Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Shadow22

  • Rank
  1. I love Dropbox because it's really cool and syncs files! https://t.co/d80lSiW85c

  2. Just talk to the kids who seem to be talking to the coaches the least.
  3. Hello, I am going to be living in Hanover in a week or so, and I am looking for teams in need of a assistant coach. I am willing to travel 4-5 hours to a high school, depending on the amount I would need to show up at the school. I have experience in policy, ld, puf, and various IEs. email me at keegantomik@gmail.com
  4. My guess is about 3-6k is the going right. I'd say 4.5 to 5 but negotiable if you can be at every tournament.
  5. Shadow22

    Hauntology K

    That was gibberish.
  6. http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/forget.html
  7. Ou vs. Emporia currently. http://www.justin.tv/gtdebatestream#/w/5239447984/2
  8. Shadow22


    Hadrt and Negri are simply put wrong, they are not used at all anymore for good reason. The cards they wrote were great, but the international system doesn't operate under the rubric that Empire outlined (IE the United Nations has become largely irrelvant, and it's disagreement isn't occuring). Along with tense relationships between russia, china and the United States where it is clearly not a co-operative international relationship in regards to security or anything really, yes it is safe to say you can ignore Hardt and Negri. The multitude could of been sweet but that larger is becoming unworkable, I think there is potential for a Terrorism good argument with multitude thought along with other stuff about terrorism. And he is describing the complexity K that georgetown read vs. NW at the NDT finals. It is important to note that was more a testament to Georgetowns preparation than the quality of that as an argument. I'd argue Georgetown won that debate because they had insane quality of intel on how Northwestern answers the critique and went with one that is a outlier of that set of responses ( Not liberal, has a better claim to this is how IR really is, is a epistemology argument as well for there advs). Burke is less of a security author than Mitchell, Burke makes a wider argument with security components. I would not recommended Foucault as a security K. It is a lot harder to win a biopolitics explanation internal link to violence that will occur, instead Foucault's strength lays in A. being a sick epistemology argument ( I think this will be harder for you to pull off, it requires a much more exetensive knowledge of the background of the author as well as the politics of the area the affirmative is talking about) B. Different role of the ballot (This is the future of the critique and has impacted college critiques in a big way in the last year or two. Foucault has one of the few we should stop imagining ourselves as activist and start thinking of ourselves as intellectuals thinking about history rather than acting, this requires that you have access to a coach/camp lecturer to work through how to make these arguments. that's fine but it sounds like since you are asking this very broad question of what K should I read you don't have access to either.)
  9. Shadow22


    Don't bother with Hardt and Negri, they pretty much got the direction of the international system wrong in empire. Mitchell's article On terrorism is pretty good for a Heidegger version of the security K. Zizek has some good stuff in the subjective vs. objective violence, death drive arguments. Basically everyone critiques security it's just which flavor you want to run.
  10. Looks like you got shown the fuck up.
  11. STLUDL has been around for a very long term.
  12. I am big on strategy, I think that is maybe what I was good at if you can say I was good at anything when I competed. Pre round? Blocks, affs, argument explanation sheets with what you need to win and what they can not win. For the right price I will do everything up to making the debater actually talk during the debate.
  13. I am pretty sure nathan_debate is secretly the biggest troll on cross-x
  14. Wilderson is not a whiteness argument so the first thing I would do is explain what anti-blackness is and why whiteness is a different concept. If said team did not understand the difference that was reading them we would exploit that, beyond that winning that debate is about good alt offense from afro-optimism. Other than that it's the classic "shut up hippy NUCLEAr WARRR" debate. Further, who is judging the debate? Is this a high school coach, is this calum, is it deven, ralph, ewing, watts, rubaie, or roark? Some of those debates are the same, some of those debates are very different. ps. who the fuck reads heg good vs. wilderson teams?
  • Create New...