Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by TheSnowball

  1. The martyrdom K seems commodifying of Rosa Parks as well as of the ballot.
  2. See, thing is, that's a lot of fancy notation you just used the meaning of which I won't investigate. But using logic to disprove logic seems to already require logic to work.
  3. Yeah, one logical paradox =/= logic doesn't exist.
  4. "Russell's paradox is based on examples like this: Consider a group of barbers who shave only those men who do not shave themselves. Suppose there is a barber in this collection who does not shave himself; then by the definition of the collection, he must shave himself. But no barber in the collection can shave himself. (If so, he would be a man who does shave men who shave themselves.)" ??? why, "by the definition of the collection" must he shave himself? The collection says he can only shave men who don't shave themselves, not that all men who don't shave themselves must be shaved by him.
  5. Every day... thousands of debaters across the country struggle to access this beautiful activity that we all know and love... because of the select few that decide to ruin it... with plans that aren't substantial. You, judge, have the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of so many young scholars. All you have to do? Sign your ballot for the Negative.
  6. Political capital is a term used to describe the influence, credibility, energy, focus, and time that the president uses to rally Congress around particular policies. The theory of political capital argues that it is quantifiable, finite, and "zero-sum." The basic politics DA would say, "Trump is using his political capital to push X through Congress. The plan, a controversial immigration reform, saps that political capital, undermining the legislative momentum necessary to pass X. X is good because impacts."
  7. Sounds like your CP might link to your DA, by the way. "Your ballot is not a rallying cry--it merely decides who won and lost the debate--that's the only equitable interpretation--vote Negative if we prove the plan's costs outweigh its benefits."
  8. You need a role of the ballot that matches the kind of strategy you're reading. A generic one would be "vote for the team that debated better--their interpretation isn't competitively equitable."
  9. Elimination is a form of reduction Morton 12 (BA Melbourne University, Workshop on management) 58. The term “reduce” includes eliminate i.e. someone can reduce some­thing to nothing. Federal code proves elimination is a way to reduce. US Code 2005 (Code of Federal Regulations - Title 26: Internal Revenue (December 2005), 26 CFR 54.4980F-1, http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/54-significantly-reducing-future-accrual-19711258) (c) Elimination or cessation of benefits. For purposes of this section, the terms reduce or reduction include eliminate or cease or elimination or cessation. Legislation proves reduce can mean eliminate – you can reduce to zero. Major Samuel W. Kan, Judge Advocate, U.S. Army, citing Virginia Code, January 2010, Army Lawyer, Lexis Academic n316 VA. CODE ANN. § 58.1-322 (Westlaw 2010) ("$ 15,000 of military basic pay for military service personnel on extended active duty for periods in excess of 90 days; however, the subtraction amount shall be reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount which the taxpayer's military basic pay exceeds $ 15,000 and shall be reduced to zero if such military basic pay amount is equal to or exceeds $ 30,000.").
  10. The resolution suggests that some goal should be achieved--this year's high school topic has the goal of decreased restrictions on immigration. A topical plan reduces restrictions on immigration. A plan that is effectually topical "effects-T" takes an action that leads to reduced restrictions on immigration. An extra-topical plan reduces restrictions on immigration and does something besides reducing restrictions on immigration. Effects- and extra-topicality are either run independently or as a standard on a normal topicality shell. If you're on the Affirmative trying to answer this argument, you either need to defend why your plan is not effects topical or extra-topical or justify why the action of your plan should still be considered part of the topic. A common instance of effects-topicality seems to be on the debate over whether legal immigration means legal permanent residence. The 2AC might say "we meet--the visas the Affirmative provides could lead to legal permanent residence." The Negative could respond "that means the plan is effects topical because anything "could lead" to legal permanent residence." The Affirmative could argue that the Negative's interpretation excludes really important Affirmatives like Dreamers or H1-Bs and the Negative could say including those cases doesn't limit the topic enough.
  11. They should call you OutKantTheKant.
  12. You just Kant even right now.
  13. Wake me up! (wake me up inside) I Kant wake up! (wake me up inside) saaave me!
  14. I'm sorry but I simply Kant help you.
  15. If I'm looking at the right files, the naturalization CP is about shielding undocumented immigrants in the U.S. now from deportation and the visas one is about allowing states to determine their own level of immigration. I don't know what the combined CP solves that the visas CP doesn't given visas allows immigrants to apply for LPR. People will say combining CPs bad because no card assumes the CPs together, it's unpredictable, tries to spike out of reasonable solvency deficits. Also, people will ask if conditionality means you can kick one plank and go for the other. Say "no" or be prepared to defend you can do that.
  16. Judging is really hard and subjective and both teams usually deserve to win in some capacity so after thinking for a while you just have to make a decision and feel confident in explaining and defending it.
  17. TheSnowball

