Jump to content

Dart Throwing Primates

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Dart Throwing Primates last won the day on March 29 2009

Dart Throwing Primates had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

67 Excellent

About Dart Throwing Primates

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 03/02/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
  • Location
  1. Kinkaid Wins on a 3-0 HOLLA BK I <3 you both
  2. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe BP is saving another year of eligibility
  3. Kinkaid's in finals, though I have no idea who they are debating
  4. Courtesy of the3nr.com Semifinals–11:45AM Glenbrook North SM (aff) vs. Whitney Young HG — Dheidt, Cholera, Batterman Bronx Science ME (aff) vs. Westminster TA — Abelkop, Bricker, Greenstein
  5. Minorities are demanding THE usfg to act removing the means you ignore their demand this post brought to you by the Memorial tournament
  6. ...then have the decency to respond the numerous (Mr. Heidt's, Ms. Tate's, and Mr. Batterman's are a few that come to mind) reasoned indicts of your "intent" defense (notice defense not apology) instead of flaming a high school juinor/senior (the school year's over so I'm not sure what to call him). Also the fact that you posted at all clearly indicates you are still monitoring this thread. It seems to me that your silence in the face of (no offense to my bff/partner) more "qualified" (I hesitate to use that adjective after the numerous discussions this thread has spawned) and more extensive debunking of your attempt at a defense is, in a word, deafening. Likewise, playing coy with your response doesn't mean you get to avoid the substance of the analogy which is that in any professional context the (covert) misrepresentation of one's identity would be unacceptable. The fact that the Space Review's editorial board commented on your misconduct with the following "This article was originally published under the byline of “John Marburry”. This was the name the author used in his original submission in February and subsequent correspondence. The day the article was published the author contacted this publication and asked for a credit for Justin Skarb, as he has provided “research assistance” for the article; an acknowledgment was added to the article that same day. Only later did this publication learn, though comments and email messages, that “John Marburry” was actually a pen name for Justin Skarb, a fact that Mr. Skarb confirmed to us on May 15. As a result the byline of the article has been changed accordingly. We sincerely regret unintentionally misleading readers as to the true identity of the author.While we have decided not to remove the article, as there is no evidence of any misconduct beyond the use of the phony name, we have decided not to publish any articles in the future from Mr. Skarb." probably disproves any defense you had left of using a pen name, and seems to give weight to those who would use analogies to demonstrate the bankrupt nature of your actions (intentional or not) in this regard.
  7. Zach we have some card's you'll be interested in seeing, IM me, we have plenty of files you'll find useful
  8. <3 you and miles that is absolute bullshit one love honey bunny, stay strong
  9. <3 you and miles that is absolute bullshit one love honey bunny, stay strong
  10. If it's the fellows program I can't reccomend it highly enough, it's actually the best thing in the world other than that I can't really help you, but from what I know though the lab leaders (jennigs, manuel, solt, etc.) are pretty awesome this year
  11. I just think that you do not have a responsive interp to this violation, everyone else is spotting you that your interp is we get a plan text and stephen's is no you don't you get the res. but you have no piece of evidence that says we get to qualify our increase, evidence along the lines of substaintial is X percentage or even "must be given meaning" which are pretty common pieces of evidence would have answered the perm arg and then the rest of the debate could have happend I think without a competitive interpretation and with a conceded you don't meet the violation then I vote neg
  12. I need clarification on the question it doesn't really make sense to me, and stephen murray told me the debate was over so i came back and just read the t debate, if you want me to go over the cp debate i can
  13. I lied i talked to steven and he said it was cool so hurr's my decesion I voted neg although I hate myself for doing it, though I love the negative for having the stones to go for this arg (and stone’s in general I’m a terrible sexist) regardless onto the decision proper I resolved fairly quickly that the aff interp doesn’t exclude the neg interp, and that you can create a real not materialally (sp?) qualified change, so the neg gets their permutation on t this means that I probably don’t have to resolve the competing interpretations bad debate v. reasonability b/c the aff has no interp and since the aff clearly doesn’t meet the violation (either the 2nc articulation or the 2nr happy go lucky crazy fuck-fuck violation) I vote neg If the aff had had an interpretation that was as simple as Substaintial is X or 60% or 50% I would have done the work making that responsive to their violation and this would have been a much closer round and a much harder round to judge (THANK GOD THAT DID NOT HAPPEN) I did pause on this 2ar line our grammar argument wins us the debate - Substantially refers to the increase in incentives - like you can't qualify the type of incentives you give but you can alternative energy means there is NO violation and ZERO fucking reason to vote negative. The only problem I have with this is that I buy the 2nr arg that grammatically AE in the resolution modifies incentives so qualifying AE further qualifies incentives (this is the arg I believed him to be making in the 2nr on the perm). (relevant part of the 2nr): I say it has to be both real AND without qualifications means you cannot modify the term “alternative energy incentives” – the permutation is not dealt with properly in the 1AR What you could have done is said that “AE already qualifies incentives that means that further qualification is irrelevant since literally the rez doesn’t meet your definition at this point” or some such nonsense to be honest I’m not going to think the implications of that arg through for you but you get my point. (relevant part of the 1ar): Extend linberg - substantial must be a real change in incentives, we have the most grammatically correct interp because substantially modifies increase means you CANNOT qualify incentives NOT alternative energy means there's no violation and takes out their offense on limits. For future reference when making this arg try and make it a little clearer b/c halfway through that line I was convinced that it modifies increase and that you didn’t link but then you concede that that means you can’t qualify incentives and the 2nr is able to tie you back to this, you could have won by just saying since it modifies increase this means that if we qualified how much the increase was and/or the word increase itself, then we would link to this violation but as we don't (we only qualify the object of increase), we don't link and you vote aff (also just for the record I was fine with you just saying “reasonability” in the 2ac to respond to this since it was the shortest violation ever, and again I was fine with everything new by both sides, true over new in a debate like this, save for evidence of course) Hilarious debate all, happy to have judged (though I am probably wrong and stupid etc.)
  • Create New...