Jump to content

Ausar

Member
  • Content Count

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Ausar last won the day on October 19 2016

Ausar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

40 Good

About Ausar

  • Rank
    Wulverine
  • Birthday 09/11/2001

Profile Information

  • Name
    Green Corn
  • School
    Mapatatata High School
  • Location
    Hell
  • Occupation
    Soulburning

Recent Profile Visitors

3269 profile views
  • Brev

  1. I find the hypothetical meritorious, but the first statement sounds like "We should win because they shouldn't be trying to win to begin with." On what merit should the judge uniquely default to the negative? I mean, this doesn't necessarily equate to "voting neg accomplishes whatever x purpose aff seeks to accomplish." It is just that I feel the negative hasn't proven any issue showing why it deserves the ballot over the affirmative, even if the affirmative shouldn't be trying to win the round.
  2. in loco parentis
  3. The implications of a public video may be significantly harmful, but if disagreeable rounds are hidden from public eye, and appealing rounds (to the non-debate community) are showcased, that would be a promotion of a false reality - essentially a false image of what discourse could be tolerated in a debate round. But considering the potential costs, it really does not seem like the non-debate community would generally react positively to the words uttered by Rutgers in that round.
  4. Isn't Plan Flaw the topicality "it's/its" shell? Regardless, the context of this question. is inherently contradictory. Here is why. If a "K aff" has a topical plan, there is no argumentative incentive to run framework. If it does not have a topical plan, there is no way to run "Plan Flaw" You should ask the debaters who gave you this advice to explain what they meant by creating a double bind between Framework and Plan Flaw, since those arguments do not have only one definition in CX debate. Since this advice seems sincere, you should probably take a look at their shells and see how they run the double bind.
  5. Uyghurs has good pathos if you keep the narrative away from high magnitude
  6. Ausar

    Gender nihilism

    heh them right wing lay judges be like "boy!"
  7. Unless it was sanctioned by the varsity debaters at green hill who read those affs, I honestly don't understand why a novice needs to prep out peninsula or Montgomery bell at this time of year.
  8. Openev borders last year might be similar
  9. Ausar

    falun gong 1ac

    If you have asolvency advocate then go you. I still can't find the uyghurs qpq...
  10. https://manhood101.com/principles101.pdf Is this where the anti fem cards come from?
  11. Ausar

    Dear Manhood Academy

    When the manhood academy "professor" sees this, his a$$ will be grass.
×
×
  • Create New...