Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Vegrjrgrvecevtkgjwfbsc

  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.
  12. True. It depends if Obama continues pushing this through the lame duck and past it. As long as there's UQ that Obama is pushing gun control, this will be half-way decent internal-link defense.
  13. Bloomberg came out with a segment today regarding political capital with Obama's push for gun-control. It may be useful, so I wrote out a transcript for the video. Paul Barrett, Dec 19th, 2012. Bloomberg Businessweek,†“Obama Ready to Spend Capital†http://www.bloomberg.com/video/obama-ready-to-spend-political-capital-on-guns-2lhdfIClS~OyvThggrq_vQ.html, transcript of video, accessed 12/19. Paul Barrett: The president takes this seriously that gun control, which has been off the table in Washington now, not just for the past four years but really for the last dozen years is now going to be part of the debate. Bills are going to be introduced. Commentator: But why has it been off the table? Just because there are bigger fish to fry? Paul Barrett: I think it’s been off the table because in the last four years this administration has not wanted to spend the political capital that is required to engage in any debate over gun control. In other words, if you wanted to get something enacted, you would have to twist the arms of more conservative Democrats that will cost you political capital on other issues and cause controversy, and frankly it might have imperiled the president’s re-election chances. The fact that he had been silent on this issue in a sense denied Mitt Romney a big ideological issue in key swing states – Pennsylvania, Ohio – where gun ownership is common.
  14. wait lol shit. you're right. i'm wrong. i totally read what OP was asking incorrectly.
  15. Actually, it's Article VI. http://en.wikipedia....upremacy_Clause tl;dr i'm a dumbass.
  16. Check the impact file at http://ceda-ndt.uchicago.edu/files.htm . It's probably in there if it was any what popular in debate from around 1998-2002. Edit: Nevermind. Above poster found it(:
  17. it's free. upload a couple random documents to get access or just link your facebook account to scribd. i believe either will get you access.
  18. The affirmative cedes the political sphere by asking: "what should the government do?" This focus on mega-spheres of action eclipses questions of what we would do if we were simply ourselves. This kills political activism, inculcating a spectator mentality and preventing change. Kappeler 95 (Susanne, Associate Professor at Al-Akhawayn University, The Will to Violence: The politics of personal behavior, Pg. 10- 11) Yet our insight that indeed we are not responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgment, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own sphere of action. In particular, it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between our own actions and those events, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls 'organized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally, and also individually organized separate competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major power mongers, For we tend to think that we cannot 'do' anything. say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation because we are not where the major decisions are made. Which is why many of those not vet entirely disillusioned with politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of 'what would I do if I were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defense?' Since we seem to regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends to peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as 'virtually no possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like 'I want to stop this war', 'I want military intervention', 'I want to stop this backlash', or 'I want a moral revolution. 'We are this war', however, even if we do not command the troops or participate in co-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our non-comprehension': our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the advantages these offer. And we 'are' the war in our 'unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the 'fact that you have a yellow form for refugees and I don't'- our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of our own and one for the 'others.' We share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is,& the way we shape 'our feelings, our relationships, our values' according: to the structures and the values of war and violence.
  19. I don't get it. What does the word development have to do with anything? How do icebreaker teams answer T? I assume the violating is "transporation infrastructure" means "X" but how does development relate when it's not a part of the res.
  • Create New...