Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About maccook

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/13/1995

Profile Information

  • Name
    Mac Cook
  • School
    SMNW --> KU
  • Location
  • Occupation
  1. Agree with everyone in the thread. KCKCC, Washburn Rural, and Wichita East are all on the more progressive end of the spectrum.
  2. I think the biggest problem with this argument is that the internal link to your impact is empirically denied. The card is from before the Eurozone really started to go south. I think this has a couple of implications: either the EU's economy got bad enough to hurt international trade before and nothing happened OR it means your card assumes that trade would be a problem only if the EU's economy totally collapsed, which I don't think you have any evidence saying there's a risk of, let alone saying the trade deal would by itself stop that.
  3. I think people really underestimate the neolib k for this topic. Most of the unsavory parts of our engagement with Latin America post World War II has been driven by neoliberal economics. Pinochet's restructuring of Chile's economy, for example, was based pretty much solely on the Chicago School of economics. While Chile is the most notable example with the deepest scholarship, we had ecomomic motivations in backing most of the dictators we did in Latin America from the 50s on. I think people who run imperialism bad arguments are going to find that for this topic, they're closely tied to neoliberalism. Combining these elements would probably make for a pretty strong K, because you'll have tons of real-life examples.
  4. Or you could just, you know, understand and win the Nietzsche alt.
  5. maccook

    Cx File

    Call me crazy, but I like to think that Nietzsche's ideas are a little more complex than "YOLO."
  6. Stop that. Right now.
  7. College : KU Major: History/PoliSci Debating
  8. I believe BY will be debating Barstow DL in quarters tomorrow morning.
  9. You should definitely be asking all of them questions. If your panel is mixed (flow, lay, somewhere in-between), play to the lowest common denominator (adapt to the worst judge). There's not really much a risk that quality judges will drop you just for adapting the others on the panel, but there's a good chance that lay judges will. Better to play it safe. The only exception I can think of is if there's two good judges and you know you can beat this other team in a highly technical round, then you should just go for it. But otherwise, just adapt to the weakest link and work from there, if you don't, you're basically giving up a ballot before the debate even starts.
  10. Best all around team (speed and open styles): BVW Birzer/Yeamans Best Squad: BVW Coach of the year: Tough call - either Kelly Thompson or Steve DuBois Best speed-style team: BVW Birzer/Yeamans Best lay team: Manhattan Deloach/Seaton Best Affirmative Team: Washbrun Rural Christensen/Rattan Best Negative Team: BVW Birzer/Yeamans Prettiest Speaker: Jake Seaton Fastest Debater: Spencer Yeamans Best 1A: Chris Brizer Best 2A: Sahil Rattan Best 1N: Sarah Evans Best 2N: Keith Monaghan Most likely to do well next year in high school: WaRu Rattan/?, BVSW Locke/Super Person most likely to graduate and judge: Mason Owen Best Judge: Tim Quinn, Sean Stenger, Melanie Campbell Most underrated team: Manhattan Deloach/Seaton, Emporia Haynes/Smith, BVW Bajwa/Hills Best K debater: Keith Monaghan Best Politics Debater: Spencer Yeamans Best T Debater: Sarah Evans Most likely to be NDT champion: Northwestern LV Best place to eat at the tournament: Subway Nicest debater to chat with outside of rounds: SMS Monaghan/Owen, All of BVW, BVN Evans/Jones, All of SME Best evidence: Schlag 91 - fiat is illusory Best argument: Obama Good Elections Best K: Nietzsche Best aff: Offshore Ports Best excuse for losing a round: Lay judge Best pen: .5 Pilot G2 Best medium for flowing: White legal paper Best tournament for between-rounds hanging out: DCI Best human being: Cody Christensen
  11. Applied to the context of debate arguments, positive peace theory criticizes the conception of peace as "not war." Conflating the idea of peace with the lack of armed conflicts between nations ignores the war that always exists against the bottom rungs of society. There's definitely a lot of discussion of structural violence in this criticism. Acting like all is good when countries are blowing each other up is sort of complacency with the existence of militarism and the ways that plays into oppression. Your alternative should be something that recognizes that war isn't an event, but a condition that constantly exists in society. Reps are definitely a big part of this argument - the link is how the aff talks about war. A good starting point is Chris Cuomo's “War is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence".
  12. I think it depends on how you're reading this argument. Is your internal link that global trade collapses, or that the US will be protectionist? If it's the former: Economic interdependence makes the probability of their impacts zero – free trade solves all conflicts that are inevitable with protectionism – empirical studies prove Hillebrand 10 [Evan E., Professor of Diplomacy at University of Kentucky and a Senior Economist for the Central Intelligence Agency, “Deglobalization Scenarios: Who Wins? Who Loses?†Global Economy Journal, Volume 10, Issue 22010] A long line of writers from Cruce (1623) to Kant (1797) AND for more fractious relations among states and the probability for interstate war rises.
  13. Both of those are way more than 500 miles from the border.
  • Create New...