Jump to content

thefrozenone

Member
  • Content Count

    532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

thefrozenone last won the day on December 15 2012

thefrozenone had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

191 Excellent

About thefrozenone

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 06/30/1995

Profile Information

  • Biography
    Nothing interesting.
  • Interests
    Stuff
  • Occupation
    Floating around
  1. thefrozenone

    Big affs

    Find Flight 370 Aff
  2. anything i didn't explain well, or just looking for another person's thoughts? in order for the affirmative to say that the negative is priorotizing sexier political impacts, they have to win that the debate is a simulation in congress and the judge is an actual policymaker who's deciding to pick the negative impacts over the structural aff impacts, and that the neg is actually putting shit at the "top of the list." the neg argument is that we're 3rd party observers saying whether congress "should" do something, not the people who are actually setting priorities. the NEG argument is that, the DA impact outweighs not because it's a "higher priority" than solving structural violence, but that congress has a limited attention span and will cause the DA impact (bad shit) which outweighs. the neg is not asking the judge to, as a politician, set the aff/neg priority -- it's asking the judge to say what congress should set as a priority, even if the priorities should generally be different.
  3. thefrozenone

    Big affs

    Do you run my school's financial aid department? re: space elevators not sure what it has to do with exploring the oceans, why the oceans are even a good place to put a launch system, and whether people have even found more than one card making any sort of topic-spec arg with this aff re: "non-military" biggest buzzkill ever re: icebreakers "substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans" that means the e/d can't be military in nature. icebreakers were topical on the TI topic because people said TI includes the military, not because icebreakers were non-military. they are under the actual jurisdiction of the coast guard. that's like saying you should do scientific research with an aircraft carrier re: affs i would have actually liked to see someone said that ecological niche affs would be good. aggreeeeeeeed. using biol/chem/physx in debate should be done more. people did it a lil bit on the TI topic with economics stuff for stim debates, but it's always good when we bring in these technical topics like biodiversity and discuss them within the debate format. vastly improves the quality of education when we broaden our horizons from purely IR impact debates. the only issue is that the structure of debate (and policy-making, generally) prioritizes impact calculus - so those affs probably wouldn't win a lot of rounds.
  4. Politics DA isn't a normative claim about whether certain political priorites "should" be considered before others. It's a descriptive claim about a likely consequence of the affirmative, i.e. we're not sure that immigration reform is more important than lifting the embargo on Cuba, we just know that it would result in x,y, and z which might be bad, but we'll leave that up to the judge. Yes, there is a normative basis to most descriptive claims, BUT (depending on the aff) you're not really shifting any value-system. Your normative basis for saying that the consideration of your descriptive scenario is important is util. That's probably a game that they're playing too, unless this is a K aff. Basically, they're K'ing your DA without an alternative. If they have a plan text, then there's no point to the K other than a reason to doubt your truth claims, in which case you should just defend your ev quals and defend the validity of your predictions. If it's a K aff with no plan text, why are you reading the politics DA??? protip: they don't get their second card if they lose the intrinsicness debate
  5. ill judge Philosophy: I debated for 4 years in high school so I'm what they would call a policy expert. I'll vote for any arguments as long as they're poorly articulated and based on shoddy scholarship. You need to make sure that you never compare arguments to one another, because I think that it helps keep flows clean if you do not think critically and identify connections between arguments. I am a sticker for clarity, consider me the clarity police. What I mean by that is that if you are clear I will yell "clear" at you until you settle back into an incoherent drone lacking emphasis on major points not much unlike my washing machine, so that I can tune you out. I especially enjoy speakers who have the persuasive skills and convictions of the aforementioned appliance. Definitely speed over clarity because the other team already has all your cards and power to you if you can fit in a 10-second voting issue because the other team dropped their pens and you thought it was cool to catch them off-guard. If you are too slow I will give you a thumbs down and you will earn no more than 20 speaker points. I am a flow judge, so I tend to go with the flow of whatever is happening in debate. However I am also a tab judge in that I like to keep checking in and keep tabs on what's happening, but only when it doesn't interfere with my Facebook breaks during cross-x. Sometimes. I am definitely Tech over Truth because I am going to Georgia Tech. This means that dropped arguments should probably be picked up because we should be nice to the host schools for putting on such a fantastic tournament and should should put our trashy T violations in the garbage where they belong. Impact calculus is an absolute must-not. I usually like to decide based on my own analysis which impact is the most likely because I believe judge choice is important. I tend to prioritize issues of timeframe, because if I believe it will take longer for extinction to happen as soon as I pass legislation by signing a high school policy debate ballot than if I did not, then I have afforded myself additional, valuable time to console my family members and loved ones of their impending deaths. I hate Disads so please never run them. Counterplans are okay, but my favorite activity is being taught philosophy by angsty teens who can't pronounce the name of the author they are reading. Please use buzzwords because I like the buzzing noise they make as they leave your mouth and fly over my head. HOWEVER, if the neg kritik authors lived in Germany any time after 1750, I will automatically assume they are Nazis and vote you down. TL;DR -I'll bump your speaks if I think you're running arguments that I ran in high school
  6. I have this file 1. the biggest reason i would note is that the argument is very complete, no matter which way you arrange the cards. many files have a smattering of different scholars whose ideologies yield some pretty inconsistent arguments. not to say the K isn't multifaceted; it is. it advances a very coherent strain of scholarship where instead of reading a bunch of different cards, the cards can do a lot of the arguing for you. once you understand them, you can skip the basic concerns of "organization" and "what do I read where" and start going in depth. 2. I think the policy arg is pretty true, and is the other biggest distinguishing factor of this file. the way this file is setup, it's the kind of cards that make very policy-salient K arguments. it's not as far left or theoretical as most security Ks are, although you can spin it in a variety of ways. a lot of camp files have extra cards for padding, this file only has the best cards for each of the link sections, and most of them have a turns case argument that becomes important if you're behind on f/w
  7. POWER is probably the best example of what that article is talking about, even with his music before Yeezus
×
×
  • Create New...