Jump to content

backcountryguy

Member
  • Content Count

    171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

backcountryguy last won the day on November 8 2014

backcountryguy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

143 Excellent

About backcountryguy

  • Rank
    Champion
  1. Badiou to my knowledge doesn't say anything about cannibalism - that's someone else. Badiou says a series of things about the formulation of ethics and how it relates to truth. Specifically Badiou thinks ethics is often formulated backwards: we look to the experience of some group and derive ethics from it. We seek to do something to avoid the results of some bad thing. Instead we should have something to fight for - a conception of the good. What is the endpoint? Formulating ethics this way allows you to take universal truths and then apply them in specific instances. In other words Badiou wants you to have something to fight for, not just have something to fight against.
  2. Let's set aside the structure of the aff for a second. I'm really unsure if you mean that there are literally 20 page evidence sets that are all you are allowed to read in JV - mostly because this seems absurd. Are there like other files that you pull cards out of for the 2AC/1AR? Weird in any case. Especially in the context of the evidence you do have. I'm not sure if the tags the cards currently have are they they were given to you/originally cut, but a significant portion of your ev just doesn't say what it's tagged as saying. The first thing you should do is make the evidence in this file actually match up with what the cards say. Then you can deal with structure/strategy. I'm talking in sort of a general sense, so it may be different on your circuit - but there are a couple strategic problems with this idea. (and I s'pose some pedagogical ones) If you read something that is anti-security it's really hard to read basic impacts. Basically, think about what will happen if the neg goes for DA + CP. Or a different K. What's your response? You probably don't have the nuclear war impacts to outweigh a DA, for example. I also don't know if you really have the ev necessary to solve security logic, which makes this aff even harder to win.
  3. Look I don't believe the terror DA, but no? ISIS proves that the area is unstable and the group in power changes frequently.
  4. Wait can someone actually explain to me the link between RMS and gender? Or even RMS and wild theory? I'm interested if that tag is just K gibberish or an actual argument.
  5. People bastardize Nietzsche all the time. They still win. I think you need more than that as to why you can't just pick up the arg.
  6. Honestly you should read an affirmative that coaches on your team will know how to coach. If the coaching staff at Kamiak hasn't changed drastically in the past 6 months (and your coaching staff wasn't too bad for the circuit so I hope it hasn't), Edelman isn't the route you want to go - or likely any aff that isn't topical for that matter. (speaking of the one aff I've seen on this topic that relates to queerness in any fashion and tries to be topical it wasn't great to say the least) Frankly if you're debating the Washington circuit you probably want something at least close to a policy aff anyways.
  7. I'm just going to go ahead and disagree here. I think the competitive nature of the activity solves most to all of your offense, and where it doesn't I think you're plain wrong anyways. Specifically I don't think affirming requires you to defend a moral obligation (part of this is I commonly say those don't exist), to do the plan or defend a universal philosophical position. Frankly when I help out LD'ers I very rarely advise some sort of unified overarching position - just position strictly limited to the confines of the res. (also I don't necessarily agree with goodatthis either. I think both reading or not reading cards extensively are perfectly acceptable speeches)
  8. I could have sworn there was a non critique-specific place to ask for articles. Anyways I'm looking for "NEPA: Application in the Territorial Seas, the Exclusive Economic Zone, the Global Commons, and Beyond". I've found a copy on the version of Lexis that I don't have.
  9. Honestly I thought they really outdid themselves with the teenage angsty poetry generator.
  10. A. I have no idea what sweets debate is B. I'm really unsure if Noriko is a troll. I lean towards no given all of the subsequent posts, but if this is just a lot of commitment I gotta say: well done. C. It's really weird hearing about this Whitman thing from two different sources who were on the Whitman debate team...and hearing them give completely different (and contradictory), explanations of why Whitman was shut down. I'm not sure how much I care about what happened/don't want to get caught up in teh dramaz!!!!!1!!1!111!!1!1!!!1!! Weird though.
  11. I dunno the marine vs Marines plan flaw that Harvard ran was pretty killer.
  12. PIC's must be both text comp and func comp. Beat that.
  13. TIL people exist who actually care about NSDA rules. That's a new one.
  14. I learned so much linear algebra in debate last year! For real though I have no problems balancing a social life with debate with academic work. Also the friends you meet through debate are awesome. The only real difference is you are gone some weekends so more social activity needs to happen during the week for a few months.
×
×
  • Create New...