Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


HyperRhizome last won the day on February 21 2019

HyperRhizome had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

13 Good

About HyperRhizome

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/20/2003

Profile Information

  • Name
    Yajat Bhargav
  • School
    Memorial Senior High
  • Biography
    A wannabe advanced debater
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. the whole point of debate is to give context to facts and use them to develop an argument. The card is also super power tagged. Also, most people dont read flat statistics as their card; tags usually have connection to a broader point, like econ decline = war, etc.I don't see how this could ever be used in a debate round lmao. If you wanna throw a round, just read the squirrel case. Works every time.
  2. They HAVE to specify that in cx. If they change the status of the cp after specifying something different in cx, it warrants abuse theory in the 1AR
  3. Just drop the CP and say "drop the arg, not the team". It doesn't seem problematic enough to down yall. Prolly don't use that comparison though, the language is mildly problematic. Just say that the US can't support immigrants. Also, I don't see how the CP is mutually exclusive.
  4. What was the context of the drop the team arg? It was probably a kritik of your impact framing, but I don't see how that would be a drop the team arg.
  5. NUQ ev for Base DA 1-21-19.docx
  6. On the pure capitalism argument, you could say that capitalism coopts any change by the USFG to perpetuate its agenda, lobbying proves that practically every aspect of the govt. is thoroughly controlled by capitalist systems.
  7. All you honestly need to do is make analytical claims to prove that new arguments in the 1NR are good/bad. Also, evidence is different from arguments. Reading new cards is totally legit as long as it's an extension of an existing argument. If it's some totally new case answers in the 1NR, then it's probably abusive. Just read whatever new arguments you want in the 2NC, CX checks abuse anyways. http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?topic=802.5;wap2 has some cool stuff too
  8. 1-19-19.docx Sorry Lacan
  9. http://www.continentcontinent.cc/index.php/continent/article/viewArticle/91 is a much meme-d explanation of Baudrillard, plus it's accurate. Honestly, when I started out with baudrillard, I just read the intro to Simulacra and Simulation. It's pretty good.
  10. Definitely what @seanarchy said. Also, you could probably argue that the judge should reject the argument and not the team. Rejecting the team leads to bad norm creation because teams are then practically excluded from debate even if they won the other flows.
  11. It can be argued in terms that assuming that a plan will happen is bad for education, because, as you noted, things don't work like that in the real world. A debate should be focused on how we can learn the most and what we can best translate into real-world skills. If we continuously debate in the magical political vacuum of fiat, we hurt our ability to effectively learn real world skills. Plus, breadth over depth leads to better topic education and better-informed policies because affirmatives can then add planks and stuff for future rounds. I'm not saying that we shouldn't debate under the shutdown though, that's a pretty bad argument to make tbh.
  12. I mean, if the aff fiats the plan passing and also fiats funding, you could pretty easily read fiat bad theory. It doesn't take too long to read, and, even if you lose the theory flow, you could still argue that the aff should specify where funding comes from. Worst case scenario, you don't win that flow, but it'd still be a major time skew for the aff. So, unless they argue that its a time skew and that it's bad, reading it prolly still helps you.
  13. Reopening with a banger for the end of the 2018-19 topic and the rest of 2019-20 1-17-19.docx
  • Create New...