Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Maury

  1. Power is a construct. Everyone is a mod. Police yourself. Or don't! Who cares!
  2. Look man, I gave you Duke of York. That's a sweet position. I'll split profits with you 50/50 but only if you ritz it up.
  3. I hereby decree hostile takeover. I am now the King of cross-x.com, Colin is my Duke of York, and I declare this website in the name of Lulz. If David does not challenge my claim in 15 days, cross-x.com is legally mine as per the law of Omerta.
  4. I've been waiting a week to post this.
  5. Maury

    Spark - Fully Loaded

    I haven't seen this file but I'd find it very likely my free nuke malthus file is superior. It's at least much bigger.
  6. Maury


    There's always the Digital Debate Camp, which tends to be really helpful in situations like yours.
  7. Since both files are free, you're probably best off starting from the debate round and how you like to win and then working backwards to construct your own file. My file (#2) uses a rejection alt because I was always a trick-style K debater. I want all my links to uniquely turn the case in a security debate. Example: Indo-Pak war seems likely because of the security mindset but is actually very unlikely, however treating it like a tinderbox will make war inevitable. I loved having tons and tons of links like that because they worked super well with impact defense on the case, alt causes, and solvency deficits. I would weave the case and K together in the 2NR to make the abandonment of the aff preferable to its endorsement. We'd generate some uniqueness claims out of the idea that rejecting the aff is different than accepting the SQ. We also tended to reduce the debate to a simple competing epistemology matrix (both stories are equally likely, but believing in our story is preferable to their story). This gels well with the underlying psychoanalysis that structures our theory. Other people love investing in the alt and making net benefits based off a rearticulated international order. That style is viable but more vulnerable to the perm. Its advantage is that you clearly generate UQ to the links but my fear was always that the links didn't assume the inclusion of the alternative so the aff could jettison a bunch of stuff and win on "plan is a good idea in the context of the alt." However, lots of teams have had success with a more IR based alternative so if that fits your style you should go for that. Either way, compile your own links doc and learn it intimately. The link is EVERYTHING in the security debate. Everything. You have to characterize the plan and you have to be able to tell coherent stories with high narrative fidelity and narrative consistency. Good luck!
  8. Maury

    This site

    I've already offered to buy the site at multiple junctures. I wanted it from Kerpen but got out-bid by Garrett (who no one had a problem with on paper). Then Garrett did jack taco for about 2 years before silently handing the website off to someone else with (I believe) no announcement. New guy, David, essentially ran the site into the ground as if he had a personal vendetta. He has since returned, made the payments necessary to curtail a lawsuit, and has disappeared with nary a word. But it's ok because HE'S SORRY
  9. Basically you take everything Deleuze advocates at the ontological level - infinite potential, a world always in flux, content and expression, abstract machines - and you replace it with a loose understanding of wilderson combined with a baseless assertion that "their offense doesnt apply".
  10. Here is what I'd do if I owned cross-x. Full implementation of this slate will complete your rebirth. 1. Pay Evazon authors to jumpstart the cycle of college debaters commenting on the site to drum up proof of expertise and drive sales traffic. College debate posts are essential to increase the quality of discourse on the site and fulfill pedagogical needs. 2. Pay mods - something modest, but enough to keep the boards clean and productive. 3. Advertise the site. 4. Probably get some google ad stuff going to bring in monthly cash outside of camp ads and evazon. That wouldn't be super popular, but I'd want a steady stream of income to make adjustments as I see fit during off-season time. 5. Theme weeks, better use of sticky threads, permanent memes board, theory crafting board, video archive board with discussion threads. 6. Try to improve community features like following posters, real time chat, etc. No facebook tie-in though, not never. 7. The Big One: Yelp-type board where people can hire coaches as hired guns. Reviews for hired guns. Reviews for semester-long/season-long coaching. Older debaters offering their services hourly, weekly, etc., at prices that match up with their demand. I think I'm a pretty good coach, and it's hard as heck to convince a parent of that when they've never seen a college debate before, and don't understand the significance of "unranked to top 5 in 2.5 years" for long-term coaching. Yelp-type reviews would help make that sale. It also makes sense to me that someone coming here has limited coaching resources, and while most can't shell out $10k for a season-long coach, many can shell out $20 for 2 hours of coaching or something along those lines. I cannot believe this service doesn't exist in an open-market format. The closest was the debate consultantship thing Seth Gannon was trying to do, but I'm not sure where that ever went. Such a system wouldn't be able to sustain itself independently and needs the infrastructure of this website (traffic, brand-name, heavy community involvement, open feedback) to really work. Plus, all those people trying to sell their services would have a heavy incentive to post a ton so people have immediate proof of their qualification.
  11. I'm out of the loop - what did Land do? How did he become a Fascist?
  12. I did. All of it. No interest or anything but I didn't ask for it. David was very thorough. Seems like he's back to radio silence now, but it hasn't been *that* long (yet...)
  13. Here's a video from the ADI a few years back that I consider a great high-level Nietzsche debate. The 2NC is probably the best speech in the debate and does a lot of work explaining Nietzsche argumentatively. But I'm probably biased. http://debatevision.com/video/nietzsche-k-debate-adi-2011
  14. True to his word, I received all my backpay.
  15. I'm owed hundreds. At least 3 pending payouts. And a year ago I made my files free because I assumed we would never be paid again. Will I get ALL of those past requests? Many have expired. It was nearly 600 total by my count but we'll need a full forensic account to get the details.
  16. Something like a class-action or getting a lawyer to take it pro-bono. I've been in talks with some lawyers in the extended family and one is interested in doing the work when they have more free time, but who knows when that could be.
  17. Maury

