Jump to content

ethank

Member
  • Content Count

    135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ethank

  1. i think manny is the 2n. reece is super fast.
  2. sorry, probably should have given context. I know charlie from camp.
  3. charlieH from new trier, White kid?
  4. "small teams try to even the playing field by not posting things on wikis. " I think this approach is bad. Are the only big schools Westminster and Pace? Like if you're not a big private school then you don't disclose? The advantage of not putting stuff on the wiki is prob bad because it prioritizes the W over the debate. Other teams having a shit ton of coaches is inevitable. If a team has a lot of coaches putting out a lot of files you should be prepared to beat even the best arg. obviously quality>quantity determines because even the richest kids can get spread out. Westminster kids will have 2 coaches putting out a neg to your aff but their best arg could be the same as a small school's best arg. What about small schools who debate small schools. Is nobody being prepared a good thing?? Edit: sorry to answer the part i quoted. In my opinion cites should be like this and if someone emails you asking for a full text you should give. a.) Interpretation: Substantial means at least 50% changeUNEP 02 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2002, “Global Environment Outlook 3”, Ch. 4, pg. 398, http://www.unep.org/geo/geo3/english/584.htm, accessed 7/4/14, BCG) Change in selected...are recorded separately. I'm not calling anyone out lol
  5. ethank

    Card Cutting Ethics

    Yes, I know that the word is being used as a verb, but I think it's probably good if we push away from using it. I wouldn't use bitch for a female dog, because of its meaning outside of its denotation. I can always find another ptx link but I was just wondering opinions.
  6. I am of the opinion that changing words in cards is bad. If you are quoting an author who is racist by reading his/her writing, you should not be allowed to delete objectionable parts. I was cutting this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/03/us-usa-biofuels-congress-idUSTRE6124L720100203 One warrant is "Critics say federal attempts to constrain emissions of greenhouse gases will result in higher petroleum prices and retard U.S. growth." I know that the [likely] ableist language the author uses is probably bad, but I am just looking for opinions on the ethics of rhetoric changing.
  7. I hear Hirsh has some opinions about pol cap
  8. lol. I think the person who underlined "from a straightforward, frontal view, appears a blurred spot, assumes clear, distinct shapes once we look at it "awry," from aside." is trying to spin, straightforwardness as plan vs k. Method debates can obviously be more complex. The permutation is the distortion that Zizek is talking about, though contextually he's probably not talking about politics.
  9. ethank

    Favorite K's

    my personal fav is the states CP
  10. I may have butchered the LBL with the reply sorry
  11. TL DR; K lit is slightly harder to understand than econ and warming internal links so we shouldn't have to listen to them at all. I agree that K lit is definitely harder to understand than politics. I cut a bunch of ptx cards in an hour, but I might only cut one k card in an hour. The literature is dense... Dancon was cutting article after article, he's either crazy or a critical professor. (not mutually exclusive) I think it sets a bad precedent." Examples: aff that says rez is capitalist and cap is bad, or the ruralism aff from the TI topic. They're criticizing the elitism of debate, so how is saying "CP: USFG should build some roads for them" solving in any sort of way. FW in this instance would actually engage the substance of the aff much better than a policy CP, but i guess that's just fascist. "If you read my post I didn't say all forms of FW are bad. Instead of requiring USFG action, it might be better to have a fw that requires a policy action in the direction of the topic. A discussion about capitalist epistemology isn't a policy. A team saying that we should deconstruct the road system is a method. A CP to have the USFG do that would be competitive. ") The perm is nigh impossible to answer without offense on limit" Most teams are willing to have a method debate. Some teams have unflinching paradigms, where they won't perm. If you win a better method you win. FW isn't an impact turn or a method. Saying their discussion is bad because it causes inter identity problems or because using identity in politics is bad because it causes x. Those are impact turns.
  12. I may not be the right person to answer this request, but I'll try. Framework in the traditional sense of 1. Interpretation: The aff should defend the hypothetical enactment of a topical plan 2. “United States Federal Government should†means the debate is solely about the outcome of a policy established by governmental means #ericsonsays that the 1ac isn't a worthy proposal. "They should defend vs. it'd be better if." I think K teams would rather have teams question the actor: debaters vs. USFG actor. There was a FB post in High School Policy about how some people would prefer to have the neg stand up and say the USFG should do the plan and discuss the implications of having a racist structure doing "anti-racist" things. (sorry couldn't think of a better word).
  13. Maybe, just maybe, they don't like having the same debate over and over again. These teams might want to learn about different literature than humans and their relationship to other animals or economics. It's like having the same PTX scenario every week. Maybe they want to discuss something else.
  14. what word are you using?
  15. um we may be on slightly different pages with regards to my opinion but here's the LBL. 1: if you win the reps of the plan are wrong-the way we protect against nuclear weapon strikes causes strikes you vote neg. if you win that the reps of the plan are bad and that the plan causes war through a stronger i/l you vote neg. There are obviously internal contradictions with this specific position. It was just the first k that came into my head. IE: the internal link story for the DA is probably a turn or a realism card i guess. Like war can happen? idk I mean the kato k isn't just war won't happen it's different. Maybe I should have just put security k. When did I ever say it switches sides? 2. yeah- if the aff loses the plan on the k it's a presumption ballot. Even if you have another DA on a different flow that might interact. I don't think it's really the aff severing reps in the perf con arg. 3. losing ethos is losing credibility. If you read a k that kritiks protection against extinction and you have 2 DA's and 1 impact turn with extinction level impacts you lose ethos. I mean I guess the gain/lose is judge pref, but I would not want to hear a fem k on one flow and gendered language. Obviously glang isn't argumentative, but I think you get the point. Edit: when I said "glang isn't argumentative." I meant that the use of gendered language is performative; the speech act consists of gendered language. GLang is an argument, but it is a question of the debaters not the plan. (?)
  16. yeah. I think that you will only lose ethos if you read contradictory arguments. IE if the aff is drones and you read ptx with a nuke war scenario but also read the kato k, the linking to itself argument doesn't warrant an aff ballot. That's only a reason to vote neg on presumption. The problems occur when the impacts between args turn each other. like TPA and cap/neolib. I think from an academic/performative standpoint it's probably not good to link to your own criticism. (using glang and reading discourse k's) But you have to worry less than if they turn each other.
  17. I think this question depends largely on the aff you're running. But, very few teams read we talked about something good so vote for us. The ballot can either serve as a way of determining who did the better debating/is the 1ac advocacy a good idea or the ballot can represent something bigger than the round. If the aff engages in a discussion on working conditions for women in mexico, the aff team can argue that the ballot is a demand for change. They could also argue the ballot answers one question : are the working conditions x? Most (all) (critical) affs have methods. The method is what separates affs that say racism is bad from affs that say racism is bad so let's do xyz. Many FW arguments say that it's not fair for debaters to make a big claim about the world, that racism is bad. This is why many teams lean towards method debate. Most k teams would rather have a method debate than a fw debate because structural problems like racism and sexism affect people; debates about those problems' place in debate itself just stall efforts to attack them. In my opinion, I think framework was and still is legit but the strategic application of it is decreasing. 1: k debaters are most prepped. 2: the interps are kind of unreasonable. Affs should be in the direction of the topic/ have a method.
  18. I thought jokes were welcome. Apparently crossx.com is serious again? Edit: I'm downvoting you for language. Not for message. I don't think cursing was necessary.
×
×
  • Create New...