Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


goodatthis last won the day on November 19 2015

goodatthis had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

66 Excellent

About goodatthis

  • Rank
  1. goodatthis

    Queer Alts?

    You could read stuff from mary nardini gang, at the end of their manifesto they have some cardable stuff for "the queerest insurrection," which is basically a revolution against every structure that promulgates normalcy, including futurity. Here's the card that I cut if you want it: The alternative is a queer insurrection- we need to throw the old ways of doing things out the window and be at war with the dominant regimes that dictate what is normal Mary Nardini gang: (“Toward the Queerest Insurrection,” Printed clandestinely by the Mary Nardini gang, criminal queers from Milwaukee, Wisconsin) Susan Stryker writes that the state acts to “regulate bodies, in ways both great and small, by enmeshing them within norms and expectations that determine what kinds of lives are deemed livable or useful and by shutting down the space of possibility and imaginative transformation where peoples’ lives begin to exceed and escape the state’s use for them.” We must create space wherein it is possible for desire to flourish. This space, of course, requires conflict with this social order. To de- sire, in a world structured to confine desire, is a tension we live daily. We must understand this tension so that we can become pow- erful through it - we must un- derstand it so that it can tear our confinement apart. This terrain, born in rupture, must challenge oppression in its entirety. This of course, means total negation of this world. We must become bodies in revolt. We need to delve into and indulge in power. We can learn the strength of our bodies in struggle for space for our desires. In desire we’ll find the power to destroy not only what destroys us, but also those who aspire to turn us into a gay mimicry of that which destroys us. We must be in conflict with regimes of the normal. This means to be at war with everything. If we desire a world without restraint, we must tear this one to the ground. We must live be- yond measure and love and desire in ways most devastating. We must come to under- stand the feeling of social war. We can learn to be a threat, we can become the queerest of insurrections. We’ve despaired that we could never be as well-dressed or cultured as the Fab Five. We found nothing in Brokeback Mountain. We’ve spent far too long shuffling through hall- ways with heads-hung-low. We don’t give a shit about marriage or the military. But oh we’ve had the hottest sex - everywhere - in all the ways And when I was sixteen a would-be-bully pushed me and called me a faggot. I hit him in the mouth. The intercourse of my fist and his face was far sexier and more liberating than anything MTV ever offered our generation. With the pre-cum of desire on my lips I knew from then on that I was an anarchist. we aren’t supposed to and the other boys at school definitely can’t know about it. In short, this world has never been enough for us. We say to it, “we want everything, mother- fucker, try to stop us!”
  2. I've been losing to PICs (especially PIKs, since I read critical positions) a decent amount, mainly when I have judges who would not be sympathetic to theory at all. Since reading theory is out of the question, the only strategy I've been going for is trying to find NBs to the aff over the PIC. Aside from the usual ways to answer a PIC, are there any blocks about how PICs are bad in a K debate (such as that they're oppressive, etc) or things like that?
  3. Usually because the alternative generates uniqueness. For example, if we take a cap K, the plan makes cap worse, and the alt solves cap. It doesn't matter if cap is already getting worse or already exists in the squo, since the alt creates a world in which the harms of cap don't occur.
  4. You might want to cut your cards more efficiently, there seemed to be some unnecessary stuff highlighted.
  5. Just a side note @ Squirrelloid, you seem to be stuck on "how LD is supposed to work" and continue giving examples of traditional LD. But that seems to beg the question of why LD should be the way it was in the 90s. I would much rather debate the way people do now on the national circuit than the way people did 20 years ago. Also, I noticed you said "LD has no fiat," but how are you supposed to determine the truth of the resolution under a consequentialist framework? You can't just say "oh let's test the consequences of the res but without actually testing its consequences." Even kantian frameworks assume fiat occurs to a certain extent.
  6. If it's uncondo, you don't have to extend it, you just can't kick it, which means you can go for only T in the 2NR without kicking the K. Since T precludes evaluation of substance, it doesn't matter if they're winning offense to the K. Plus, anyone who defines kicking something as not going for it is just dumb; you might as well say "extend the alt" at the very end of the 2NR and that would entail you went for it. No condo bad abuse story would apply to not extending an advocacy rather than kicking it.
  7. The abuse story on this shell is laughable
  8. We aren't philosophers. Hundreds of years have been put into authors formulating arguments that debaters cut cards from. How are we supposed to reinvent all of philosophy by coming up with our own philosophical arguments without cutting cards from the people who have already dedicated their lives to this stuff? To say that LDers shouldn't quote other people is to significantly hamper any sort of pursuit of real education. Even reading and then making analytical arguments cannot compare since you would have to read so much more background information to have a full understanding of the philosophy that it's not even worth it. Cutting cards avoids this harm by only focusing on the argument at hand- plus there is no good reason why someone should take someone else's argument and put it in their words when it's just as easy and less plagiaristic to actually quote people.
  9. goodatthis

    AT PIKs

    How do you answer PIKs (so in a K debate obviously) without using theory? Does anyone have any blocks?
  10. Most wilderson affs call for the end of the world, so I'm not sure whether you could read a topical one for this topic. I guess you could affirm metaphorically, like having the jurors "nullify" civil society by burning it down.
  11. Warrant: the majority of the country believes racism/sexism/homophobia to be morally wrong. I'm pretty sure that's a relatively indisputable fact. There may be a lot of racists out there, but they're still a minority. This is why there will always be more nullification of unjust laws than just laws. Plus, I'm also pretty sure that juries go through screening processes which would most likely take out a known white supremacist if a black man is on trial.
  12. I have heard of survival strategy style warrants for a role of the ballot, but never a role of the ballot solely based on that.
  13. Either way, the large majority of laws that would be nullified would be unjust laws rather than just laws, and even if not, people who don't think of themselves as villains think exactly that- not that they're being good samaritans. They most likely view their decisions as permissible, not as obligatory.
  14. The issue I'm having is with neg ground... I honestly don't see a good way to negate aside from T and possibly PICs. It seems to me that since the wording in the res is "in the face of perceived injustice" that would mean that jury nullification would only apply in the case of finding someone guilty under a law that is perceived to be unjust. And since jurors who are obviously biased and racist/sexist/homophobic/etc probably know they're biased and don't perceive currently just laws to be unjust, it seems to me that the burden of the neg is to prove that unjust laws should stay the way they are.
  • Create New...