Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

real debaters only


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
448
Excellent

Posted 14 November 2017 - 02:16 PM

the following post is for Real Debaters only. If you're a Fake Debater or a Scrub you can just go ahead and click away

 

For clarity's sake, I will now enumerate the qualifying factors of a Fake Debater

 

-If you are a PFer

-If you are an LDer whose name is not Patrick Fox

-If you are a Parli "debater"

-if you have ever gone for conditionality bad

-if you have read any of the following authors: Baudrillard

-if you have never impact turned extinction

-if you have never argued with your judge after the RFD

-if you have never included the phrase "you can't solve [x] if you're dead" in your impact calculus

-if you have ever read the states counterplan, and I MEAN IT. The only exception to this rule is if you repented of your sins by conceding 50 state fiat bad and forfeiting the round. This is an acceptable sacrifice

 

Now that we have that out of the way, and have successfully weeded out the Fake Debaters, let's get to business

 

 

I have discovered the most unbeatable argument in debate. I saved this for the Real debaters because we cannot have the unwashed masses corrupting this argument. This is, I dare say, better than the Fiat Double Bind. I know that sounds like blasphemy, because Fiat Double Bind has long been honored by Real Debaters as the Greatest Argument in debate, but times "change", and we must adapt our ways if we are to hone our craft as debaters.

 

Many of you read kritiks or theory "violations" that have Education as an impact. There will always be Dumbasses who try to argue that something outweighs education, but we know they are Stupid. Here is how you expose their stupidity: (unfortunately this only works for high school debaters this year, so we must be Quick)

 

"Education is the most important impact because that's the topic"

 

Judges will love this, and they will recognize it as the mark of a Genuine debater. There will no longer be any impact debate after you deliver this Argument.

 

You can also apply this in other ways. For example, you can use it as an independent Voter when the other team reads shitty evidence. This is because if your authors qualifications outweigh theirs, you can say that you are providing better in round education by reading more qualified authors, and Education is the most important impact because that's the topic. They're not gonna have any answer to that.

 

 


  • 5

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#2 TheTrashDebater

TheTrashDebater

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 232 posts
50
Excellent
  • Name:Holden Bukowsky
  • School:Jack C Hays High School

Posted 14 November 2017 - 03:42 PM

the following post is for Real Debaters only. If you're a Fake Debater or a Scrub you can just go ahead and click away
 
For clarity's sake, I will now enumerate the qualifying factors of a Fake Debater
 
-If you are a PFer
-If you are an LDer whose name is not Patrick Fox
-If you are a Parli "debater"
-if you have ever gone for conditionality bad
-if you have read any of the following authors: Baudrillard
-if you have never impact turned extinction
-if you have never argued with your judge after the RFD
-if you have never included the phrase "you can't solve [x] if you're dead" in your impact calculus
-if you have ever read the states counterplan, and I MEAN IT. The only exception to this rule is if you repented of your sins by conceding 50 state fiat bad and forfeiting the round. This is an acceptable sacrifice
 
Now that we have that out of the way, and have successfully weeded out the Fake Debaters, let's get to business
 
 
I have discovered the most unbeatable argument in debate. I saved this for the Real debaters because we cannot have the unwashed masses corrupting this argument. This is, I dare say, better than the Fiat Double Bind. I know that sounds like blasphemy, because Fiat Double Bind has long been honored by Real Debaters as the Greatest Argument in debate, but times "change", and we must adapt our ways if we are to hone our craft as debaters.
 
Many of you read kritiks or theory "violations" that have Education as an impact. There will always be Dumbasses who try to argue that something outweighs education, but we know they are Stupid. Here is how you expose their stupidity: (unfortunately this only works for high school debaters this year, so we must be Quick)
 
"Education is the most important impact because that's the topic"
 
Judges will love this, and they will recognize it as the mark of a Genuine debater. There will no longer be any impact debate after you deliver this Argument.
 
You can also apply this in other ways. For example, you can use it as an independent Voter when the other team reads shitty evidence. This is because if your authors qualifications outweigh theirs, you can say that you are providing better in round education by reading more qualified authors, and Education is the most important impact because that's the topic. They're not gonna have any answer to that.

Sweet Jesus this is true
  • 0

 

"Basically, my partner is Ryan Snow, not Paul Ryan."

