Jump to content

Ausar

Member
  • Content Count

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Ausar

  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.
  12. Ausar

    LD Jan/Feb

    This shouldn't be too hard - Aff - Free Speech Good Constitutionally protected speech is being threatened now by public colleges and universities of the status quo, and that is bad - thus it justifies the necessity of the resolution - Neg - Free Speech Bad Free speech (of constitutional mandates) cannot be allowed because it includes hate speech, and that is bad - you don't have to be totalitarian in your restriction since the resolution says "any," so you can prove that the implications of hate speech outweigh the affirmative benefits.
  13. Put trust in this person at your peril. As for the alliterative attempts, I tried.
  14. Ooh I'll need popcorn for this...
  15. You do realize that usage of foul language isn't going to make any of us want to debate you, right? Why do you even care about this to begin with? What benefit do you even get if you win?
  16. I swear I thought this was a policy aff before I downloaded it. Good use of an omnidirectional solvency turn on the tuck and yang tag Although I ponder if judges wont immediately buy that argument and grant a risk of solvency to whatever negative advocacy comes in the NC.
  17. Anyone have any files to trade for the current LD topic?
  18. Out of curiousity, in terms of intent, per se, is there anything that concludes that the author was thinking about uyghurs when he wrote this?
×
×
  • Create New...