Jump to content

Ho Chi Minh

Member
  • Content Count

    521
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by Ho Chi Minh

  1. i got blocked from posting... wtf

  2. Phil Derpen here So there are two theories regarding gravity. One is Newtonian, which we all know says that objects are attracted to each other and so really small objects like people and apples "fall" towards the much bigger object called the Earth. The other theory is Einstein theory of relativity, which basically says that there is a space time continuum (imagine a big blanket stretched out) that objects will sit on (imagine a bowling ball on that blanket) that warp the continuum and that warpage is called gravity. Both of those are oversimplifications, and both are currently non-falsifiable, but that doesn't mean we should reject either one. (Although I do believe Einstein's theory has been proven to be more mathematically accurate in predicting things like the bending of light) PEACE OUT
  3. Phil Derpen here Holy crap that may just be an impact PEACE OUT
  4. Ho Chi Minh

    Nye 81

    Phil Derpen here Way to find the oldest Nye card evar written, your so debate hipster, can't settle for "new" Nye cards from 2011 PEACE OUT
  5. I think that's called sexism
  6. Phil Derpen here I thought all biopower was spatial PEACE OUT
  7. Posted for relevance: Reverse Topicality A. Our interpretation will be to define the resolution as it is: Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce military and/or police presence in one or more of the following areas: Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, South Korea, Iraq, Turkey. B. Violation: THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS COMPLETELY TOPICAL. C. Standards, or reasons to prefer our interpretation. 1. Its the resolution: need I say more? D. Why this matters: Ground: Topicality is very important ground for negative teams to utilize, for 3 reasons; 1) Checks back squirrelly affirmatives: the only way a negative team can reliably check affirmatives is through topicality; removing this argument makes it nearly impossible to win on the negative. 2) Predictable: the only ground that is guaranteed in debate for the negative is topicality- oh wait, now it isn't because the affirmative just took that away too. 3) Camp files: camps put out disadvantages against untopical cases because they write untopical cases because they realize that untopical cases are strategic- running a topical case takes out the ability of negative teams to utilize camp files, removing a large portion of negative ground. Framer's Intent: the framer of this resolution vaguely worded the resolution specifically to invite topicality debates; by being topical, the affirmative is defying what our framers intended us to debate about. Education: perhaps the best way to learn about this year's resolution is to define it; the affirmative takes away this key education that makes debate a worthwhile activity. Strategy skew: we were prepared to run topicality in this round because we expected teams to be untopical, but now our entire strategy is useless due to the affirmative's topical plan. Err negative on theory, and take a stand against topical cases!
  8. TLDR Nuke the atmosphere. If you nuke it above 50 miles (authors suggest above 30 miles and the mesosphere is about 30-50 miles), then it is development beyond the mesosphere, and thus topical. It would wipe out all technology (EMP burst) and might kill everyone or it might not. You can spin it either way for spark or wipeout
  9. Ugh Treat it like a DA. You need to win: 1) Uniqueness (we are engaging it noaw) 2) Link (they cede it) 3) Impact (ceding it bad)
  10. That's not what we said. You told irony teams to read the Onion as a cite, but that is already old news. It is as if you said:
  11. Ho Chi Minh

    Bataille

    You could always nuke it, but that might be problematic. Other options might be covering it in spikes so no one can land on it or otherwise destroying the landscape. Probably the most effective way to run this is to interpret fiat as imagining the plan happening, as opposed to actually advocating it happen. For more help on kritikal affs, you can reference this free lecture on K affs that is pretty good.
  12. Oh so if I pledge mehself to mod I canz get Vassal tag???
  13. whyz yOu no liek bad grammerz perZons?
  14. Holy crap that is a lot of mods. Checks-and-balance system, eh?
  15. Ho Chi Minh

    Bataille

    After looking at the file, you should note that another aspect of this particular Bataille K is how the aff interacts with the state. Because the state is the one who abuses the excess energy (the accumulation of the plan), the plan (policy) thus supports the state violent tendencies, or the plan (kritikal) places ethical restraints on the state that only support its importance and actually fuel the state's destructive tendencies. The Other comes into play with the alternative really (my previous post was slightly misleading). The actually alt text is "Sacrifice the 1ac. Sever its head, flay its corpse, wear its skin." By sacrificing the 1ac, we sacrifice the 1ac's good, which Bataille argues give us a sense of liberation and defines our sovereignty as separate from the state. Wearing its skin brings us into this intimate contact with death and with the Other, which breaks down violent tendencies to make us distinct from the state as well. You could argue several things against this K: 1) State is inevitable 2) State is good 3) Excess inevitable 4) Sacrifice is bad 5) Sacrifice won't solve 6) Perm- sacrifice the alt (not sure how that would go down in a round but it would be fun to see how they respond to it) 7) Ethics come first 8) Ethics key 9) Framework That is for a policy aff. For a kritikal aff, you can also: 1) Use the 1ac to kritik the logic of the K 2) Impact or link turn the K 3) Case solves the impact 4) Case outweighs 5) We are a sacrifice (depending on what your 1ac kritik is) As for using Bataille as an aff. There are a couple of options off the top of my head: 1) Ironic advocacy of collecting resources (judge, we absolutely HAVE to get these resources) is always a possibility 2) Sacrifice the moon (it has a lot of resources on it we could use) or some other celestial body 3) Use Bataille as a gateway type aff (space exploration is inevitable, all that matters is how we go about exploring space, plan is key to shift mindset away from state's violent tendencies) Final note: I can get you the file, just pm me
  16. Ho Chi Minh

    T K

    For the love of god read this. QFA
  17. YES YES THIS WOULDZ BEE DA MOIST EMAZIN TING EVAR
  18. Ho Chi Minh

    Bataille

    Oops I meant aff acquiring resources. Essentially (one of) Bataille's kritiks is that there is an excess of energy we need. When we attempt to "store" or "hoard" this excess energy (via the aff's plan to save lives, resources, etc) this excess is used violently by the state to exploit people, cause genocide, etc basically do a bunch of really bad things with it, BECAUSE this mindset perpetrates a Other that is unrecognizable. So Bataille alternative is to sacrifice the excess of the 1ac, creating a intimacy with death that brings us to terms with the Other. I'm probably butchering it, its been a while since I've debated, but I do have a file I can trade you
  19. Ho Chi Minh

    Bataille

    Probably a neg author Especially if the neg acquires resources (aka mining) SACRIFICE THE AFF BITCHEZ
  20. Of course, you can always kick out of case, concede the link to whatever crappy K they run, then go for straight up impact turns on the K. Helps when you're a terrible debater and about to get shit-fucked by the other team. One of our teams won a round on that once, I think. Mebbe PEACE OUT Phil
  21. Also, this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvTSnIkZ7cU&playnext=1&list=PLD58966DEC226FBD2
×
×
  • Create New...