 


#3 DefendTheWall

DefendTheWall

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts
24
Good
  • School:Greenhill

Posted 14 November 2017 - 03:55 PM

the following post is for Real Debaters only. If you're a Fake Debater or a Scrub you can just go ahead and click away

 

For clarity's sake, I will now enumerate the qualifying factors of a Fake Debater

 

-If you are a PFer

-If you are an LDer whose name is not Patrick Fox

-If you are a Parli "debater"

-if you have ever gone for conditionality bad

-if you have read any of the following authors: Baudrillard

-if you have never impact turned extinction

-if you have never argued with your judge after the RFD

-if you have never included the phrase "you can't solve [x] if you're dead" in your impact calculus

-if you have ever read the states counterplan, and I MEAN IT. The only exception to this rule is if you repented of your sins by conceding 50 state fiat bad and forfeiting the round. This is an acceptable sacrifice

 

Now that we have that out of the way, and have successfully weeded out the Fake Debaters, let's get to business

 

 

I have discovered the most unbeatable argument in debate. I saved this for the Real debaters because we cannot have the unwashed masses corrupting this argument. This is, I dare say, better than the Fiat Double Bind. I know that sounds like blasphemy, because Fiat Double Bind has long been honored by Real Debaters as the Greatest Argument in debate, but times "change", and we must adapt our ways if we are to hone our craft as debaters.

 

Many of you read kritiks or theory "violations" that have Education as an impact. There will always be Dumbasses who try to argue that something outweighs education, but we know they are Stupid. Here is how you expose their stupidity: (unfortunately this only works for high school debaters this year, so we must be Quick)

 

"Education is the most important impact because that's the topic"

 

Judges will love this, and they will recognize it as the mark of a Genuine debater. There will no longer be any impact debate after you deliver this Argument.

 

You can also apply this in other ways. For example, you can use it as an independent Voter when the other team reads shitty evidence. This is because if your authors qualifications outweigh theirs, you can say that you are providing better in round education by reading more qualified authors, and Education is the most important impact because that's the topic. They're not gonna have any answer to that.

 

This.


  • 2

#4 AQuackDebater

AQuackDebater

    Kind of a fascist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
246
Excellent
  • Name:Patrick Fox
  • School:Jack C. Hays High School

Posted 14 November 2017 - 04:01 PM

-If you are an LDer whose name is not Patrick Fox

Screw Vinay and Holden! I'm the only real debater in LD!

 

So Ben for you is it like "their advocacy makes me dizzy - thats bad because health o/w since it's the topic"?

 

Instant L for Kansas KR right there


  • 0
WHO ON HELL IS THIS FUCK BAUDRILLARD? BALSAS 06 [BALSAS is an interdisciplinary journal on media culture.  Interview with Art Group BBM, “on first cyborgs, aliens and other sides of new technologies,” translated from lithiuanian http://www.balsas.cc/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=151] JCH-PF

Valentinas: We all know that Jean Baudrillard did not believe that the Gulf War did take place, as it was over-mediated and over-simulated. In fact, the Gulf War II is still not over, and Iraq became much more than just a Frankenstein laboratory for the new media, technology and “democracy” games. What can we learn from wars that do not take place, even though they cannot be finished? Are they becoming a symptom of our times as a confrontation between multiple time-lines, ideologies and technologies in a single place? Lars: Actually, it has always been the same: new wars have been better test-beds for the state of art technologies and the latest computer-controlled firearms. The World War I already was a fully mechanized war where pre-robots were fighting each other and gassing the troops. And afterwards, the winners shape the new world order. Olaf: Who on hell is Baudrillard? The one who earns money by publishing his prognoses after the things happen? What a fuck, French philosophy deals too much with luxury problems and elegantly ignores the problem itself. It’s no wonder, this is the colonizer’s mentality, you can hear it roaring in their words: they use phrases made to camouflage genocide. I went to see that Virilio’s exhibition "Ce qui arrive" at Foundation Cartier in 2003. I was smashed by that banal presentation of the evil of all kinds: again, natural catastrophes and evil done by man were exposed on the same wall, glued together with a piece of "theory". There you find it all, filed up in one row: the pure luxury of the Cartier-funded Jean Nouvel building, an artwork without any blood in its veins, and that late Christian philosophy about the techno-cataclysm being the revenge of God. Pure shit, turned into gold in the holy cellars of the modern alchemists’ museums. The artist-made video "documents" of the Manhattan towers opposed to Iraqian war pictures: that’s not Armageddon, that’s man-invented war technology to be used to subdue others. And there is always somebody who pushes the buttons, even when the button is a computer mouse some ten thousand kilometers away from the place where people die, or even if it is a civil airplanes redirected by Islamists. Everybody knows that. War technology has always been made to make killing easier. And to produce martyrs as well. Janneke: Compare Baudrillard with Henry Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Dunant was no philosopher, he was just an intelligent rich man in the late 19th century. But his ideas went far more in the direction where you should hope to find philosophers as well. He experienced war as a "randonneur": he passed by, he saw the suffering and the inhumanity of war. And he felt obliged to act. Apart from the maybe 10 days he spent on the battlefield, on the beautiful meadows in the Europeans Alps, helping wounded people to survive, as a complete medical layman he decided to do something more sustainable against these odds. He knew that his efforts couldn’t prevent war in general, but he felt that he could alter the cruelty of reality. And he succeeded in doing it. No wonder that in our days we find the most engaged people to support the TROIA projects intention in Geneva, where they are still based. And they are not only doing their necessary surgeon’s work in the field: they are as well fighting with the same energy on the diplomatic battlefield.

