Jump to content

skraptrap

Member
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Okay

About skraptrap

  • Rank
    Junior-Varsity
  1. What does it mean to Imagine the Real? I've typically seen it as an alternative for the Nuclearism K, I know that it follows Lacan's psychoanalytic theories but I don't quite get what it means. If you could either or explain or direct me to a place that would explain it I'd appreciate it.
  2. I've recently been looking for a Chemical Weapons impact and was hoping that someone could direct me to where I could cut a card for the terminal impact.
  3. That seems like a pretty good strat, I'm currently looking for something that would link those together, generally it's been looking for "Ableism rooted in technocratic violence". But I also found another way to link nuclear weapons to ableism. Basically it was "Nuclear weapons are rooted in transhumanist thought" and then linking transhumanism to ableism. I was wondering if that seems too drawn out for a link.
  4. I was looking for some evidence that argues that nuclear weapons are ableist/disablist. If anyone can point me to some literature to find this it'd be appreciated.
  5. Thank you, I think that probably is the best strategy.
  6. I'm not really worried to link by rhetoric in the first place, I'm more so just wondering how to format my tag lines in evidence that I may read in response to case links. I do definitely think that your tactic is a good way to respond but unfortunately it wouldn't work as well for me just because I'm using a counter-hegemonic case.
  7. I've been getting some evidence in preparation of ableism kritiks and I was wondering what the best route is to not create a rhetoric link considering there's links such as the use of "people with disabilities". I was considering using "victims of ableism" however I'm skeptical about this because it portraits them as always vulnerable. Any suggestions?
  8. I've been getting some evidence in preparation of ableism kritiks and I was wondering what the best route is to not create a rhetoric link considering there's links such as the use of "people with disabilities". I was considering using "victims of ableism" however I'm skeptical about this because it portraits them as always vulnerable. Any suggestions?
  9. Double link: only weeaboo's would try to correct me to say "otaku".
  10. Time to just make my Meme K, link: endorsing Japanese culture with Haikus, Internal link: Weeabooness leads to bad memes, Impact: No memes = no value to life, 2nd impact: No value to life = Normies trying to be edgy with "accept the void memes", Alternative: Dank Memes.
  11. As far as I can tell without the content of the card, it first relies on a criticism of the fictional nature we use in debate, it seems to argue that if this fictional nature can be true then the aff simply cannot have solvency because they've ran their case and the squo is still bad. OR we reject this fictional nature because it relies on a form of debate predicated on who can convince you that you will die the most, they then impacted this by saying that this makes life-affirmation impossible, which opens up for the likely impact of nihilism.
  12. If you tend to run death based impacts it's important to say that we cannot come back from death but we can have better value to life. This is a short answer that can be easily co-opted with other answers, however this can be a risky move if running against a more kritikal team who is using existentialist impacts with a "death impact" link such as Bataille. For the most part it depends on the existentialist, which ones are you trying to prepare for?
×
×
  • Create New...