Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Kratos_99 last won the day on August 8 2009

Kratos_99 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

119 Excellent

About Kratos_99

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 02/12/1993

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Barring any framework argument that says otherwise then by default yes, the aff has to prove the resolution is good. An un-inherent aff is still proving the resolution. The aff is advocating to re-pass a plan that has already passed and your job as the negative is to say why repassing the plan is a stupid idea. The affirmitive is still saying the USFG should do something. The fact that the plan is stupid since the status quo solves isn't a theory argument as to why it's abusive.
  2. Nah, actually I'll post a 1NR soon. Just start cross-x. Also, just noticed i messed up the perm text. I'm just going to change it to vote negative real quick.
  3. We’ve all heard the infamous lesson before – when two debate teams walk into a round and no one says a word you vote negative on presumption. The affirmative literally has no reason why you should vote aff or why the status quo is bad – big distinction here - the affirmative is trying to win a reason why the negative team is bad, not that the aff should be voted for – but even if they won that I exclude people or justify their annihilation they provide no reason why voting aff would do any good – this means that because the aff proposes no change from the status quo voting aff means literally nothing – there’s no benefit to rejecting me because either a) the status quo isn’t bad (They didn’t even provide a card saying that the status quo was bad) or the harms are inevitable and the aff has 0 solvency. You’re going to buy 100% defense because allowing teams to say there’s a risk of offense without any warrant why other than “1NC was just defense” is a bankrupt way of evaluating debate that destroys education and teaches debaters to think in stupid ways. On the K a. No you don’t – he literally can point to nowhere in my 1NC or my cross-x where I indicated that I said that exclusively language was the only form of communication or that it was the best form – he asked me what communication was and I defined it as exchanging information – I didn’t say speaking was the only form of exchanging information, I only used speaking as an example of a way to transfer knowledge and obviously there are other ways of communicating – not my fault he wrongly assumed I think speaking is the only or best way to communicate – I literally told him in cross-x that I was going to spike out if he tries to make unjustified assumptions about me – he probably should have asked whether speaking is the only form of communication if he really wanted to know what I think. I think music and posters and everything mentioned in the kapitzke is great, there’s literally no reason why I wouldn’t believe in other forms of communication. b. THIS IS TERMINAL LINK DEFENSE – THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A “RISK OF A LINK” HERE – EVEN IF HE WON OFFENSE DEFENSE PARADIGM THERE’S NO RISK OF ME HAVING A BAD ASSUMPTION OR THINKING A CERTAIN WAY – EITHER I DO OR I DON’T - FLAG THIS - IF I WIN THIS ARGUMENT I WIN THE DEBATE AND CONSIDERING HE CAN’T MAKE A LINK OF THE 1NC AND HIS ONLY LINK IS CRAFTED OFF A DUMB QUESTION IN CROSS-X THERE’S LITERALLY NO WAY HE’S GOING TO WIN THIS ARGUMENT. 2. Perm – do everything listed in his last Bleiker evidence (rethink political practices, ect.) and vote negative. 3. My 1NC was silent – This obviously proves that wasn’t disturbed by his 1NC which means his kritik has no solvency – at best this functions as a link turn by proving that my silence is engaging in new modes of communication and at worst this means the perm can solve. Not that he’s going to win any risk of a link anyway. 4. No internal link to the impact – he has no reason why my answer in cross-x somehow meant that I would exclude everyone that didn’t use language to communicate or why it would limit understanding of other forms of communication. Seriously? He read an Otherization impact. Fasching is talking about hating on Jews and bombing Hiroshima and shit. There’s literally no way he’s going to get from “saying speaking is a form of communication in cross-x” to that leads to genocide and apocalyptic annihilation. Hold him to a higher threshold on evidence and force him to read cards that are actually talking about his kritik – allowing him to read the most generic K cards and expect to win this debate when the evidence has literally nothing to do with communication and his criticism makes for terrible debate and encourages lazy practices destroying the value of the activity. This goes for his beliker evidence too. 5. He read beliker – the guy that talks about discourse and language used in the political sphere and how that SHAPES POLICYMAKING – when criticizing language as an exclusive form of communication. His Edkins evidence says even “[O]ur use of language... is the basis of... humanness'” in the un-underlined portion. Fasching is also talking about the way we use language and how our discourse excludes the Other. The fact that all his authors are talking about how language should be used and probably linking into his own criticism about how they probably are exclusive against other forms of communication by not deciding to be silent or sing their arguments shows how ridiculous his kritik is and why he shouldn’t be able to access any of his impacts.
  4. I'm fine with anyone who wants to judge. I'll have the 2NC up when do finish answering the questions.
  5. What's wrong with the 1NC? Where did I indicate that speaking/language was the ONLY form of communication? How am I exclusionary to other forms of communication? How does my 1NC exclude your form of communication? Why is your Pritchet evidence a reason to reject the neg? Why is it a reason to vote aff? Where does your Bleiker evidence talk about communication? Your fasching evidence talks about how excluding the other is bad. How does my speech exlude people? Even if you won that I exclude other forms of communication, where's the internal link from that to deeming people as inferior and failing to question subjectivity? How do i specifically privilege my epistemology over others?
  6. alyau0212@gmail.com I'd reallly appreciate it thanks.
  7. I don't know. Sorry. You can argue that I don't have a warrant in the 2AC. I just like being silent.
  • Create New...