    Impacting T

    First, answer the question "why do I debate?" Because it's fun? Because it teaches you to communicate? Because you learn about cool topics? Because you want your ideas to be challenged? Because you love the community? Whatever it is, it's probably served by a productive and predictable model of debate. A less limited topic takes more time and effort to research and is more difficult for smaller teams. A shallow engagement with the topic results in boring, repetitive debates that don't evolve throughout the season. A less fair topic is unpredictable and unenjoyable and ruins the competitive and community elements that make debate great. When a team retreats from limits, retreats from clash, retreats from predictability and denies the value of disclosure, mutual respect, and genuine engagement, they're probably retreating from the activity we call debate. We all love it for different reasons, but we're all still here doing it.
  18. Probably best to frame it as "structural violence" (the death and harm that comes from the systems and structures of everyday life) through the lens of sexism.
  19. There are T violations besides T-USFG. Some people say T-USFG and framework are different, but they would usually result in identical debates.
  20. You should look into "critical pedagogy." Here's an example from "Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the promise of critical pedagogy" by Henry Giroux. Education cannot be neutral. It is always directive in its attempt to teach students to inhabit a particular mode of agency, enable them to understand the larger world and one’s role in it in a specific way, define their relationship, if not responsibility, to diverse others, and experience in the classroom some sort of understanding of a more just, imaginative, and democratic life. Pedagogy is by definition directive, but that does not mean it is merely a form of indoctrination. On the contrary, as Freire argued, education as a practice for freedom must expand the capacities necessary for human agency, and hence the possibilities for how academic labor should be configured to ensure such a project that is integral to democracy itself. Surely, this suggests that even within the privileged precincts of higher education, educators should nourish those pedagogical practices that promote a concern with keeping the forever unexhausted and unfulfilled human potential open, fighting back all attempts to foreclose and pre-empt the further unravelling of human possibilities, prodding human society to go on questioning itself and preventing that questioning from ever stalling or being declared finished. (Bauman & Tester, 2001, p. 4) In other words, critical pedagogy forges an expanded notion of politics and agency through a language of skepticism and possibility, and a culture of openness, debate, and engagement – all those elements now at risk because of the current and most dangerous attacks on higher education. This was Paulo’s legacy, one that invokes dangerous memories and is increasingly absent from any conservative discourse about current educational problems. Unfortunately, it is also absent from much of the discussion on the current status of academic labor.
  21. This is why we can't have nice things.
  22. Start with simple online summaries and wikipedia articles, use that basic understanding to look through debate files and figure out what arguments you're interested in learning more about, go back and read through the sources for those cards, and then read the major authors or authors writing about their work. I know from experience that just sitting down and trying to read through a major work of a philosopher you're not familiar with is counter-productive and a waste of time.
  23. Nevermind I was looking at the old date.
  24. The most likely scenario for the 1NR to explicitly reference 1NC cards/arguments is debating a case flow. The most important thing is for your 1N to do a good job of extending arguments. If the 1NR says something like "extend the second 1NC argument--no escalation from economic losses to inter-state conflict--that's Jervis, who's more qualified than any of their alarmist authors--it answers the internal warrant of the Tonnesson evidence because it says leaders wouldn't profit politically from economic diversionary war. Here's more evidence..." then you're going to be able to flow that without needing to see the 1NC flow. You can always go back and read the 1NC or 2AC evidence if you need to, but the evidence/warrant comparison in the 1NR is really what you're working with when you give that 2NR.
  • Create New...