Jump to content

Studley Dudley

Member
  • Content Count

    2051
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by Studley Dudley

  1. Oh, don't get me wrong, clearly all of the winning topics are policy debate topics. It will be a long hard road to get it to where kritikal pedagogy is the focus of the topic committee and "there is some counterplan and disad ground" is the murmur. The reason for this is that people see kritikal ground as being more "generically applicable." For example: Mr. Chaos' usage of Nietzsche no matter what the topic is. Or Heideggarian criticisms of technological and utilitarian calculuses. Given that is seen as more generically applicable than most of the "policy" ground and that most people tend to view timely events as the most relevant (see: Nukes, Immigration, Arab Spring) the decision making processes for voting procedure will almost always favor policy analyses of said topics. This does not mean that "big schools" vote together or that "kritikal debate" is crowded out. Actually, I kind of think this topic shows the exact opposite of that. The ground for kritikal interrogations of Democracy Assistance as it relates to Arab Spring movements is far greater than the philosophical schools of thought that would accompany say, the Treaties topic, or Critical Infrastructure.
  2. You are also just wrong with this post. Topic committees love a list topic. It'd be nearly impossible for there to be a topic that doesn't have a "list" topic as at least one of the wordings because of how gigantic that topic would be. Example: Nukes topic. You know why EVERYONE hated the resolution wording? "Roles and/or missions..." is FUCKING GIGANTIC. A list topic for that half of the resolution would have been FAR preferable. You are just wrong. That's not how "big schools" operate. At all. They don't gather around and go "hey, what would be the best topic to completely fuck over the K debaters?!" That just doesn't happen. You can't just make assertions like "big schools vote in blocks" because you 1) have the burden of proof and 2) committed the logical fallacy of shifting the burden ("Why DON'T you think they do that?! Moron.") Get better at arguing, then come back to this thread. Until then, the idea that a "big school" has any more influence over a "small school" when it comes to topic voting is asinine. Note: This is coming from a "small school" debater whose school was known for innovating with a new K per major tournament up until about 4 years ago. Now, we're still a small school, we just don't go for the K all too often.
  3. No one calls the Royals overrated because, well, look at their season finishes and current record.
  4. You have to meet Calum. He was my debate coach.
  5. We'll stop complaining about a blown call that single-handedly caused us to lose the world series (because it led to a game 7 that shouldn't have taken place) whenever Royals fans stop bragging about winning that world series. The baseball teams are no longer the same teams they were in 1985, and the Royals lost to the Cardinals this year, and oh yeah, aren't tied with the Indians for most wins in baseball.
  6. To be fair, Calum is a dick of a human being who gives absolutely no fucks about anyone or anything other than himself. He's also a transhumanist, so his position may be altered by that. Just because one judge has one particular philosophy does not mean that all judges should adhere to that philosophy. Mine says don't say racism good, it's not an argument and I won't evaluate it. You won't lose the round for it, but you will lose speaker points and I will not evaluate the argument regardless of its status as 'dropped'. Also, Kevin: The way I run Lacan is not racism good. It's that we shouldn't kill racists.
  7. I think you switched the topics. Democracy Assistance to the Middle fucking East and North Africa has much more/better k ground that development/exploration of space.
  8. Why do you think "big schools" had any more influence on this than "little" schools? Everyone gets *one* vote, no matter how "big" your program is. Tool.
  9. There once was a hilarious poster by the name of Chris Logrhy. He stopped posting on these boards around the same time he finished debating in college... age 31. And there was much rejoicing. Just kidding, post here again, you're still hilarious, even if you are Louie's age.
  10. My Friendster is chocked full of this news!
  11. That too. You've debated me enough times to know that I have NO clue where "the line" is.
  12. "We saw our Quarters draw, looked at our side of the bracket, and realized 'hey, we could win this thing!'" -Joe Koehle, Assistant coach at Kansas State University, professional asshole. Haha. Just kidding, I'm glad you guys won. Go d3!
  13. As Kansas State's Quarters round draw I take offense to statements made in this podcast.
  14. Trump was honored that he played such an influential role in all of this. Assclown.
  15. Please spell cite properly. I'll bet money you can't.
  16. If you believe there is anything Cracked has produced that I have not already read you are out of your damn mind.
  17. I object. I limit myself to judging with 1 tool on the same panel as me, per year. That quota was filled at Finals of TFA State.
  18. This website just occupied me for the better part of an hour. Well done.
  19. Brian Kersch, debater for the University of North Texas. Willing to coach and judge for Nationals. Housing and transportation have already been arranged on my part. I am extremely well versed in critical literature as well as policy literature. Feel free to give me a shout out at fps916 at gmail dot com
  20. I'm Brian Kersch from the University of North Texas and I'm available and willing to judge. You can email me at fps916@gmail.com
  21. Chris said you couldn't... All members of the debate have to agree on judges. Having a highly incompetent debater who "loves t3h k" but went to highschool with one of the participants seems disadvantageous for Chris/Murray.
  22. I'll adjudicate this shitfest. Paradigm: I profess to have an old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they pretended they were the president. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that framework; I am the president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president. For those worried about or intrigued by the implications, here's a guide: Speed - Don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I didn't bother writing them down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president. Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, and you're just showing off your silly squirrel definition, I'm likely to put the secret service on you. So make sure you have a good case in reality, not in debateland. DAs and advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed as a nutcase and then given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing you to be a nutcase and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, I will not allow DAs that destroy affirmative fiat. So, no “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important to the president. I do like getting re-elected. CPs - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan. K - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizzare solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it. "Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, the secret service will be asked to not-so-gently escort you from the room. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above. Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider. Lastly, enjoy this. It is a rare opportunity to debate for the president. Don't be rude and don't be lazy. Have fun within the seriousness of the fake situation.
×
×
  • Create New...