Jump to content

CopperCab

Member
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-18 Bad

About CopperCab

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 02/05/1994
  1. Which senators condoned and/or encouraged suppressing/dismissing this case? From what I've read on the subject, the only senator truly involved was Poe(R-TX) who contacted the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad resulting in State Department agents recovering her tampered rape kit and freed her. Blame seems to fall on the DOJ...but hey, maybe I forgot the caveat that gave the GOP complete control over the DOJ.
  2. i'm joining your team

  3. CopperCab

    South Park

    So a Mormon molested you huh?
  4. CopperCab

    South Park

    Join my boycott of South Park. They offended me, my people, and countless other minorities and individuals.
  5. I have a Freire 1NC shell if you want it(I don't need any evidence in return, especially seeing as it is just a shell).
  6. You're not God, you don't know who has a soul and who doesn't. You're not God, *sound effect* *sound effect* YOU'RE NOT GOD!!!1!11!!!1! Note: I'm not actually him...
  7. Yes, South Park must stop using me and my people. I won't let it happen, I don't know what I will do, but I will do something.
  8. Kritikal affs don't translate to kritiking everything. If you want to you can kritik arguments, however it isn't the most strategic option in my opinion. First on T: You can either choose to defend your plan as topical, kritik Topicality, or you can redefine debate as something other than topical discussions, meaning you say "debate isn't just read a dictionary and you lose, it is about actually learning about the topic and our affirmative does that best, not to mention our interp of debate is best for actually learning, topic education, other voters..." I personally advocate redefining debate, because it makes sense and will most likely be the best way to defend your plan. DAs: You don't have to kritik these either, and I wouldn't recommend it because if you examine this, it gives the neg a great example of abuse(ex: spending DA....you say "spending disad? pssh noob i don't answer you spending is dumb" , or at least that is how it will be framed in terms of an abuse debate). You can also straight up debate the disad, however this probably won't fit in with your advocacy style, again I would recommend a different approach--it really depends on how you defend your aff--such as defending your aff as an affirmation of an ethic or idea, as opposed to defending the implementation of your plan(theory and T will be big here). If you want to defend the actual implementation of your plan, it is best to actually answer the disad directly. Ks aren't the only argument to address kritikal affirmatives: Any argument can apply to kritikal affirmatives(it's not like kritikal affirmatives create a force-field), actually kritikal affs open the door to bigger T and theory debates than usual, and still have links for disads, counterplans, and Ks. Kritikal affs aren't around because they dodge arguments, they are a mode of framing debate in a different light and and transforming the structure of the case. Don't run one just because you think it gives you a "I don't link" card, run it if you research it, believe it in(optional but very helpful), and understand your defense of it. *If you want a personal opinion it would be better to hear the aff you had in mind? Sorry if I sound like a douche, I wasn't trying to be rude, South Park just has me so pissed....
  9. The above posters are right: a PIC w/ rest of the constructive being neg to excluded social service would be a round winner. If you want specific theory against defending the resolution, make the case that defending the resolution transforms debate into defending viewpoints(and morality) which is not policy debate, because policy debate is about discussing implementation. This leads you into debating the fact that this loses topic specific education. You also want to make the case that defending view points means the affirmative always will win because they get to say "we take action towards fixing a problem" whereas the negative is always inaction. You should write these theory blocks yourself and change them around every year, so that you know your blocks and being specific to the topic always makes the theory arguments better and more believable.
  10. Nope. 1AC: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Ab9D7eh1ziOrZGdocDNndnFfNWdqZmpoZ2N4&hl=en
  11. I want to be aff (breaking a new 1AC) Standard vdebate rules Who is in to judge and debate me?
×
×
  • Create New...