Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


broken last won the day on May 6 2011

broken had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

136 Excellent

About broken

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 12/08/1993

Profile Information

  • Name
    Ian Wren
  • School
    Little Rock Central
  • Location
    Fourth World

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm having trouble downloading the file... both my partner and I purchased it but it says the order is awaiting "manual approval" or some shenanigans like that.
  2. Thank you! We had a great time and I put my speaker award to good use already
  3. http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/search/view/burke+7 that should give you a start @OP--I honestly wouldn't be worried about that. Not many judges would be willing to vote on it
  4. Haven't read every single post in here, but that list of turns case arguments seems pretty big for a 2NC (almost even if you're going 1-off)... if I were you I'd narrow the thesis down a bit and camp out on those arguments. That allows you to out-explain the aff and introduce nuance in a way that makes you look smarter and less cheapshot-ish. From my knowledge of epistemology/power matrix debates some arguments you could be making are like - Flawed epistemology turns solvency (can't accurately solve problems if we don't assess root cause/knowledge problems first) - Flawed epistemology leads to error replication--even if the instance of the aff is correct, it justifies escalating forms of violence
  5. "Counterperm"-ing seems like a less preferable strategy in that 1-Judges and 1As will flag that as changing your advocacy, giving them a lot of leeway in abuse claims 2-Floating PIKs have at least marginal cover for this claim, as you claim that was the alt all along (and, 1As can ask "is this going to be a floating PIK" a bit easier than "if we give away our 2AC strat and read X perm, will you make X counterperm?")
  6. Don't. Stuff like a thursday file for big tournaments is ok and helps with small squads, but for a majority of your ev/strats you should cut it/compile it yourself you have the time it'll make you better at debate
  7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUdj0u4_9ow I'll post an RFD if a tiebreaker is necessary
  8. I think the jokes need to be a bit less awkward than that... but given that the3nr stressed practicing your humor as well this is probably a good place to start out
  9. broken

    Silence FW

  10. Is there some difference between "kritiks" and "K's" that I've been missing for the past 3 years? Shanahan wrote some ev like this... but why would you need to read it? Seems like you could be reading better/more specific evidence like reps good/discourse good/etc.
  11. broken

    Ideal paradigm

    congrats on paying attention during APUSH I didn't quote the whole post--in case you didn't notice the first time when I bolded the text I was questioning, not to mention the fact that I didn't sound a peep on capital-T truth or biology or whatnot. You just keep calling the distinction "trivial" or "offensive" or "shoddy scholarship", I think some actual examples or pieces of ev that people have read would be nice to prevent this discussion from getting too tautological.
  • Create New...