    DnG on neg

    I'll start by saying this is a very accurate summary, so kudos to you Sean. Second: what a terrible read. Why oh WHY would anyone take this position? It's not like the subtitle of BOTH of their major works clearly indicated an INDICTMENT of precisely THIS power of capital... Culp is an absolute tool and I've schooled him at least twice in my life - once in a presentation and once in a group reading. He has no defense of Deleuzeanism once he removes these very same elements because Deleuze's very concept of negativity is an AFFIRMATIVE notion that negativity is BURKEAN and therefore a welcoming of what is not. This isn't some yin/yang infinite corollary. I spent a semester working closely with Ron Bogue - perhaps one of the 3 top living Deleuzean scholars (on PAR with Colebrook and Proveti) and he couldn't help but mock Culp up and down. Why take a philosopher whose entire argument is "change" and chain him to the unrelenting? This is Peter Hallward all over again. Hallward wrote a book asserting DnG were pro-capital because they respected and feared the power of capital. Hallward was summarily dismissed in a public (published) forum. Culp is not far behind. It's an interesting proposition from a debate perspective, but the more you consider it in context, it's a pointless permutation. OK I'm coming off really hot here but Culp is no expert. He has some provocations and they clearly resonated with a good audience so I'll give him a lot of cred...but I don't think his read is up to snuff. I have a very high threshold for interpreting ATP and AO, and Culp doesn't get there.
  18. You'll want to make sure they go to camp somewhere - likely a 2-3 week introductory camp or an online camp - to make sure they have someone guiding them through the basics. Debate is really overwhelming, and without a good introductory program it's easy for newcomers to feel overwhelmed and quit out of frustration. Understanding the fundamentals of debate should take priority over topic knowledge.
  19. Applause! Snarf brings up a good point - and one I had a lot of success exploiting - Politics asks the judge to clarify their position in regards to the plan and this clarification brings with it a huge host of problems. It's often quite difficult for the neg to prove that the DA is a meaningful opportunity cost to the plan given the "world" of fiat offered by EITHER team. I've often used this as a clever heuristic: If the neg said "CP: pass the bill" would that be competitive with the plan after they read their PC Key cards to answer the perm? Most judges would think the perm likely solves the net benefit. This example has gotten me pretty far in "intrinsicness" debates, which I take quite seriously. Not sure if intrinsicness is still a winner...but it should be.
  20. We use google platforms and dropbox. Camp-wide discussion through a google group (also ensures campers can speak to each other), live lectures on google hangouts and/or youtube uploads, 1-on-1 instruction through google hangouts. All freely available technology so there's no overhead for debaters - you just need a computer and an internet connection.
  • Create New...