Jump to content

Companion Cube

Member
  • Content Count

    615
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Companion Cube last won the day on November 5 2008

Companion Cube had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

137 Excellent

About Companion Cube

  • Rank
    It's True Love
  • Birthday 02/18/1993

Profile Information

  • Name
    Gordon
  • School
    School of Hard Knocks
  • Location
    Washington
  • Interests
    Debate. Music. Life.
  1. please send me the kritik of topicality

  2. this argument is so fucking dumb. but here: Madonna, 2005 [http://madonnapolis.com/fanfiles/quotes.htm] "And while we're on the subject of fuck. I just wanna say that fuck is not a bad word. Fuck is a good word! Fuck is the reason I am here. Fuck is the reason you are here. If your mom and dad did not fuck you would not be here okay?! So get over it o-fucking-kay?!" (BA in London) Duo Maxwell, 2005 [http://www.gamingforce.com/forums/ archive/index.php/t-49782.html] No fucking way. We all need to say “fuck” more than we already fucking do. fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
  3. the red shirts surrendered today
  4. 1. Practice, practice, practice 2. Do a 20 minute routine every time you practice - 5 min of pen drill - 5 min of backwards drill - 5 minutes of preferring clarity and emphasis over speed - 5 minutes of preferring speed over clarity Eventually, with practice, you'll get faster and clearer
  5. By the way, he's right. don't ever run this. ever.
  6. Turn - reconfiguring legal discourse in solely aural term reifies subordination and causes a new hegemony of aurality that is as exclusive as visually dominant paradigms Hibbits 94 (Bernard, J., U Pittsburgh School of Law, "Making Sense of Metaphors," Cardoza Law Review, December) "Apart from what...but to themselves." happy?
  7. whoever neg rep'd saying "fuck u i'm jewish" i'm jewish too. can't we laugh a little?
  8. These are neg cards I cut Ocularcentrist perspectives on knowledge condemn us to a paradigm of visual dominance. This paradigm estranges and otherizes the blind. Reject ocularcentrist rhetoric to make a paradigm shift Bowring 05 (Jacky, 2005, Environment, Society and Design Group, Lincoln U, New Zealand “Sensory Deprivation: Globalisation & the Phenomenology of Landscape Architecture” 81-82, http://dspace.lincoln.ac.nz/dspace/bitstream/10182/61/1/sensory_deprivation.pdf) Ocularcentrism, or the hegemony of the eye, dominates the Western paradigm of engagement with the world since the Renaissance. Through globalisation’s colonisation of time and space, the tyranny of the eye has become one of the most insidious and pervasive influences upon landscape worldwide. Both Martin Jay and David Michael Levin have written extensively on ocularcentrism, and the ongoing intersection with ideas of knowledge and those of sight (see for example, Jay, 1994; Levin, 1988). While the dominance of the eye can be traced back to the Greeks, it was primarily through developments such as perspective and the picturesque, and the rise of viewing-based practices such as museums, zoos and tourism, that sight became elevated to the position of the pre-eminent sense. The eye’s dominion over sensory experience extends through to Modernism, where Marcel Duchamp rejected much of Modernism as “retinal art”, or art purely about visuality, or ‘opticality,’ rather than about ideas. Ocularcentrism extends to the here and now, with contemporary Western culture emphatically visual, illustrated in the term ‘visual culture’ which encapsulates the breadth of practices associated with the eye, the gaze, and the operations of contemporary culture – everything from the digital, to cinema, to photography, and the consumption of all things visual. Visuality’s association with the West also has connotations of a fear of the ‘other’, as expressed in Horkheimer and Adorno’s warning that “When we see we remain what we are; but when we smell we are taken over by otherness. Hence the sense of smell is considered a disgrace in civilization, the sign of a lower social strata, lesser races and base animals.” (in Classen, 1998, p.58) The dominance of the visual is a two-headed sword. On one side, visuality is aligned with knowledge, and there is a plethora of figures of speech in the English language which connect understanding with sight, “I see” being one of the most obvious. On the other side, however, 82 pure opticality can also be interpreted as a failure to fully engage, an ‘overlooking’ of the richness of ideas that