka counter permutations..... 3. perm do the plan then alt. is justified if the alternative is vague because its the only way to test whether alternative is really a good idea or seperate from the affirmative..because the alternative should be able to solve back any of the links the plan and the affirmative shouldnt be a net increase and theres only a chance case outweighs... reject is a bad alternative for debate though....its is the most vague alternative allternative of all time..which makes it a moving target..because we could make 9 minutes of offense against the alternative and they could link out of it by reclafifing what the rejection means or saying thats not our kind of rejection. there is no strata to hold them to... 2. reject alternatives are what allow for bad policy interaction with the critism policy debaters dont respect us because they think people run shitty k arguments like statism with a rejection alternative if you interact with the topic there is only a chance that we will get better education and people wanting to engage our kritikisms......
  • Create New...