Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by OfficerTom

  1. Eminent Domain, Coppa yes this is a joke
  2. OfficerTom slowest moderator confirmed.
  3. Pfft I still read neolib against non profit weed affs
  4. Which harney & moten articles have been used before? I wrote a 1AC based on the undercommons stuff but I didn't realize they had other works. Edit: I guess I'd also like to know if "stealing from the university" is equatable to a claim for the ballot (breaking the logic of the better debating team) or if it is simply a destruction of the things that produce knowledge in the academy (ex. not giving your speech, or stealing the other team's laptop) so that "knowledge" is not exchanged. Or am I perhaps misunderstanding the phrase entirely?
  5. I feel like the uc berkley stuff is a double turn because deploying it in a round would be contributing to the legitimacy of the university as a site of resistance. Or does that ev assume resistance via the university?
  6. I'm looking for something generic that can be used as an impact to using the academy. I'd rather it not be so generic that it's just "institutions bad", but not so specific I can't use it in a debate round. Does anyone know of authors that write negatively about academia / universities?
  7. Seems like you just want to know if your school needs to budget laptops. If this is the case, your answer is likely not. Especially if you live in a bigger city, a lot of students probably have access to a laptop and those who don't should be just fine debating on paper. You just need to make sure that the debate class / meeting room either has a couple of student computers (to make files to be printed) or is very near to / in the library. From debating well over 100 rounds, maybe 3 or 4 teams had school owned laptops; it's not really a necessity for a beginning squad. I would also recommend trying to budget a coaching assistant such as a college debater who can come in once or twice a week, as they'll be able to help a lot more with more modern deployments of debate arguments (a lot has changed in 20 years).
  8. I am interested in the wipeout counterplan.
  9. To prevent everyone from copy and pasting Henry's name for every answer, I've decided to set up a few rules this year. Rules: - You cannot put Henry Walter for any "Best" titles. You can however refer to Ali Dastjerdi as his own team for best team titles. - Please wear pants when filling this out, this ain't omegle it's cross-x.com - No cop shaming - It's opposite day. 14/15 Template: Best all around team (Speed/Lay): Best Squid: Couch of the year: Best speed-style meat: Best lay[ing down] team: Best Affirmative Action Team: Best Negative Battery Terminal: Prettiest (attractive) Speaker: Fastest (at running) Debater: Most Annoying Debater: Best 2A: Best 3A: Best 4A: Best 5A: Best 6A: Most likely to do well next year in baking school: Best Judge: Officer Tom even though he voted for the other team. Most underrated pinball team: Best Special K debater: Best Politics Debater (in congress): Best Tea Debater: Most likely to be stranded in the arctic on an icebreaker because somebody didn't read the topic: Funniest debater to chat with inside rounds while the judge is trying to make a decision: Best evidence of a crime: Best argument between a police officer and a judge: Best Kite: Best [L]Aff: Best excuse for losing a round table: Best tournament for hiding from your coach for 3 hours: Best extraterrestrial being: Best police officer: Legacy Template: Best all around team (Speed/Lay): Best Squad: Coach of the year: Best speed-style team: Best lay team: Best Affirmative Team: Best Negative Team: Prettiest Speaker: Fastest Debater: Best 1A: Best 2A: Best 1N: Best 2N: Most likely to do well next year in high school: Best Judge(s): Most underrated team: Best K debater: Best Politics Debater: Best T Debater: Most likely to be NDT champion: Nicest debater to chat with outside of rounds: Best evidence: Best argument: Worst argument: Best aff: Best excuse for losing a round: Best tournament for between-rounds hanging out: Best human being: (Fill our whichever template you prefer)
  10. What are you offering?
  12. The other team was like "WE LIKE SPRINKLED DONUTS AND GLAZED DONUTS" ... and I was like wtf nobody likes sprinkled donuts, that doesn't even make sense.
  13. Use my name, I could use some advertising.
  14. Yeah you have to justify debating in a country that does not ban puns. Otherwise you lose because you're not in China!
  15. I'm one step ahead of you. I already made a disad, k, t violation, J, a spec arg, and an inherent barrier attack using that article. Do you even Deeb8
  16. If this is still a thing, I'd still like to play Garry's Mod.
  17. How to cut briefs great video 10/10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANio8AcM-J4
  18. OfficerTom

    Nuke the moon?

    Nah bruh nuke antarctica - it's a wipeout aff & it's T because it expands the ocean!
  19. I have hundreds of very high quality cards that would help you greatly. Unfortunately, I cannot give them to you because they all assume an able minded subject, whose product is knowledge that "betters humanity". Not to mention I recently watched a team win an ableism critique, and the alternative was that I should not give you any of the cards.
  20. Bro just go 8 minutes on the K. Then you can make impact analysis on the K flow i.e. no impact to the aff because there's no value to life = death is preferable. If you have a good Nietzsche file all that will be in there.
  21. Many judges are biased against theory arguments and sometimes won't even flow them. If you insist on going for a theory argument, you need to put the same time allocation in as any other position. You will also need to be particularly strong with uniqueness and significance to catch most judges. You need to show that your theory arguments are specifically tied to something the team did. "T version of the aff" arguments are a good way to prove that the aff's arguments would work if the team did not deploy them abusively. This will resolve the question of uniqueness and make it clear why the team should be voted down. Significance will be especially important for truth > tech judges. Theory isn't a voter for "fairness and education", it's a voter because the team was being unfair or being anti-educational. If at the end of the debate the judge can explain something specific that the team intentionally did that was abusive, and how it made for a bad debate, then they should be much more comfortable voting for you. P.S. Also, if you're going for theory, do not go for anything else with it. I've had many debates where my partner extended a dropped theory arg in the 2ar, but we'd still lose because the theory argument seems disregard-able in the judge's mind when it's only 30 seconds in the 2ar. Unless you're putting all your time in the rebuttals into developing your theory argument, you're only mooching time from the rest of the debate which will hurt you.
  22. Probably dumbest thing I've done in a while... Was a college round, the aff read a suicide aff & the 1nc was starfish cause human extinction in 2 weeks (impact defense, nobody can suicide) & around 10 onion cards on case about suicide being commodified. The 2NC reads 2 new disads as net benefits to the performance. 1AR says new in the 2nc bad & perms the performance. In the 2nr I was dumb and said Counter-interp give aff more leniency, then just said the perm is new so don't evaluate it >.<
  23. Nah I'm not talking about those boats that spray sea water. I mean literally just drain the oceans and send all dat water to like... the sun. I hear it's going to burn out of hydrogen and we'll all die.
  • Create New...