Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ontology'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Debate
    • Help Me...
    • Novice Center
    • Culture
    • Other Forms of Debate
    • Virtual Debates and Online Videos
    • Workshops, Institutes, and Camps
  • Specific Arguments
    • Immigration
    • Disadvantages and Counterplans
    • Critiques
    • Theory and Framework
  • Evidence
    • Evazon
    • Evidence Trading
  • Community
    • Current Events
    • Thoughts and Ideas
    • Non-Debate Debates
    • World Culture
  • Regional
    • National Circuit
    • Pacific
    • Mountain
    • Southwest
    • Great Plains
    • Great Lakes
    • Northeast
    • Mid Atlantic
    • South
    • Kansas
    • Missouri
    • Texas
  • Respecting the Elders
    • College
    • Judging
    • Coaching
  • The Site
    • Feedback
    • Discuss the Articles
    • Main Page Polls
  • Archive
    • Topic Archive


  • Thursday Files
  • Affirmatives
  • Case Negatives
  • Counterplans
  • Critiques
  • Disadvantages
  • Impacts
  • Theory
  • Topicality
  • LD and Public Forum


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Debate Resources
  • Coach Resources
  • Blogs
  • Videos
  • Tournaments & Results
  • Administrative Organizations

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL


Google Chat/Jabber











Found 5 results

  1. Sooooo, in policy debate, much like in IRL, most people are sycophants and will imitate whatever other people do. Because of this, absurd social norms can develop over time: like ass-to-mouth or Capitalism. In policy debate one such absurd social norm is misusing the words "ontology" or "epistemology". I do not think many on this site have done this, but in debate rounds its rampant. It doesn't bother me, because I get what you "meant to say", but saying words correctly is important I feel like. To place them in to your context properly so that those concepts contain similar relational metaphors as the connections between those concepts in other people's contexts. Would be the closest to a definition of "interpersonal intelligence" as one can get. What does it look like? "Reject them because of their epistemology" What should it look like? "Reject them because they have bad epistemological foundations" or "Reject them because they re-ingrain a faulty episteme" Why? Because -logy means "study of"!!!!!!!!!! Or "Science of" depending on who you ask, because the word is clearly coming from "logos". So "Epistemology" translates as "study of knowing" or maybe "study of knowledge". So... When you say "reject them because of their epistemology" that translates to "reject them because of their study of knowing" They didn't engage in a study of knowing. YOU are the only one engaging in a "study of knowing" by making problematic the epistemological stance of the aff. Did that all make sense?
  2. Binghamton Speech and Debate Team just put up a bunch of Spanos lectures from his course this semester. You can view them in the video section of their website athttp://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/Videos/Lectures/Academic/
  3. Hey there, So, I'm having trouble understanding Nevada Union's Levinas affirmative, or Levinas in general. I can't seem to grasp what exactly Levinas argues, and how that functions in the context of the 1AC. What does Levinas say (un)intelligibility is? What is the absolute other/otherness in the context of his work? What is his view on ontology? It's cites are under "1AC - Unintelligibility -- La Costa" http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Nevada+Union/Fenner-HillWeld+Aff Explanations contextualized towards this particular affirmative and surveillance would be appreciated. Thanks ahead of time
  4. Hey I'm a blackness debater who is getting into warren and I would like to have an in depth understanding to the argument that blackness isn't ontological (usually are Hudson cards) and how to sufficiently respond to it I have an ok understanding of ontology but I feel like I have a long way to go before I will feel totally comfortable so any help regarding that or tips on how framing the 1nc would be great
  5. Hey guys what are some reasons why V2L and ontology come first? Do you think they should be cards or analytics? For V2L: I have a polokova card For ontology, i have a dillon card
  • Create New...