Jump to content

Chez-Out

Member
  • Content Count

    261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Chez-Out

  1. ^what the fuck just happened
  2. Defcon nailed it. Where do 'you' reside? in the will or the fleshy body? Thats the real q.
  3. Chez-Out

    Wilderson

    Slaves could run away from slavery, so slavery was just, right?....right?...
  4. , http://www.larktheatre.org/lets-not-use-the-word-mexico-by-maria-alexandria-beech
  5. Hey, might be a bump but since I'm such a hack for OOO.... Levi Bryant's Democracy of Objects, check out the Ontic principle.
  6. The flipside of being productive and imaginative, is that someday we are gonna have to find a use for all these bombs we keep building.
  7. There are specific "cyncicism bad" esque arguements for different K varieties. That is really Gibson-Graham's arguement in The end of capitalism. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/how-to-live-without-irony/
  8. Does anyone have a recording of the round?
  9. What is your alternative means that we use when someone uses racist and sexist language? Should I just sit there quietly while my friend is making racist remarks? What is the line between public/private in the context of a debate space? I don't think this card is very good because its fundamental claim is that it is intolerant to rebuke or speak up against ignorance.
  10. People, its just Object-Oriented-Ontology/Speculative Realism + Levinass.
  11. Yes, lots of great debaters began their careers in college
  12. How did this happen?.....
  13. Broken window fallacy does not require that someone intentionally did something.
  14. Cuba would allow for the more interesting debates/a variety of policy and critical argeuments.
  15. http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2008-April/073988.html
  16. The fight club file ruined one of our debaters. Burn it, burn it now while we still have a chance.
  17. Chez-Out

    Introna K

    The evidence for this K is some of the best ever introduced in debate.
  18. http://www.philosophybro.com/2012/05/mailbag-monday-animal-rights-and-some.html#more Anthro = bad.
  19. Right but thats why theres an alternative....? It isn't like the neg is just saying, "No value to life." They are saying that in order to have a value to life you need to vote for the alternative.
  20. If the aff concedes that they are complicit in something that utterly destroys Value to Life (lets say, capitalism, or biopower) you go for it as an impact and say it outweighs extinction because there'd be no reason to live absent value. This means voting for the alternative is the only way to obtain 'value to life' because your alternative probably overcomes capitalism/biopower.
  21. First off, it is really easy for value to life to outweigh extinction. If the aff concedes you have a 100% internal link to value to life (i.e: no defense) then it does't really matter if we die since theres no point to live. Thought experiment: I've invented a black box, if you go inside the box you get to live forever, but if you go in the box you don't experience anything. What this means is you can't feel, smell, see, hear, or talk to anyone. It's complete pitch blackness with no sensory perception. Is that really a life worth living? Probably not. Second, my rant. V2L is such an underused debate arguement. Its really fucked up because its actually something we all need to consider - what does it mean to live a worthwhile life? The problem is that since debate has become so extreme i.e: everything=extinction forever x 100, its really hard very V2L to outweigh that bullshit, which makes all value to life claims really fucking stupid since its all like, "Capitalism means I can't do what I wanna dooooO! NO VALUE TO LIFE FOR ME!". The real question is: would you sacrifice some of your liberties (freedom of speech, expression, assembly) or even sacrifice PARTS of them to make your life .001% safer. When people say the War on Terror is bad because it cuts into civil liberties they don't mean it destroys ALL LIBERTIES, what they are saying is that the amount of security the war on terror brings is negligable because it makes a wortwhile life LESS worthwhile in the process. Basically what all this ranting means is that if you wanna go for Value to Life, your impact calculous needs to be centered around probability first and timeframe secondary. EDIT: The only time I've heard an 'ontological damnation' arguement sound convincing is when its been explained like v2l, hope this helps.
  22. Since this is just a huge Lacan v DnG debate, I just wanna say: this 1ac is a huge double turn.
  23. ^^Airblast wasn't around 4 years ago!
  24. I've uploaded all the vids to youtube since debate vision is really broken. http://www.youtube.com/user/Neolch/videos CHECK OUT MY 4-YEAR OLD TEAM FORTRESS 2 VIDEOS AND BE AMAZED!
  25. Chez-Out

    Kritik Overview

    Do it like you do a DA. -O/Ws case -Turns case -Solves case. Make all your K-cheaters (ROTB, X comes first, The USFG is the government of mexico) on the line by line.
×
×
  • Create New...