Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


musicotic last won the day on January 20 2019

musicotic had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-1 Slipping...

About musicotic

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. T-substantial could be useful, but it depends on your judge. Same with T-reduce does not mean eliminate Inherency on-case saying that Taliban is dead/dying & poses no threat (just look in impact defense files and/or Google) If you know their "low probability bad" authors then you can prepare authors & go for "extinction outweighs on magnitude" Could possibly turn the whole thing with some sort of DA with structural violence impx (poverty could be one I guess) Judges won't vote on ASPEC and everyone hates it. Depend on their language, you can link the 1AC to a fuckton of good Ks w/ structural violence impacts.
  2. musicotic

    Queer Fem K

    Edelman is essentially transphobic & biphobic, so never run that.
  3. musicotic


    The problem with a housing DA is that there's high-quality evidence out there that could easily link turn it (see one of the open borders cases on cross-x that runs a housing advantage as an econ XT). For the farm bill, it'd be a good politics DA (there are several on open evidence to get you started) but again you can link turn it by saying that immigrants are crucial to the agricultural industry (counterargument would be that it makes the agricultural industry dependent on irregular migration patterns that in the long-term destabilizes the industry and decreases growth or something along those lines). It'd be an interesting debate to see which evidence wins out (i.e. what matters more). There's good UQ evidence saying that it will pass right now, but the aff could very very easily make an UQ overwhelms the link argument given that the parties agreed to pass it already.
  4. The quote is faked btw, she never said any of that & you'll get destroyed against a good Irigaray team if you quote that as a means of dismissing her because it'll just reinforce their links
  5. Then the plan would be FX-T or at least you can make a strong argument for it
  6. Really old post, but Is pretty false. Most major ethical theories (deontology, virtue ethics & of course consequentialism) take into account consequences. Some deontologists say that we have a duty to reduce/alleviate suffering. Threshhold deontology, Rossian pluralism, even Kant talked about consequences (despite him being almost the paradigmatic deontologist). Critiques of util are often based upon the fact that consequentialists only take into account consequences - so much that the rightness/wrongness of each action is determined by the consequences, which can justify things that may be intuitively immoral/unjustified (which utilitarians/consequentialists will have to 'bite the bullet' or adopt some form of rule utilitarianism or something along those lines). It gets into the territory where it's difficult to coherently create a bright green line between consequentualism and non-consequentialism barring some circumstances. Even more, this breaks down the argument - utilitarianism is a specific type of consequentialism (they're not interchangeable, and reducing criticisms of utilitarianism to consequentialism is misleading and even more, wrong) and if we consider all normative ethical theories consequentialist (as some have done: see Consequentialize This), then we're only arguing about which type of consequentialism we should prefer.
  7. If you want to talk about trans* people or gender in general, Susan Stryker, Jay Prosser and Judith Butler are indispensable (I'd be wary of citing Halberstram as several of her arguments can be construed as transphobic). Eve Sedgewick is useful & as some more background reading, Gayle Rubin is helpful too
  8. You can also do T on "to" in a manner that's similar to T on "immigration"
  • Create New...