Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Good

About Awumbologist

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
    Oliver Tahmasiyan
  • School
    Olathe Northwest --> West Georgia
  1. Yo Miro. I don't believe you have drawn a false dichotomy as I agree with you that I see the very same thing. I used to debate using the format you provided in example B but after camp this summer I realized that it is far better to do exact line-by-line and go down the 2AC responses like you state in your example A. One thing I would suggest is tat you don't do long overviews (was suggested above) because a lot of what people tend to do now is put too much of what should be in the line-by-line in the overview. A lot of the time a small overview is all you need or an overview as a whole is unnecessary.
  2. The reason I agree with Payton that the frontier k wont be as applicable next year is because I don't anticipate there being a lot of affs looking to colonize the oceans. Also, it says that colonizing is bad because we re-create the harms of where we came from by exploiting it or whatever. The fact is that we are currently already exploiting the oceans in a number of ways and the argument would be that the affs support of/search for new exploitation is bad, but then I feel Heidegger is better.
  3. It's not that special. Trust me. It's just a kid who likes to flip coins....
  4. Name: Oliver Tahmasiyan School: West Georgia Major: Philosophy/Economics Debating (Y/N): Awwwww yeah
  5. If they last then that means we still have a problem. I'm not sure when we will see them end, but if they stop it will be when there is no more problem. That is a very big if. I will also just say that while there seems to be a lot of performance teams some of the better teams are policy as you have mentioned. That policy style of debate isn't dead, it's just smaller. It will never be dead. Someone will recognize the strategic benefit to getting really, really good at framework because of how many K Affs/Performance Affs there are. There was also a point in time where critiques were not very common either.
  6. My call for finals: Towson JR vs. West GA AM. This will be a close round, definite toss up as far as who will win, but bias tells me West GA will win. I will say, however, that Oklahoma CL also has a good chance of beating West GA, but West GA seems to do well against other K teams/performance teams, but they have shown a slight decline at this tournament. If the Wake tournament was any indicator, then I put my faith in West GA AM.
  7. Not working. Can someone either fix it or post the updates on this thread?
  8. Awumbologist

    Cosmo K

    Is Cosmo K saying Cosmo good or bad? I've never seen it, but I think I remember Zizek saying some stuff about Cosmo bad.
  9. Best all around team (Speed/Lay): BVSW HS Best Squad: SME Coach of the year: Klucas Best speed-style team: BVSW HS Best lay team: ONW LW Best Affirmative Team: BVSW HS Best Negative Team: W-East JK Prettiest Speaker: Ali Fastest Debater: Riley Crane (Holy crap this guy is FAST!) Most Annoying Debater: I thoroughly enjoyed everyone. No one annoyed me. Best 1A: Jacob Henga Best 2A: Katie Super Best 1N: Yash Kamath Best 2N: Ada Throckmorton Most likely to do well next year in high school: SME DW will be hard to be. Both are amazing debaters. Best Judge(s): Klucas, OMac Most underrated team: Silver Lake as a squad Best K debater: Riley Crane was great, but I also must give props to my boys from SME MW. Sad that this partnership is gonna be broken up, but looking forward to where it goes. Best Politics Debater: I didn't have/watch a lot of politics debates this year, but Ali was great in the round I saw. Best T Debater: Sahil (based off of what I've heard. Didn't have a lot of T debates either) Most likely to be NDT champion: I don't know who's doing College debate, but Dastjerdi, Throckmorton, Hegna, Super, and Rattan will all do outstanding if they do debate in college. Nicest debater to chat with outside of rounds: Yash Best evidence: Werner '12 Best argument: Coloniality Worst argument: T-QPQ Best K: ...Coloniality Best aff: Cuban Embargo and all of its variations Best excuse for losing a round: The seizure is pretty damn good. Best tournament for between-rounds hanging out: KCKCC Best human being: Klucas (I still owe him a ton) Best police officer: Maduro
  10. I went to Xylum last year. They only had a two week lab when I went, but they are adding a three week lab this year. I will say that in those two weeks I learned more than any other camp I've been to, especially on critical arguments. I went in to the camp with limited knowledge on criticisms and left with the ability to effectively run them and how to win with them as effectively as possible. I heavily suggest it. The list of the staff for 2014 can be found here as well as more info about the camp.
  11. I have to agree with this one. There were a lot of good movies (The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug, American Hustle, etc.) but this movie was easily one of the most unexpectingly exciting movies that I saw. I loved this movie. It had (almost) everything.
  12. There is a reason the criticisms you are looking for are not popular. No one likes them and they don't want to hear them. At the same time there are definite reasons why criticisms that are popular gained their popularity. They had large literature basis, expansive directions they could go, and they WON ROUNDS! Schopenhauer (Casey) and glg1995 (Gerard) are both correct in saying that "off the wall arguments [don't] do much for you if you aren't able to execute them well" and, more importantly, "the best way to leave an impression is to win rounds." Catching people off their blocks doesn't win you any rounds when you are in the winners bracket because the people in the winners bracket are there because they are capable of adapting to instances when they don't have blocks. Basically, don't focus on trying to keep them off their blocks but rather pick a criticism that you can prepare so you have blocks to their blocks.
  13. Based off of the explanation above it sounds like there can be a number of links. Does the aff want oil? Maybe Solar Power? Maybe money? Why does the affirmative desire all of these items? Because we have assigned them a higher value. I have a question. To someone who does not have a flat ontology, do they assign different values to humans? I'm guessing the answer is yes, which might be where the impacts come from, but I want to make sure.
  • Create New...