Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LPCade last won the day on July 2 2010

LPCade had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

About LPCade

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 11/25/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
    Cade Cottrell
  1. LPCade

    Judging Paradigms

    Both http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/ and Tabroom.com serve this purpose.
  2. Its sad that no one has even mentioned teams like Harker, Damien, St. Francis, CPS, Peninsula, etc. There's too many good teams in California to have lists with only 5-6 names on them. But that's probably more of a reason to just not try to make impossible lists like this.
  3. Flight of the Conchords - The Humans are Dead Lonely Island - I'm the Boss Styx - Come Sail Away
  4. This seems stupid on a few accounts: 1. Its not extra topical to say that a technology would be used for a certain purpose, otherwise you could never have an advantage area. Under your interp, building space colonies (not saying its feasible, just topical) and saying they would save people from an asteroid strike is untopical because you specified what the colonies would be used for. Your argument would only be true if you built the tech with a mandate that it be used for warming, which is a conditioning argument, not extra t. 2. This topic will allow hundreds of small aff's that's inevitable in the wording, its best to learn to deal with it. 3. You can still say warming is good or bad, that makes no sense. Unless you think that would be extra topical too..... This is right. Multiple worlds is a way of framing conditionality arguments. I.e. you get conditional advocacies as long as they are not in conflict with each other. Whether or not that's legitimate is only slightly dependent on what the aff does. Usually the way a neg tries to defend it using the aff is either that the aff is new or that it is very small and therefore unpredictable, which its hard to tell with how you described your aff. Overall though, its not as if there is a clear yes or no answer, its whether you can justify it. Theory debates are not won or lost on objective truth, its about how you can spin the debate in your favor. So really there is no right or wrong answer to your question.
  5. I'd add that when I go for cede the political on the aff I treat it more as a permutation argument. The impact is right wing backlash, but the underlying implication is that we should use politics as our primary mode of social change, i.e. perm do both can be described as incorporating the alt within the aff's political action. It's a net benefit to the permutation and a disad to the alt. You should also always make sure you are impacing your aff against the alt well and have other disads to the alternative that don't link (as hard) to the permutation to go for this argument
  6. I think this is largely right. I'd also say I think you are doing yourself a disservice by making a large file of generic AT cede the political. It will get you a lot less than just one or two cards specific to your criticism that explain why rejecting the state key/using the state is bad. largely these questions are won by spin and specificity, and i don't think generic answers will help much in those areas. IF you're reading Nietzsche, a card saying "Nietzsche says using the state leads to X, makes the alt fail" will get you more than three lengthier cards that say things like "Philosophy gets commodified by the state" and "Leftist movements get taken over by the Right", etc.
  7. I think all the above posters are dancing around the argument instead of just answering it. We hit this argument in college a few times and it wasn't some tricky framework question, it was sheerly to give back the land which is what I'm assuming everyone would say. If it was some tricky indict of your epistemology or methodology than they wouldn't constrain themselves to defending giving back the land. Just impact turn this argument like crazy. If you are reading anything besides a true blue K aff, then just take the far right road. Giving back the land would destroy america as we know it. That means no more economy, no more hegemony, no more military, no more western technology, etc. Cross-x by itself should kill this argument. Where would current US citizens go? Back to their home countries? (if yes then what if they came here for asylum i.e. Rwanda, Christian Arabs, etc?) Would we just occupy another nation? Who would own what land? Would Native Americans just fight over different areas? What about 1/4 Natives, 1/2, 1/8 and so on, can they stay? What about US troops overseas? Do you fiat citizen and government compliance? (You get either your backlash turns or utopian fiat args) The only framing question they may ask is about performing actions based on unethical presumptions (I.e. the US acting for itself/others while ignoring that they're not a legitimate nation). This is easily beat by both simple utilitarian calculus as well as proving their action is equally unethical in a number of ways (cross-x should be easy to prove that). They would displace people even worse than the original act. (If they do read Churchill you could point out that he refused to submit blood proof that he is a Native, so who would he define as who can stay and who can go)
  8. LPCade


    It won't drop to finals, no chance. it was a quarters for two years and it is pretty decent competition for a sems. I know Brophy and Chandler have attended in past years so they've found the drive worth it.
  9. I think if the Republicans are smart they will choose someone very conservative but even handed and fair, like Romney. I think Palin and Huckabee have bandwagons but mostly because of their media attention and PR, but that doesn't equate well to convincing more than half of all Americans. Romney has the money behind his campaign that can challenge Trump while still coming off as a politician and not a celebrity. Trump has no chance of convincing the public he has the experience to run the country, but I think he's a better version of Ron Paul, someone that will receive about 25% of republican votes consistently and split the base. That bodes well for democrats, and I see a long struggle in the primaries with Trump, a legitimate candidate (Romney, Jingal, etc) and either Palin or Huckabee, each hurting eachother in the process. One sleeper that the GOP would be smart to consider is John Huntsman, former Utah Governer and now ambassador to China, he has an outstanding fiscal reputation, the best foreign policy experience, and not much baggage, the real question is if he can/wants to get his name out there more. In the end I think Obama will be reelected with about the same margin of victory as '08
  10. LPCade

    2011 TOC

    Random note, many rounds at the TOC, and a lot of outrounds will contain four debaters that are 18, so you can still work around it.
  11. I'm talking actual literature and evidence wise. Heidegger doesn't do comparative studies on how outer space affects humans, probable because he stopped writing before we ever went to the moon. This is a TERRIBLE standard for debate. This is the type of k debate that gives the K a bad name. The fact that you used the term "counter-answers" probably hurts your credibility enough I didn't need to point this out.
  12. This idea isn't a K. There's no strategic advantage to having an alt, or an external impact. This is really just a methodological solvency argument. You would be better off reading a different K (cap, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Fear of Death, etc) and then making this argument in the block. It'll help illustrate the link as well as let you weigh your impacts and alt more heavily against the aff.
  13. Look up the term "The overview effect". The two main authors are White and O'neil. The idea is that when people go beyond our atmosphere they find a new sense of human ontology per say; they think of our relationship as a planet differently, more of an embrace of cosmopolitanism. It's actually backed by studies and research so I'd recommend going that route just because it will probably be the only real K aff that is uber specific to space exploration and has (arguable) merit.
  14. LPCade


    I've heard both of these in high school debate, usually only the latter in college. To elaborate on the first use, almost anything can be "spiked" with a tricky argument that is intended to be hidden, or a preempt, or an independent argument hidden within another. Examples would be hiding an independent extra T violation in a 1NC T shell, writing a "perm- do cp" argument inside a theory block, a "sandbagging" argument at the end of a framework or theory shell, or reading premptive blocks at the end of a 1AC. I'm not advocating doing any of these things. I think the word "spike" has gotten lost in the clutter of a lot of misinterpretations so I recommend not using the term in general.
  • Create New...