 

Check out the small school starter pack! https://www.cross-x....l-starter-pack/


#5 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
448
Excellent

Posted 14 November 2017 - 04:30 PM

So Ben for you is it like "their advocacy makes me dizzy - thats bad because health o/w since it's the topic"?

 

Instant L for Kansas KR right there

You are correct. That is the basis of the strategy I plan to break at the NDT. Although as an Innovator and an Entrepreneur, I feel the need to adapt the argument to withstand the attacks of the college circuit's top "debaters". 

 

While you plebs have permission to use this argument an a form of impact calculus, I am going to transform it into an unstoppable role of the ballot. Because this thread is restricted to Real Debater's, I feel comfortable giving you all a "Sneak Peak". However, if any of you runs anything similar to this, not only will you lose your status as a Real Debater, but I will terminate your school's debate program. The following strategy is mine, and mine only.

 

Interpretation: Vote for the team that best performs healthcare in this round.

 

Prefer it-- healthcare is the topic

 

 

I will then proceed to answer Kansas KR's arguments, and in doing so I will spread so hard that I will give myself a Coughing Fit and pass out right in front of the judges. My partner will then declare that the reason I passed out is because Kansas's debate practices are medically harmful and they are performing the opposite of healthcare. (They read too many arguments for me to answer in a healthy manner, forcing me to destroy my lungs by Spreading)

 

My partner will then cause a ruckus and act like I'm dead. Ruckus will ensue for about 1 minutes, or least long enough to get everyone Spooked. Then my partner will have an Epiphany and miraculously "remember" that he has an Epipen in his backpack. He will then act as if he is injecting me back to life (although in truth the Epipen shall not make contact with my Skin-- I hate needles.) I will be Revived and everyone will cheer. If that scene isn't enough to compel Kansas KR to forfeit, I will get up and extend the role of the ballot, whereby the Judges will have no choice but to vote for us because not only has Kansas done the opposite of healthcare, but we have performed true healthcare in this round


Edited by Nonegfiat, 14 November 2017 - 04:45 PM.

  • 5

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#6 avaishnav2

avaishnav2

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 14 November 2017 - 07:17 PM

the following post is for Real Debaters only

 

Your signature says otherwise, my friend.


  • 0

#7 TheTrashDebater

TheTrashDebater

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 232 posts
50
Excellent
  • Name:Holden Bukowsky
  • School:Jack C Hays High School

Posted 14 November 2017 - 07:23 PM

Screw Vinay and Holden! I'm the only real debater in LD!
 
So Ben for you is it like "their advocacy makes me dizzy - thats bad because health o/w since it's the topic"?
 
Instant L for Kansas KR right there

Hey shut up Patrick I’m basically you just minus all the K crap you run
  • 0

 

"Basically, my partner is Ryan Snow, not Paul Ryan."

 


#8 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
448
Excellent

Posted 14 November 2017 - 07:26 PM

Your signature says otherwise, my friend.

If you don't respect Fiat Double Bind then you dont understand Debate


  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#9 AQuackDebater

AQuackDebater

    Kind of a fascist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
246
Excellent
  • Name:Patrick Fox
  • School:Jack C. Hays High School

Posted 14 November 2017 - 07:29 PM

You are correct. That is the basis of the strategy I plan to break at the NDT. Although as an Innovator and an Entrepreneur, I feel the need to adapt the argument to withstand the attacks of the college circuit's top "debaters". 

 

While you plebs have permission to use this argument an a form of impact calculus, I am going to transform it into an unstoppable role of the ballot. Because this thread is restricted to Real Debater's, I feel comfortable giving you all a "Sneak Peak". However, if any of you runs anything similar to this, not only will you lose your status as a Real Debater, but I will terminate your school's debate program. The following strategy is mine, and mine only.

 

Interpretation: Vote for the team that best performs healthcare in this round.

