Jump to content

Vegrjrgrvecevtkgjwfbsc

Member
  • Content Count

    728
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Vegrjrgrvecevtkgjwfbsc last won the day on January 11 2013

Vegrjrgrvecevtkgjwfbsc had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

312 Excellent

About Vegrjrgrvecevtkgjwfbsc

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 01/01/1995
  1. After narrowing it down between Northwestern and Georgetown, Georgetown SFS studying international economics / international political economy and debating.
  2. If the aff is Icebreakers, it is not new. Look at some wikis to get some better cards. I think one of the best teams is CK McClatchy and Spurlock and his partner. Their cards explain the advantage fairly well, and I believe they're in context too.
  3. Protip: It's not true. Unrelated protip: Republicans.
  4. Hmm. I'm diggin the 1NC. Couple cross-x questions: 1. Why do you include Jannis Macca's story? Do you know her? 2. Where does the 1AC [believe it is] entitled to "speak for individuals with disabilities" 3. Why is your reading of Macca's story NOT a "reappropriation?" for your personal goals to a ballot. What's the distinction? 4. The Giroux turn is that the Siebers 10 (ie the mass death/genocide) is that it is the culture of violence that Giroux criticizes? Dunn is simply the "impact" of hyper-reality? Baudrillard: 1. Status? Im going to go through each card and see if I'm getting the basis First, Baudrillard says that trying to fight the system will allow the system to LOOK LIKE it has collapsed/died, when in reality is is still "hiding?" Second, power will become more hidden the more it is sought out an destroyed. Zizek says we should work...within the system and use the system to destroy it. 2. Power becoming more hidden. I don't understand. Is it getting stronger? Different forms of power? What exactly. 3. I guess, how does that solve in the context of the affirmative? Edit: Also, please explain this argument. I don't understand why you think it's an impact turn ""The 1AC can’t just say “well, judge the individuals according to justice too†– makes the whole of distributive justice systematically incoherent because distributive justice is predicated on individual liberal conceptions of agency (which, awkwardly, also impact turn the aff. We don’t really like liberal conceptions of agency, but apparently the 1AC does – independent reason to vote neg)."
  5. Oh em gee, so many questions. ): i'm looking forward to this debate. it seems like it's gonna be fun.
  6. Also, sorry for any typing errors. If nything doesn't make sense, i'd more than happily clarify for ya.
  7. we don't say one institution is a root cause. Also, the reason why people discriminate is because mental/physical/cultural differences are portrrayed as vulnerabilities and inferiorities. That means the able bodied continually try to destroy the deviant
  8. Sure. I'm remaking the 1AC. Do you want the one where I do or do not defend the res? Fuck the res https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_6rHQCSTJPDc0xyQk1ZcTNQMVE/edit I think it's under some word count. I haven't read this exact version, but I don't think it's too terribly long. If you think it is, I'll figure out the word count and repost.
  9. [insert neg strat here] Any neg strat can win you rounds. There is no "great neg strat" that wins every round or everyone would run it and it'd be 0/100 side bias. Run what you like. In general, tips include a diverse 1NC with a lot of options for the 2NR. Besides that, do whatever the hell you like doing, work hard, and you'll probably be able to win with it.
  10. I'd help you, but you refuse to look in the right forum or post in the right place. Try again.
  11. If you just want some generic debate bad shit, go read Spanos or Mitchell which you'll find in any framework camp file ever. However, if you want to win framework and therefore rounds, you're going to want to have cards that go along with the thesis of your K. The most obvious example is the race K because then you can kritik debate as exclusionary. Then from there, you are able to internal-link turn framework standards like fairness, predictability, limits, et cetera. Well, then, how do you answer "Ks bad"? Reasons why your K is good. Why is it necessary to have in round? This goes beyond the link and impact level and into reasons why discussing dead French dudes might be useful. Well, then, how about "policy making good?" Talk abut why policy making in this instance is bad (you can kinda form this as a permutation of your frameworks but don't say it like that. Something might be "Our framework doesn't exclude policy debate in all instances - meaning any external impact of policy debate is accessed. However, their specific form of policy debate (ie their aff) is bad because ______" Obviously, there are more arguments to be made, but it's hard to gauge off of such a generic question. If you can be more specific, I'm sure more of a response will be warranted.
×
×
  • Create New...