Jump to content

EndlessFacepalm

Member
  • Content Count

    300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

EndlessFacepalm last won the day on May 31 2016

EndlessFacepalm had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

110 Excellent

About EndlessFacepalm

  • Rank
    Champion
  1. when you say 2ac kritik i think youre going to kick the 1ac and just go for a new off case, which is probably an incredibly unstrategic move unless the 1nc was just 8 minutes of slurs and terrible shit, but im unaware of any dng arguments that are commonly used as justification for stuff like that. i think the responses should probably be curry's abstraction bad arguments, which you could possibly turn into an antiblackness k, or just use as a serial failure, cooption, and assorted bad shit turn
  2. ill judge seems kinda interesting if the neg strat is what i would do
  3. if we are to follow the neo-deleuzian take that hierarchies of power are violent and should be circumvented and dismantled, and we find a hierarchy of power between human subjects and non-human subjects with humans at the top, it clearly follows that the process by which we can arbitrarily determine which animals are worth having as pets and household companions and which are simply fuel for us in the form of factory farmed meat products should be interrogated and questioned
  4. omg i thought my rfd was up it took like an hour to type omfgggg oh well ill give you the short version i voted neg here i think a lot of the debate gets lost in the 2AC for a few reasons: 1. i dont think there was nearly enough offense coming out that i could weigh effectively for a couple of reasons. I thought that the explanations on the terminal impacts werent especially clear for me, or at least werent meaningful enough to weigh against the negs impact calc in the 2nc/1nr. 2. i think the time allocation couldve been much better - the amount of defense on the K i had flowed was pretty tremendous, even if some of it was quite good, while other stuff not being quite so good. basically it kept you from covering a lot of the other stuff on case, which is probably why the terminal impact work wasnt great 3. i think you didnt handle the turns particularly well so i ended up with three or four on case turns in the 1NR im willing to vote on that you had mitagory defense on but not strong responses to them 4. the responses to the no perm arguments were not good, probably because the terminology just confused you, becasue the wording was a little confusing - its probably intended to be so that way it gets undercovered I think that the neg did a really good job on case, i wouldve liked to hear the term turn a lil more, i gave you some turns that werent labelled as such because they were functionally turns but that wont be the same for other judges im dissapointed the K wasnt in the block, i think they 2ac was just a shitton of extra links for you to leverage, each one being an independent turn to the perm if you spin it correctly. i understand not going for it based on the fw/theory stuff but goddamn you couldve made that 1ar hellfire if you went for it, not even with it in mind for a 2nr, even just as a timesuck becasue they way ovecoverred with very little that couldve become offense i like the solvency work in the rebuttals, especially the double bind, which i end up buying because it becomes very clear and well explained how it works which i appreciate. i am so sad you didnt go for hella case turns for the 2nr because i gave you a lot of leverage on them, but i totally get why you would prefer to have the da/cp combo, especially with key components being undercovered
  5. yeah definitely sorry its late, itll be up later tonight, before midnight
  6. I think the argument presented is a heavy claim with no warrant, I think its problematic and without warrant, although there are people who write litersture to support it
  7. this 2ac /: the line "As a human, the judge’s first and foremost role is to protect humans. It’s logical that this is our ethical responsibility." the perfcon isnt really a perfcon, more of a standard contradiction and the terminal impact work isnt great ;/
  8. so the mellion card is specific to explaining how we need to act with respect to the categorical imperative, (which is quite well reasoned, although pretty problematic, especially ableist and heteronormative, and that i dont have enough time to really go into detail on and explain fully), but when you read a card like this it changes the way impacts can be weighed - it means that the only way i as the judge can decide is who best fulfills the principles of the categorical imperative, which specifically excludes weighing consequences of actions and instead requires a weighing that takes place prior to action. this means that you either have to go all in on this and say "fuck it" to any terminal impacts. i would like to note that the lit on why kantian ethics are not just wrong and reasoned imperfectly, but exceptionally fucked up for the differently abled and is incredibly heteronormative is huge and is a good link in on pretty much every single K ever. its even more important for you to know that kantian ethics cant really be applied from the perspective of the state. i think the idea of using a kantian frame can be strategic, but if the other team has any idea of what to do youre going to get destroyed so to answer your question in simple terms, yeah either only read kantian ethical impacts and win that that is the only coherent ethical system or kick it and read some more terminal impacts. there is a human rights perception link into heg but idk where i have it. the link is basically that the US needs to have a good human rights track record or else we lose significant heg because we dont take strong stances on fucked up shit and it encourages countires to push and push until it sparks nuclear exchange decision to come
  9. figuring out my decision atm, double checking my flows if i missed anything, just a few quick notes that i jotted down after reading the 1AC/1NC aff: maybe look into colonialism, not neo colonialism, the lit is stronger because the majority of serious colonialism authors are pretty much on the dot when they say that colonialism is still around, and if its not its still exceptionally powerful. the lit is fun and much more interesting. also, you definitely misundertand the way you the kantian ethics card works. Mellion argues that the ONLY coherent ethic is a kanatian one, which means the scenarios are not really helping you when you read this, which brings me to the neg neg: the easiest shot you could win is concede the kantian ethics framing and then go hella hard on the K and case turns, because it removes the majority of all their own offense, they have to either perf con/contradict themselves or kick every advantage but human rights, which can easily be turned with more investment into the coloniality lit. also not a fan of anthro, the afropess link is much stronger and wouldve made the round amazing imo, i think there is too much lit to ignore both that and coloniality Ks that wouldve made the round easier for you final decision to come, stay tuned
  10. i'll have my decision sometime following the 2AR, ill have to check all the flows and review etc, expect it up to a day after the 2AR
  11. except antonio says roleplaying doesnt exist
  12. ill judge if you would like. only preference is that if/when the k gets introduced it helps to have a good weighing mechanism or impact filter and why you win yours, or win under your opponents. not very many policy debaters impact out the t or theory, (or framework for that matter), levels of the debate so if/when you read it please have the impact be something that matters, not just "voter for fairness," fairness doesnt really have any real inherent value until you justify it
  13. i dont have it but i know theres some cloud computing and tech sector stuff if youre just looking for places to start your search
  14. I have on case turns instead, like focus on X group as damaged does X, etc. Most of the affs I've hit about a certain group are anti-state and definitely not T, which is why the PIC, alongside a T version of the aff is actually pretty good, it explains that one, the aff can be read topically, and two, that not all surveillance is bad, because a lot of pessimism lit says there can be no way for the state to help, but i would say that the PIC proves that false.
  15. Impact turn the shit out of education voters - a lot of Foucaultian secondary lit can be found about why status quo education is bad and you can use that as both an advantage of the 1AC, (it encourages better, newer, less state controlled education), and as a reason why T is bad, justifying an aff ballot. Impact turn the shit out of fairness - fairness and equality are generated on the state of exception, (there's no literature applying this analysis to scholastic debate, but you could pull links from simulation of state action), I especially like arguments about why forcing us to defend the state means there's no solvency for either team on a kritikal level (because simulation and defense of the state encourages more of the statist control of education and knowledge, which means we can never figure out ways to stop the state) - this means that if they want their kritiks to solve they need to concede T. You could also make arguments about why fairness is a lie, and that nothing is ever fair when we play within the state, that conceptions of fairness are for those on the outside of the state of acceptance, etc. Be more prepared to beat back Framework btw, it's more stategic
×
×
  • Create New...