Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by LPCade

  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.
  15. MNDI UNT CNDI KNDI I'd recommend Georgetown for 3 weeks, it condenses a lot of knowledge and practice into a short period. Stanford swing would be the lab you should consider if you want to go there but its required that you go to a camp before attending so that may not be an option
  16. I guess it could be in some case an individual ethic over a universal ethic, but I don't think Kierkegaard ever posits that. Kierkegaard specifically refers to it in the context of Duty to God. It is closely related to the story of Abraham. Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac to show his faith in God. As the story tells us, Abraham was willing to kill Isaac, so would that have been ethical? The two main possibilities Kierkegaard analyzes is whether Abraham was ethical because he followed God which is the ultimate ethic, or whether in this instance there was a teleological suspension of the ethical in order to follow the Duty to God. Kierkegaard says that "The ethical is the universal and as such it is divine." So ethics is everything. He says that ethics has no telo, it is not the means or ends but both at once, it is everything. So the question becomes whether that can be suspended in the instance of a higher calling. (This is just my personal opinion, but my view is that Kierkegaard does not (as far as I have found or read) acknowledge the possibility of a deontological interpretation of ethics, meaning doing someone that could be unethical in order to reach a larger ethical end. I think God is a deontological being, and as such his direction to Abraham was indeed ethical nor did it preclude ethics, because it was for the greater Ethic.)
  17. QFA. I think being flexible is best. My junior year we tried the whole "lets beat the big school with a tricky K" strategy, and while it may work once, it'll never work twice. Its true that you can beat them consistently if you just know your K better than them and even know their arguments better than they do, but I've found that most of the people that this is true for could be just as good with policy arguments. Good debaters are good debaters are good debaters. I think you should base it more around what you enjoy and WANT to do, because it becomes hard to keep up regardless if you hate the arguments you read. As far as small school vs. big school goes. My school had one coach that was in charge of all three debate events and every IE, and we only had a few policy kids, all of which except me and my partner were JVers or novices, but we took the exact opposite strategy in big debates. We got basically all our big wins by going for disad and counterplan. While big schools can research more, your not assuming their is only a finite amount of articles to research for one subject. I've found that with almost every politics disad, unless its a huge bill thats ACTUALLY on the docket and be debating (ie healthcare in november two years ago and stimulus around berkeley), then its not out of the question to cut literally every card on that subject. If you have gone through every page on google news and lexus that's relevant, then you have nothing to worry about. The big school will AT BEST have the some cards you have, except you have the advantage of having actually read every article and cut them, so its all about executing and winning spin by displaying your knowledge. The things that I find big schools are ahead on is the deeper updates, on subjects most people don't update throughout the year, like non-uniques to random camp disads, ptix link turns, hege and econ updates, impact defense, etc. That said, if you choose to read the K, the only way you can be truly successful will still require as much work as policy arguments. You may not be cutting as many cards but you should be prepared to update blocks every week and write answers to every 2AC/1AR argument under the sun, and you should know the actual works of your authors. The great K teams I know from high school are just solid at debate in general but have an interest in the K. Also, I've found that in high school, the large policy squads will greatly overcover the K in the 2AC and make sure they have shut down that option because they don't want that debate and they are well aware of the whole "pop a big team with the K" idea, that's where flexibility becomes useful
  18. Alright, let's make it clear that you can't point out a passage where Nietzsche explicitly acknowledges the presence of God, you are making pretty vast and overarching claims about what Nietzsche says. Rather than dribble on about our personal interpretations of what Nietzsche means, I'll isolate a few of his core ideas and you can tell me how that fits into the context of "God". Nietzsche believes strongly in Darwinism, quoting the transition from ape to man. Nietzsche believes that all people are created different (after his eternal recurrence phase), that everyone has (or should have) a different value system and should find their own purpose. Nietzsche thinks that while Jesus showed a lot of traits of the Ubermensch, he negated life in order to purposefully die, which Nietzsche disagrees with. Nietzsche was born very religious and then rejected the bible as scripture after his adolescence. He thinks the ultimate accomplishment in life is to become the "Ubermensh", or Overman, someone who rules and dominates others, someone who embraces life and finds their own path. He also thinks others should worship this vision of the Ubermensch. He thinks Christianity as a whole is wrong and has monopolized culture. He thinks being dis-satisfied with this life and seeking something or anything other than what one has is fundamentally in contradiction with the Ubermensch.
  19. Defining a re-inscription of values as "Nietzsche believes in God" is quite the stretch. The reason he thinks we need new values in the first place is because he believes Christian values are obsolete, and one of the reasons why is because of its false premise. A re-inscription of values should be based around the individual, he disagrees with the notion of having universal values, which I would say is necessary to religion. Radical Perspectivism would be hard to intertwine with God. Also, I love Thus Spoke Zarathustra but I find that Nietzsche would consider some of his other works more centered to actually engaging in his true beliefs. Both because it was written for more entertainment than knowledge and also because the common theme of the book (eternal recurrence) was later dismissed by Nietzsche.
  20. As far as "Crash courses" go, I'd say you should read "The story of Philosophy" by Will Durant. Its probably the best compilation of philosophy and easiest for a beginner, plus Durant is fairly genius in the way he is able to go chronologicallly yet still build off of each chapter and not lose a flow. A kid from my High School, Oliver Gappmayer, read Nietzsche in LD and did fairly well. I'm not sure what tournaments he read it at most but I know he picked up on it a lot and he was 1st speaker at Meadows, Alta, and I believe Golden Desert, but granted that is west coast LD. Although he also read it in front of a few select judges at Bronx and picked up on it there
  21. LPCade

