Jump to content

NickDB8

Member
  • Content Count

    794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    40

NickDB8 last won the day on December 14

NickDB8 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

498 Excellent

About NickDB8

  • Rank
    Exodus Files Forum Representative
  • Birthday 07/14/2000

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://shop.exodusfiles.com

Profile Information

  • Name
    Nick
  • School
    Emporia HS
  • Biography
    They/them. Policy debater and meme aficionado. I cut cards for money.
  • Location
    Emporia
  • Occupation
    1A / 2N; Forum Representative and File Contributor at Exodus Debate Files

Recent Profile Visitors

7963 profile views
  1. NickDB8

    How do I go for T in the 2NR and when?

    This definitely read like an ASPCA commercial. For 32 cents a day, you can end the abuse that has happened in this debate. Donate now, and we'll include a free t shirt and a one month subscription to our magazine
  2. NickDB8

    Debating with braces & expander

    I had this same issue from frosh to jr year. You just kinda adapt. When you get them taken off, you'll probably have to adapt again.
  3. NickDB8

    Please help with this aff roll of the judge that ill have to debate

    you could also say you meet their role of the judge, because voting neg is ethical, <insert x reason why>
  4. NickDB8

    categorical imperative

    The categorical imperative is a Kantian concept that boils down to "something is moral if it can become a universal law". If one imagines a world where everyone acts according to this law and said world is chaotic, then this law is immoral. In your example, Kant would find lying immoral because of the second reason; no one would trust each other (in regards to the first option, Kant might have a bone to pick with people claiming to know a truth/Truth, it's been a minute since my last intro to philosophy class lol). Consider the following argument: Lying undermines trust Society cannot exist without trust Therefore, lying harms humanity as a whole An easy way to answer these arguments is to find a utilitarian counterexample. In the instance of lying, the common counterexample goes as follows. In other words, under the "law" that "one should not lie", you would be forced to out the location of your friend to the murderer, costing their life. With this in mind, one can create these "universal laws" (or "maxims", to be technical) to easily avoid those kinds of arguments, however. For instance, "One should always lie to murders if it will save someone's life", which is still (arguably) ethical under the categorical imperative, while still avoiding any reasons why broad maxims are bad. This does, however, get into the ideas of perfect and imperfect duties. I'm not sure what the context of the arguments you're making/responding to are, but this is the gist of it. Here's some stuff that may be of use, I consulted these while writing as well. https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian ethics.htm http://myweb.ecu.edu/mccartyr/GW/InquiringMurderer.asp
  5. NickDB8

    How should I address my opponent?

    In CX, I ask questions to my opponent, so I use "you" (ex: "you make the argument that x"). In speech time, I find myself talking to the judge, so I use "they" (ex: "they make the argument that x")
  6. NickDB8

    Kritiks v. Baudrillard Affs

    just bouncing ideas around lol
  7. NickDB8

    bataille help

    Bataille says a lot of things, but there are two main ways I've seen it run in debate. First, is the stuff about productivity. Most people will read the Featherstone evidence that says something along the lines of "the will to productivity leads to environmental destruction, biopolitics, and militarization", along with a link argument that says that the 1AC is an investment in productivity or attempting to maximize utility. The alternative, at least from what I've seen, is a form of sacrificial, unproductive expenditure, such as reading poetry in the round because it is a break away from productivity. This is, of course, a simplification of the argument, however. Second, there's the death stuff, which I am substantially less familiar with, so I won't try to explain it. Further, there's a card floating around about being vs becoming, also a thing I do not understand, but that is fairly less common. If you want some insight as to what these arguments look like evidence-wise, a search on the wiki from last year (or the China topic, even) for "Bataille" or "productivity".
  8. NickDB8

    Queer Literature

    Some other stuff that might be a good intro - Warner - The Trouble With Normal Stanley - Near Life, Queer Death Mary Nardini Gang - Towards A Queerest Insurrection The bottom two are short and should be relatively easy to find online; I've only read a hard copy of the Warner book, but it might be floating around
  9. NickDB8

    Going for NEOLIB GOOD in the 2AR!

    I think you can go for both in the 2AR as long as you have a "neoliberalism inevitable" argument somewhere in there - The 1AC likely isn't the one thing that will make-or-break neoliberalism, meaning that even if they try to concede the link turns and the impact turns, you still have the "neolib inev" arg to get you out of that
  10. NickDB8

    Kritiks v. Baudrillard Affs

    I heard of a cx against Baudrillard aff that was pretty much "is meaning static?" "of course not" "so does that mean no means no?" I always assumed this would be a better link, but I'm not a baudrillard debater
  11. NickDB8

    De-Dev: Help me out!

    Somewhat related, I think a good dedev 2AC should have a few things. Keep in mind I'm only a 1A, and also not a dedev pro. 1) Economic growth is sustainable - This means that a collapse won't happen, which is why I think the best econ advantages aren't based on collapse, but rather stagnation; when the economic growth slows, that's bad, but it stays growing none the less 2) There is no "limit" to growth - Will likely get you out of some of the Trainer evidence, might resolve an internal link to an environment impact to dedev 3) Growth good (this is likely in the 1AC) - Self explanatory 4) Growth solves the impact to dedev - Also self explanatory 5) No mindset shift - Even post economic collapse, people will still pursue growth
  12. NickDB8

    Best Nietzsche debaters?

    Drugs. He did lots of drugs. In regards to fascism, here's an excerpt from his wikipedia page.
  13. Looking for articles, books, journals, etc. on debate history, specifically things like cultural norms in debate. Ex: the Salt article that has a bunch of theory cards saying certain things aren't legitimate, the McKinney card (I think?) that says the politics DA is harmful to the activity, etc. Just looking for stuff to compare debate "back then" to how it is now.
×