Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Good

About CitizenOfUlysses

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 10/16/1993

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    Millard North
  • Biography
    herpin some derps all day long
  • Location
  • Interests
  • Occupation
    baby eatin blood drinkin communist fascist hippy jew
  1. Will rep this til death, went twice during high school (for LD) and it was pretty awesome. Amazing food, and great atmosphere. Also way cheap. chillbrolyfe all the way Also I'm volunteering at the LD camp so yeah.
  2. Gonna hafta agree with this (for LD, too). I fucking love it. We do have an extremely erratic judge pool, though. The old guard of judges has been slowly leaving, leaving us in the LD pool with a whole lot of new judges who are usually fairly traditional and boring, or just make bad decisions. Debate itself is a weird mixture of speed and traditional LD , with a bit of krit lit shoved in there
  3. ld round, I was goin hard on da util on the aff "bro by the end of the round the aff world sounds like some kind of necon pleasuredome. and that gives me the shivers"
  4. normally, always value morality (justice is for domestic topics), then go for util as that's what all of what you list impacts to and use as their underlying impact calc. however, as this is NCFLs, maybe a value of security or realism might be more effective. on the aff v-morality c-util v-morality c-sovereignty v-m c-cosmopolitanism (look up thomas pogge) v-m or justice c-democracy/democratic processes v-m or justice c-constitutionality (?) Neg v-morality c-util v-m c-security v-security c-heg v-morality c-realism/prudence (morgenthau/mersheimer) major difference from util is that it's working for state not for greater good, huge difference v-m c-global stability (basically util but it sounds better etc etc.
  5. bullshit way of being super abusive: define sovereign as also in some way legitimate or "rational" states, then proceed to say that places like dictatorships or theocracies or anything that oppresses its citizens is not legitimate or rational, and exclude all the ground you can. it's not a very sound or fair strat, and barely makes sense, but you can try it out if you want. I have some framework from the TK topic about violations of sovereignty if anybody wants it also use examples from Latin America as support, especially with the publishing of the Blue Book in Argentina with Peron and how that backfired, or with Pinochet and Chile and all of our imperialist bull there. also, for the neg: HEG HEG HEG if you aren't spamming kzad 95 and maybe some ferguson then you aren't doing it right
  6. State was awesome until quarterfinals, which I'm probably gonna be bitter about for another couple of weeks until I either eat away the pain at tbell or go emotionally/mentally numb from consuming too much media. Getting top speaks/top seed in prelims was nice at the very least. Also, I'm gonna be volunteering at NDI in the LD camp because I'm a loser who likes doing debate shit a lot. Since I'm also dumb enough to try my hand at college policy next year, I'm gonna be awkwardly hanging around at the back of some of the policy lectures lookin all shady.
  7. Just wondering, but has anybody heard of or seen an AC that doesn't talk about util advantages or is related to util advantages/solving for security/exterminating terrorists or somalian pirates? The only thing that I've seen is an international law aff from a camp file, and that itself hinged on the capacity of TK to provide for self defense (not a very good case). I mean, I have one that isn't really explicitly based on that kinda shit, but I was just wondering if anybody else really tried something different.
  8. From the open evidence project! http://www.debatecoaches.org/page/open-evidence-project-2010-2011
  9. I was just going to use the euphemisms for drones (unmanned flying death droids kinda stuff). If you look on the old policy files, there are some pretty cool links to biopower/homo sacer/bare life concepts in them. I think the cite is from somebody named Wilcox? Something like that.
  10. Yeah, I just saw that and was about to post that on here. <3 the rhetoric. Will be using in my NC.
  11. It was on her sister's facebook, I dunno if I can link to it. Aaah, that sounds pretty sweet. Kinda cool that an LDer won the policy only tournament.
  12. What were the cases like? I only saw a video of Richa's aff case about music. How did the rounds play out? You see anything interesting other than that? Sorry for all the questions, I just really wanted to go but couldn't because of school work and work work ;_; I feel terrible, especially since Jamie and the FM gang wanted me to come out. I was thinking of writing a sci-fi anime based narrative aff or an ontology-related aff, but I didn't have the time to. Meh.
  13. How did Fremont Mills go? I know Richa won (swag to her), but how was the rest of the competition?
  14. Gah, the one reason I hate not getting to debate IR topics that much is because rounds like that, with super indepth, fun util analysis, only happen with good IR topics. Meh. Also, anybody got any good blocks to "no other alternatives than invasion" stuff, like that one card that everybody has from statman? It's actually a pretty good argument, I think. Especially when one makes it combined with analysis about how diplomacy is stupid and sanctions are useless and the only way we can detain is through invasion/more war.
  15. Oh my, I'll definitely be having my team mate use this. This is beyond sweet. Thank god no LDers from NE are on these forums.
  • Create New...