 

Prefer it-- healthcare is the topic

 

 

I will then proceed to answer Kansas KR's arguments, and in doing so I will spread so hard that I will give myself a Coughing Fit and pass out right in front of the judges. My partner will then declare that the reason I passed out is because Kansas's debate practices are medically harmful and they are performing the opposite of healthcare. (They read too many arguments for me to answer in a healthy manner, forcing me to destroy my lungs by Spreading)

 

My partner will then cause a ruckus and act like I'm dead. Ruckus will ensue for about 1 minutes, or least long enough to get everyone Spooked. Then my partner will have an Epiphany and miraculously "remember" that he has an Epipen in his backpack. He will then act as if he is injecting me back to life (although in truth the Epipen shall not make contact with my Skin-- I hate needles.) I will be Revived and everyone will cheer. If that scene isn't enough to compel Kansas KR to forfeit, I will get up and extend the role of the ballot, whereby the Judges will have no choice but to vote for us because not only has Kansas done the opposite of healthcare, but we have performed true healthcare in this round

please god yes

 

Hey shut up Patrick I’m basically you just minus all the K crap you run

Hey Holden how many winning 1ARs have you given on cap against me again


  • 0
WHO ON HELL IS THIS FUCK BAUDRILLARD? BALSAS 06 [BALSAS is an interdisciplinary journal on media culture.  Interview with Art Group BBM, “on first cyborgs, aliens and other sides of new technologies,” translated from lithiuanian http://www.balsas.cc/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=151] JCH-PF

Valentinas: We all know that Jean Baudrillard did not believe that the Gulf War did take place, as it was over-mediated and over-simulated. In fact, the Gulf War II is still not over, and Iraq became much more than just a Frankenstein laboratory for the new media, technology and “democracy” games. What can we learn from wars that do not take place, even though they cannot be finished? Are they becoming a symptom of our times as a confrontation between multiple time-lines, ideologies and technologies in a single place? Lars: Actually, it has always been the same: new wars have been better test-beds for the state of art technologies and the latest computer-controlled firearms. The World War I already was a fully mechanized war where pre-robots were fighting each other and gassing the troops. And afterwards, the winners shape the new world order. Olaf: Who on hell is Baudrillard? The one who earns money by publishing his prognoses after the things happen? What a fuck, French philosophy deals too much with luxury problems and elegantly ignores the problem itself. It’s no wonder, this is the colonizer’s mentality, you can hear it roaring in their words: they use phrases made to camouflage genocide. I went to see that Virilio’s exhibition "Ce qui arrive" at Foundation Cartier in 2003. I was smashed by that banal presentation of the evil of all kinds: again, natural catastrophes and evil done by man were exposed on the same wall, glued together with a piece of "theory". There you find it all, filed up in one row: the pure luxury of the Cartier-funded Jean Nouvel building, an artwork without any blood in its veins, and that late Christian philosophy about the techno-cataclysm being the revenge of God. Pure shit, turned into gold in the holy cellars of the modern alchemists’ museums. The artist-made video "documents" of the Manhattan towers opposed to Iraqian war pictures: that’s not Armageddon, that’s man-invented war technology to be used to subdue others. And there is always somebody who pushes the buttons, even when the button is a computer mouse some ten thousand kilometers away from the place where people die, or even if it is a civil airplanes redirected by Islamists. Everybody knows that. War technology has always been made to make killing easier. And to produce martyrs as well. Janneke: Compare Baudrillard with Henry Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Dunant was no philosopher, he was just an intelligent rich man in the late 19th century. But his ideas went far more in the direction where you should hope to find philosophers as well. He experienced war as a "randonneur": he passed by, he saw the suffering and the inhumanity of war. And he felt obliged to act. Apart from the maybe 10 days he spent on the battlefield, on the beautiful meadows in the Europeans Alps, helping wounded people to survive, as a complete medical layman he decided to do something more sustainable against these odds. He knew that his efforts couldn’t prevent war in general, but he felt that he could alter the cruelty of reality. And he succeeded in doing it. No wonder that in our days we find the most engaged people to support the TROIA projects intention in Geneva, where they are still based. And they are not only doing their necessary surgeon’s work in the field: they are as well fighting with the same energy on the diplomatic battlefield.