might be within what one beholds. The alignment of the ‘eye’ and the ‘I’ emphasises the distancing of the subject from the object, the ‘disembodied eye’ (Jay, 1994, p.81), or in landscape terms, a detachment of the self from place. Legal discourse is inherently occularcentrist Hibbitts 94 (Bernard J., “MAKING SENSE OF METAPHORS: VISUALITY, AURALITY, AND THE RECONFIGURATION OF AMERICAN LEGAL DISCOURSE”, Cardozo Law Review, Yeshiva University, December 1994) While American legal discourse has embraced a range of figurative expressions evoking all sorts of sensory experience, n2 it has [*230] long favored visual metaphors. We frequently consider law as a matter of looking: we "observe" it; we evaluate claims "in the eye of the law"; n3 our high courts "review" the decisions of inferior tribunals. Alternatively, we speak of law as something one would usually look at: it is a "body," a "text," a "structure," a "bulwark of freedom," n4 a "seamless web," n5 and even a "magic mirror." n6 We identify particular legal concepts with striking visual images: property rights are a "bundle of sticks"; n7 a long-standing constitutional principle is a "fixed star"; n8 a sequence of ownership is a "chain of title." n9 We associate legal reasoning with the manipulation of visible geometric forms: we try to "square" precedents with one another; n10 we repeatedly agonize over "where the line [between different doctrines and situations] can be drawn." n11 We discuss legality in terms of light and darkness: we search for "bright-line" n12 tests; we consider an area of concurrent jurisdiction to be a "zone of twilight"; n13 we seek to extend constitutional protections by probing the shadowy "penumbras" n14 of well-known guarantees. With the aid of metaphor, we go so far as to give law the visual quality of hue: we may make a property claim under "color of title"; n15 we [*231] discourage "yellow dog" contracts n16 and make securities trading subject to "blue sky" laws; n17 for good or ill, we frequently adhere to "black letter" rules. n18
  9. 1. Go to camp 2. Talk to your coach and switch next season By the way, policy > LD
  10. Where I debate, high speaker points are awarded for proficiency in speed, clarity, and level of argumentation. To improve the first two, do speaking drills. I'm sure there are other novice threads about them To improve the third, practice debating and in-round strategy.
  11. A Jewish friend of mine wrote this her freshman year A. Interpretation: As the “Federal Government” is a Judaic theocracy, only plans based on Jewish teachings or covenants with god are topical. Federal – Pertaining to or based upon the Covenant of works or Covenant of Grace. Also, Constitution or expressing a covenant entered into by an individual with god. Oxford 89 (The Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition, Oxford University press, p. 795) B. Violation: Plan is not based upon Jewish teachings. C. Standards: 1. Limits – We don’t allow plans based on just any religion. We narrow the topic to an acceptable number of cases, so the debate is good. 2. Ground – Kills our pre-round prep as we think they’ll have a good, money hungry, carb filled, Jewish plan. 3. Researchability – Plan not being Jewish, it explodes our research burden. We only researched plans that furthered the grace of god, because they’re predictable. Besides, they’ll be left out when the seven Jewish Bankers who control the worlds money supply replenish the worlds economy. D. Voters: 1. Jurisdiction. You, as a judge cannot vote on a case that’s outside of your jurisdiction, and since the affirmative case is not topical, they are outside of it. 2. Limits. If there are huge limits on the resolution, the neg can never prepare, and it crushes debate. 3. Ground. If the negative skews our ground, it’s abusive, and it warrants a negative ballot to teach them a lesson, and to return what’s rightfully ours.
  12. I went to DDI alone. It's not big deal. It's actually kind of fun to go off by yourself and make friends. Actually, when I went to camp with my partner it was somewhat worse for various reasons... In any case, going alone means you'll learn to debate with someone who's not your partner, which is good
  13. No, not debating in college. I need to get good grades in college so debate doesn't really fit.. Of course I'll still judge and keep up on what's happening, but I mean I still can't get up and give my rebuttal you know? I'll never actually debate again. And I'm not sure where I'm going to school yet
×
×
  • Create New...