Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About TheEagleSpecial

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 05/04/1988
  1. I agree with Whit some of the stuff Sooner is saying about debate is truly insulting. Please read above post. Additionally, who is to say that there is no place for pathos in debate? I think the vast majority of people would say that putting emotion into your impacts and not only DEBATING and having clash but truly being passionate only helps NOT hurts your speaker points. Also, I have no idea what Sooner is trying to get with when talking about impact calculations. It is as if you are saying that nuclear war shouldn't be treated as a "real" impact. What the hell? I never could understand how people can so easily dismiss nuclear war. Seriously there is only a chance for us to eliminate problems like racism, sexism, and poverty as long as we all live, there is no hope for EITHER the oppressors nor the oppressed when we all die. To me saving the human population is at least as much as a moral issue and you would be a fool to argue that impact calculus shouldn't be important.
  2. To go back to the topic. I dont get were people are going with this, you don't have to be "aggressive" to be a good debater. Look some women are "aggressive" and WAY more aggressive than men, yes they are criticized because they are rude in rounds. They bash on their partners and think the judge of each round is an idiot. I would certainly not consider myself aggressive nor would many women debaters I know do so. No I don't think women/woman is patriarchal nor do I think female or history are partriarchal. It makes me sick when I see so many people taking away the female identity by transforming it to womyn. As if we are inferior. It's not like we are called subwoman or something, which yes would be a strong slap in the face. And history just flat-out doesn't make since, even if you did break it up it would be hi story is that bad because you are telling the story hi making the story a human? What the hell? And no history is not a story about man anyways? If anything it is a story of woman. Without woman there wouldn't be history and everyone would be dead.
  3. It is Jonathan Schell, if I'm not mistaken I have found (a long time ago so it could be gone) some stuff from him on Proquest database. A lot of his nuclear war philosophies are published in books. He has multiples I know one is The Unconquerable World but anyways, I have no idea what you mean by the 5 ways (although maybe I haven't read the literature on this) the claim he makes is a "domino theory" that in this day in age if one country were to push the button other countries will launch all of their nuclear weapons out of fear, in the end the entire world would likely collapse. You can also find just generic cards nuclear war => extinction by doing a lexis search. btw, Charlie you are absolutely right, you don't want to read BOTH nonuniques and link turns (I made a mistake when making the previous post) if a negative team refuses to read impacts (which is a bad strategy to begin with). However, If you do simply good link turns, I think you are in pretty good shape and then if they do impacts either A, proves no link and impact happens regardless or B you can read uniqueness going the other way so it becomes a case advantage.
  4. Ya I definitely agree, when you don't read an impact, it actually gives the affirmative a lot of options. (same with running new disads in the 2NC) -You can either read a lot of 2AC impact turns to the disads like you said. -Interestingly, if the aff has good cards on this, it would be a golden opportunity to read a whole bunch of non-uniques and case specific link turns as well as analytics on why both the neg uniqueness and neg links suck, this can make the negative feel incredibly hesitant to read an impact at all. -Additionally, if the 1AR is at all fast and the intention is to read impact turns in the first place, the 2AC can drop all the DAs saying they don't have impacts and then just read like 5 case add-ons or what not and then bringing up all the impact turns in the 1AR, killing the 2NR's ability to analyze the debate.
  5. Disclosure is one of the stupidest things ever to happen to policy debate. Charlie, you really should learn how to beat teams the real way. In-round prep increases critical thinking way more, even worse are the teams who write plan flaw arguments ALREADY AFTER the team has disclosed but before the actual debate round. I had a long argument with Mike Jones about this and I really think this is where he has it wrong.
  • Create New...