Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

56 Excellent

About anon764

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 01/01/1994
  1. I'm a good clean boy, not an ice cream shop! I'm a farmer, not an entrepeneur!
  2. I don't think he has to justify himself to anyone, let alone you Gonzaba.
  3. We're old men (comparatively speaking) and want to have one last hurrah before we're off.
  4. Bump. No need to be an asshole Snarf---we just want one last vdebate before we leave cross-x forever.
  5. You go to Wakeland? You lose. Don't bother going to camp.
  6. There are a few critiques you could read against these types of affs that I can think of off the top of my head: quare theory--this is the intersection of LGBTQ studies and critical race studies, a criticism of their performance's visibility, a different approach for achieving the same transgression could be used through a phenomenological approach...or parody or irony? I know Rosi Braidiott reads Deleuze and Guattari through a feminist lens. These are just things I think could work, no guarantees if they do or not.
  7. No worries--you've been invaluable with updates as it is!
  8. Rubaie, did you happen to record any rounds?
  9. It's funny because CRusso didn't cut it either: http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2011-2012+-+Georgetown+Day+%28DC%29+-+David+Herman+%26+Michael+Barclay#Affirmative-Solaris
  10. There weren't going to be hard feelings dude--I was just 'splainin' myself, haha.
  11. Sam: While that's an original idea, I've already disclosed what the majority of my answers to Lifeline's arguments would be and I don't know if I feel comfortable giving out actual cites and our 1AC via a debate. This may seem shady but the majority of cards for our leadership advantage are from 2012 now and want to keep that as a surprise to the first team that we go against in an actual debate. I'll admit that I was douchey and overstepped my bounds in giving suggestions to Cameron. However, the person making non-falsifiable claims was was Lifeline, not myself. 1. While there are some judges out there that would prefer to see actual abuse in a round to vote on topicality, the majority of good judges will either take a stance on reasonability and competing interpretations. Those in the competing interpretations camp would probably agree with me that a debate involving a precise, inclusive interpretation with an intent to define on the negative would be considered a very good interpretation. Maybe Cam is right--where he debates, judges may prefer abuse claims. Does that make him right? No. Does my point make me right? No as well. But if you want a good debate, you want to have a competing interpretations debate than a debate over what the affirmative did for them to wrong you and not be topical or what affirmatives like them could potentially do--note that there is a distinction between that and who creates better debates a la competing interps. 2. Lifeline also says that he teaches kids at his school and will start teaching some kids from different schools soon. Good for him--does that mean that he's good at debate? Not really. He may be good at debate for all we know. I'm not going to vdebate him simply so he can prove his worth and I can prove mine--look back at how he describes his debris disad and the strategery that goes into it, Sam--wouldn't you question the validity of both as well? It's not sound by any means--that's not to say I haven't had my fair share of questionable strategies but when confronted about it or informed of it by friends, competitors, judges and teammates I make adjustments accordingly. 3. As for the whole Microwaves PIC discussion--people read Microwave disads for a reason--reading a Microwaves PIC is not strategic. When told that such is the case--I may not have been as nice about it as I probably should have--Cameron proceeded to take the discussion forward. Sure, I made a few straw-mans, but that was to prove a point. As for the non-falsifiable part. I'm not going to give you my 2AC to the Microwaves PIC--note that I knew he's read this before but I hadn't explicitly heard him read it in front of me (and before he accuses me of being from a certain school which he goes against frequently that reads SPS, I'm not not from that school)--but you all are welcome to do the same as I did and research the subject. Those who think that this was a huge pissing match miss the point--the fact that Cameron would have so much hubris so as to still fight after been proven wrong proves he has an ego and is not the selfless suggestion-giver as he makes himself out to be. Maybe my methods were questionable, but there you have it.
  12. Look Cameron, I read this aff my novice year and like to read up on the literature on this concept on the side every now and then just for the heck of it. You're right that microwaves aren't the only methods that can be used to beam solar energy back to Earth but you decline to mention the only alternative that has ever been discussed to microwaves is lasers. Lasers haven't been even tested in the lab...most of the literature ASSUMES usage of microwaves, and any competent team would say that they defend microwaves. Plus, it's awfully nebulous to claim that microwaves cause dangerous impacts. Either, you're forgetting to mention the internal link or urnotdoinitrite. Besides, my straw-mans were not really straw-mans. If you PIC out of microwaves, you either equip the satellites with unproven technology and the aff still gets to weigh their advantages or you don't equip them with anything and the aff still has that benefit. Either way, the strategic value of reading the PIC is moot. See SpiderCat's post. I hope people would do that too so it'd deflate your ego a little. NEBULOUS Why not a good old fashioned debate involving a negative interpretation that's precise, inclusive and intends to define what "space exploration" and/or "space development" is. See, topicality isn't about abuse. Topicality is about who has a better interpretation for debate. It'd be hard for you to lose with an ev-heavy debate on who creates a better interpretation for debate. Maybe according to the USfg's legal code, SPS isn't considered "space development". Food for thought. Dude, that's a non-argument--my marketing teacher was a teacher yes, but she didn't really engage in the act of teaching. Or, you could teach these people, but you could teach them stupid. Look, it doesn't matter if you teach--you have to teach well. Of course you may teach well, but based on your posts and your suggestions here I highly doubt it.
  • Create New...