Jump to content

TheTrashDebater

Member
  • Content Count

    740
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by TheTrashDebater

  1. Hey! This is my first add to the daily card, happy to jump on and add to what was once an integral part of the Cross-X culture! Feel free to send me requests and suggestions as well, hope y'all enjoy! Daily Card 10-01-19.docx
  2. I'll totally help contribute to this if you're ok with that. I loved the daily card from my old Cross-X days
  3. That moment when your opponent concede, and then when you ask them about it and give them options of how to push back, they call the debate a waste of time. And then proceed to down vote all your posts on the thread because they decided to be rude and petty for no reason at all
  4. I mean, that doesn’t necessarily means that the debate can’t still happen, just push like the warrants of your UQ in the 1AC and leverage them. You also have another entire advantage you can go for
  5. Here's the 1NC, order is 5 off (you can label the flows T, K, CP, DA, DA), advantage 1, advantage 2 Word count is 2525 I believe, open for cross 1NC Puerto Rico Visas.docx
  6. Bold of you to assume I have a life (I jest, but thanks for understanding lol) sorry for the delay, the round started as I was in my debate class which is why I was really quick to reply, I gotta finish up some homework but the 1NC will be up by tonight
  7. Like, what qualifies a person for an EB-3 visa? Is the impact to the second advantage just "china gains influence?" How does the aff resolve nutritional inequality then?
  8. I don't even know what you answered... Can you just type out your answers possibly?
  9. Three post limit ok for CX? What specifications are necessary to obtain an EB-3 visa? In the second advantage, what's the warrant for how the aff increases remittances? The Mercarder evidence is in the context of food and nutrition programs from the federal government, how does the aff solve those disparities? What's the impact to a strengthened China?
  10. Depends on how they read the aff. I mean t-substantial works on either version, you just need to be prepared for the "BuT oUr ScHoLaRsHiP iS iMpOrTaNt" argument on that, but you have two real options to go with- A. go for the large policy strat (so like politics, parole, T, I think that the canada CP may have good solvency for this aff that you could utilize) and just win that extinction outweighs and you're golden B. go for set col if you're comfortable with it, or do what I did and go for cap and use links based off their reading of the aff and using race-centered politics in the debate space
  11. Continuing the tradition of the past couple of years, does anyone wanna have a debate on the arm sales topic? I’m down to go aff or neg on that one as well
  12. Feel however you feel like about certain arguments. That doesn't contest what we've all been saying the entire time, which is that writing a book or article about it is unnecessary and only gives further negative attention to the debate community. Seriously, if you have a problem with K's and K affs, and you think that they're so horrible for debate, then run theory. Argue why your model of debate is better. I am sick and tired of people otherizing the type of debate that brings me joy, and have it knocked as "not real debate." It is opinions like this, and the complete close minded attitude around this, that make me wanna quit sometimes. I am tired of being judged by people for simply thinking that we ought to question our assumptions and our positions in society. Debate has become a home, and when people threaten to set the room I reside in on fire, it makes me wanna leave that home. Stop skirting the actual issue and debate the actual debate instead of using ad homs and completely disregarding the points of others. We're providing the deliberation, you just have to engage with our deliberation. Tell us why K debate isn't educational, why ought it be banned in policy specifically, don't knock us as closed minded people who think that policy-policy debaters are terrible people. I larp in LD, I think that policy discussion is a good idea and that it's a cool discussion to be had, but I don't think that limiting the discussion of the debate space is a good idea. Look back to almost anyone in this thread and you'll see that the discussions from K debate are a good thing, and that they ought to be engaged in. Seriously, stop attacking me, and stop attacking my style.
  13. Why allow critical debate in certain events when that just encourages a decrease in participation in debate?
  14. Sure, private message me, we can work together on it!
  15. My laptop broke pretty badly, until I get a new one (which should be somewhat soon), can we postpone this?
  16. I've heard that the UNT policy camp has really gone downhill. I would suggest UTNIF if they can because it truly is a wonderful camp (at least on the policy side. the LD side was a CF this year, you know the whole "not paying our LD staff adequately" really hurts the credibility of the LD camp)
  17. I'm not a hater whatsoever, I just think that your framing of what K debate is constituted as is just plainly wrong, go ahead and publish your article but in actuality what you're doing is no better than what you think K debate is doing to policy debate. Mostly in the sense that it only creates an environment of silencing that only damages teams further by preventing them from learning about critical debate, take this from a person who didn't have a school coach that went over K's with me which cost me the ability to pick up some rounds I could have. Exposure and practice in critical debate is also key to foster skills that can be integrated into policy style arguments, and vice versa. I think that crowding out that substance not only makes us ignorant of how our rhetoric and how our policies reflect marginalized groups and power structures, which only hurts the image of the debate community by preventing a fostering of true activism for those social groups. Post it if you want, but be aware that all you're doing is causing more polarization in the debate community over an issue that has already divided us extremely to the point where debaters on teams where their other teammates and/or coaches make them feel like they aren't legitimate debaters anymore because they don't "run real arguments" this rhetoric harms the inclusive value of the debate space, and harms the safety of the activity. Emporia SW didn't win on a conceptualization of debate as a home for no reason. The argument is true, and we need to open the doors of our home up to everyone, not exclude them
  18. Do we know the result of TFA state finals, the results haven't been posted on joy
  19. Bump, down to go neg on the immigration topic Or aff or neg on the March/April LD topic PM for either one
×
×
  • Create New...