Jump to content

CaptainFalcon

Member
  • Content Count

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

CaptainFalcon last won the day on July 29 2012

CaptainFalcon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

About CaptainFalcon

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 05/09/1995

Profile Information

  • Name
    Spencer Culver
  • School
    U of Wyoming
  • Location
    Laramie WY
  1. CaptainFalcon

    ,

    Organs without Bodies: Deleuze and Consequences by Slavoj Zizek. This is Zizek's critique of Deleuze.
  2. Results? Who cleared? What's the bracket look like?
  3. Georgetown won on a 4-1
  4. The University of Wyoming has 6 debaters going down to NDCA and we're all looking to be hired for as judges at the NDCA. We're all CEDA/NDT debaters and have had success this year at open tournaments across the country. We would prefer a full commitment from a school, but half commitments would be acceptable too. We already have living arrangements figured out for all of us, but need to get a judging commitment. I (Spencer Culver) would be willing to do card cutting/coaching for teams as well, and the other debaters would more than likely be willing to do that as well, but you'd have to talk to them individually. Email Addresses for UW debaters attending Spencer Culver: Spencerculver1[at]gmail[dot]com Hunter McFarland: hunterdanyale26[at]gmail[dot]com Cullen Dilldine: cullencdilldine[at]gmail[dot]com Bethany Jones: bethanycecilia[at]gmail[dot]com Carter Henman: jazzbasshenman[at]gmail[dot]com Bria Frame: bravette2012[at]gmail[dot]com So, if your school needs a commitment filled and would like to pay any of us to judge for you, then reply to this post or email any of us.
  5. The University of Wyoming has 6 debaters going down to NDCA and we're all looking to be hired for as judges at the NDCA. We're all CEDA/NDT debaters and have had success this year at open tournaments across the country. We would prefer a full commitment from a school, but half commitments would be acceptable too. We already have living arrangements figured out for all of us, but need to get a judging commitment. I (Spencer Culver) would be willing to do card cutting/coaching for teams as well, and the other debaters would more than likely be willing to do that as well, but you'd have to talk to them individually. Email Addresses for UW debaters attending Spencer Culver: Spencerculver1[at]gmail[dot]com Hunter McFarland: hunterdanyale26[at]gmail[dot]com Cullen Dilldine: cullencdilldine[at]gmail[dot]com Bethany Jones: bethanycecilia[at]gmail[dot]com Carter Henman: jazzbasshenman[at]gmail[dot]com Bria Frame: bravette2012[at]gmail[dot]com So, if your school needs a commitment filled and would like to pay any of us to judge for you, then reply to this post or email any of us.
  6. North KC Park Hill Culver/Ferland Native Roads (Self Determination, native economies) Liberty Nelson/Nelson Title XI (Shipbuilding w/ econ impact and econ adv) savannah Stanton/Mcdonald Inland Waterways (Econ and Warming) If you have questions or want to coop on some files: Spencerculver1@gmail.com
  7. There's a good criticism of building roads as a means to the state's assimilation policy. A few camps put it out. It's really between if you just want to outweigh it with a high magnitude disad impact or out left it with the K-- your choice.
  8. Who's coming? Park Hill's sending Grant and I and Max and Austin.
  9. That just isn't true. Kansas City's just as bad as St. Louis. At least Ben Reid shows up every once in a while to steal hospitality food and judge a few debates there. We have very few consistent judges in our circuit.
  10. heheh. I gave like 35 2nrs on the spending Disad. People just don't get that idea. Just be better than everyone at a certain position and you'll win most debates. The economy is the best scenario for most people to understand. Most people think spending trillions of dollars isn't a good idea.
  11. The macros in Verbatim aren't working for some reason. Anybody know how to fix it??
  12. If that's a consensus, it may just be easier. There are a few technical barriers to the free version of the wiki, but I could try and glue shit together. That may be worthwhile, I was just wanting MO teams to see MO teams disclosing, and I figured it'd be easier.
  13. I agree. it's much better to answer anything with specific args, just saying if you are gong to, it's a better 2ac strat than 1ac...
  14. Kansas has done this and been tremendously successful. I made a wiki for Missouri teams to disclose. Grant and I will disclose all our cites to args we read, and disclose arguments we hear teams read against us. Disclose whatever you like, cites, full text, just a plan, some advantage tags, whatever makes you feel comfortable. Most MO teams stay within the state or at least close, with the exception of a few, but even those teams can post a link on the MO wiki to their circuit wiki. Because it doesn't seem necessary to post on the circuit wiki if you don't travel the circuit. Why disclose, you ask? It allows a deeper, more in depth debate. Those debates allow teams to determine who is better, make more crafty negative strategies that don't simply consist of the spending DA, and learn more about the intricacies of an affirmative . http://mopolicy.wikispaces.com Feel free to put your school and name on there early and set your page up. This could make Missouri debate a ton more competitive and change norms surrounding debate in MO.
  15. OR, you could just read some generic deontology aff (human rights, dehum, and whatever the fuck you want) and in the 2AC, you could just read all your wipeout shit. Needs More Consult Japan is pretty right about this. This gives teams unlimited CPs with weird Net benefits to solve the aff. Instead in the 2AC you can just impact turn the fuck out of their DAs, because teams, even if they're K teams, will read a disad and some util shit. If they don't they're probably engaging the case poorly and will lose anyway. This lets you spike out of all those CPs they might read. If they read 2NC CPs, your theory args are pretty compelling. them solving your impact turns in the 2nc with a new cp is bad. a. They should be prepped for their shit to get impact turned b. that still screws the 1ar out of all the 2ac offense. c. the 2nc has unlimited CP options to solve the impact turns, hence why it wasn't the 1ac. d. the neg already has 13 minutes to answer the 4 I put on the impact turns. that's three times the 2ac, it's pretty unfair for them to skew 2ac time e. that kills 2ac and 1ar strat-- reasons above f. education is lost because the anthro/whatever you're reading debate is mooted by that cp. insert perfcon shit here because 1nc was death bad and CP is death good.
×
×
  • Create New...