    NBA Basketball

    I don't think any self respecting NBA fan would call that BS, regardless of where your loyalties lie. Lovin the Nugs right now, and as a Jazz fan that's saying something. I really like how they're playing, and I think they could get out of the first round if the thunder weren't in their way, I have thunder in 7. P.S., I'd say 9, dunno if I'd count Chris Anderson, but still impressive, they're killer in NBA 2k11 too. I have Lakers beating the Thunder in 6, and Celtics beating Chicago in 5 (that's assuming Shaq is at least 80% against Miami, I think they can shut down Chicago regardless though). Finals I would have Celtics over Lakers in 7, the most sweet (or bitter) of revenges.
  22. 1. Cool. You write in a way that no one can understand or appreciate that hasn't extensively read Kierkegaard, sounds like a winning idea. Also, Kierkegaard did not write like that, plus his writings were intelligent. 2. This. And to add onto it. He liked the idea of "religion" even, just not the idea of a preacher speaking on behalf of God. He took God to be a personal relation with oneself, and thought no one could understand God the same way. The fact that Kierkegaard is considered one of the most well-known religious philosophers of all time makes me think you don't know as much as you put on. 3. Yes, I included a lot of different writings, its called summarizing for clarity. He isolated many ideas and parts of his overall philosophy in different books towards the end goal of one full philosophy, as most philosophers do (with the exception of Nietzsche). 4. This is blatantly wrong. Nietzsche's most famous statement is "God is Dead.", a novice is ahead of you here. He rejected the idea of Christian ethics, religion, and basically anything of christian culture. Read the "Antichrist" before you post again. Also, if you are meaning him worshpping the "Ubermensch", his point was exactly the opposite. The Ubermensch was never intended to be a God, it was intended to be an alternative to God.
  23. I've always been really slow and that was always my problem. The best drills for me are to do the cycle of 5 minutes straightforward, then a few of your favorite random drills like O's A's, backwards, etc (do at least one stretching drill like pens or overpronunciation), And then go 8 minutes straight as fast as you can without worrying about clarity. I've found I always feel slightly faster when I start the cycle the next time. For me though, I always feel like I'm pushing at the ceiling when I try to get faster and its frustrating to try to figure out how to break through the barrier. So I've found it actually most beneficial to work on efficiency more than speed. I always try to highlight all my cards down to the bare bare bare minimum (this does not mean underhighlighting, every card should have a warrant and make grammatical sense but there shouldn't be a single word highlighted that does not serve a purpose or say something new). That also has other obvious benefits outside of speed. I also always continuously revised 2AC blocks religiously so that they were always more efficient. Arguments should be succinct, and every argument and card should be essential and strategic. Having other people listen to you and tell you how to better your word economy also helps (this is especially effective if a spray bottle is involved).
  24. Any Malthus card works, or look up asteroid theorists. This wouldn't take much work. You can also find a card that runaway warming is happening now. Also, classic laundry list cards are Schwab, Engdahl, and Collins
  • Create New...