 

Check out the small school starter pack! https://www.cross-x....l-starter-pack/


#10 aprasad202

aprasad202

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 94 posts
34
Good
  • Name:Aaditya Prasad
  • School:CNEC

Posted 14 November 2017 - 08:52 PM

 

-if you have ever read the states counterplan, and I MEAN IT. The only exception to this rule is if you repented of your sins by conceding 50 state fiat bad and forfeiting the round. This is an acceptable sacrifice

i guess wimsatt is a fake debater


  • 0

#11 TheTrashDebater

TheTrashDebater

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 232 posts
50
Excellent
  • Name:Holden Bukowsky
  • School:Jack C Hays High School

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:45 PM

please god yes
 

Hey Holden how many winning 1ARs have you given on cap against me again

None because 1. That one time during lunch has been the only time you’ve debated against me and 2. I’ve been doing LD for like 3 weeks
  • 0

 

"Basically, my partner is Ryan Snow, not Paul Ryan."

 


#12 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
448
Excellent

Posted 15 November 2017 - 07:01 AM

None because 1. That one time during lunch has been the only time you’ve debated against me and 2. I’ve been doing LD for like 3 weeks

It's okay Holden, I've never given a winning 1AR against Padrick either


  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#13 vmanAA738

vmanAA738

    Top Speaker

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 585 posts
323
Excellent
  • Name:Vinay

Posted 15 November 2017 - 08:02 AM

This is one of the better meme threads on this place in awhile LOL


  • 1

blue dogs are dead, moderates are dead

republicans move right, democrats move left

partisanship is 100%, compromise is a dirty word

i'm hoping for a miracle to save America from itself


#14 tommy949

tommy949

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,014 posts
435
Excellent

Posted 15 November 2017 - 10:17 AM

I performed health care on the wrong topic lol


  • 0

#15 HEYEYEYEYEYEY

HEYEYEYEYEYEY

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 79 posts
28
Good

Posted 15 November 2017 - 03:16 PM

You are correct. That is the basis of the strategy I plan to break at the NDT. Although as an Innovator and an Entrepreneur, I feel the need to adapt the argument to withstand the attacks of the college circuit's top "debaters". 

 

While you plebs have permission to use this argument an a form of impact calculus, I am going to transform it into an unstoppable role of the ballot. Because this thread is restricted to Real Debater's, I feel comfortable giving you all a "Sneak Peak". However, if any of you runs anything similar to this, not only will you lose your status as a Real Debater, but I will terminate your school's debate program. The following strategy is mine, and mine only.

 

Interpretation: Vote for the team that best performs healthcare in this round.

 

Prefer it-- healthcare is the topic

 

 

I will then proceed to answer Kansas KR's arguments, and in doing so I will spread so hard that I will give myself a Coughing Fit and pass out right in front of the judges. My partner will then declare that the reason I passed out is because Kansas's debate practices are medically harmful and they are performing the opposite of healthcare. (They read too many arguments for me to answer in a healthy manner, forcing me to destroy my lungs by Spreading)

 

My partner will then cause a ruckus and act like I'm dead. Ruckus will ensue for about 1 minutes, or least long enough to get everyone Spooked. Then my partner will have an Epiphany and miraculously "remember" that he has an Epipen in his backpack. He will then act as if he is injecting me back to life (although in truth the Epipen shall not make contact with my Skin-- I hate needles.) I will be Revived and everyone will cheer. If that scene isn't enough to compel Kansas KR to forfeit, I will get up and extend the role of the ballot, whereby the Judges will have no choice but to vote for us because not only has Kansas done the opposite of healthcare, but we have performed true healthcare in this round

 

topic is about health insurance not health care...


  • 0

#16 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
448
Excellent

Posted 15 November 2017 - 04:47 PM

topic is about health insurance not health care...

Leave this thread. now.


  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#17 avaishnav2

avaishnav2

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 15 November 2017 - 07:26 PM

If you don't respect Fiat Double Bind then you dont understand Debate

 

It's not about the understanding, the argument is more of a meme (although a respectable one) than anything except maybe Baudrillard. 


  • 0

#18 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
448
Excellent

Posted 16 November 2017 - 07:46 AM

It's not about the understanding, the argument is more of a meme (although a respectable one) than anything except maybe Baudrillard. 

Excuse You:

 

Fiat double Bind is not a "meme". It is a briliant argument that regularly Destroys plan "debaters". For it is Unbeatable (the only Debater who can beat it is me. But I would never use my power in such an Irresponsible fashion)


  • 2

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#19 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts
1,038
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 16 November 2017 - 08:22 AM

The other interesting thing about Real Debaters is that we only cite Real Authors. In order to be a Real Author you need to:

-always already use the phrase "always already" to describe the world

-make sure you Capitalize random Words so that they seem to mean something different than their Literal definition

-call random things "Foucauldian"

 

Anything I'm missing here?


  • 1

Daily Evidence Card!
Exodus Files!

This cross-ex is taking too long.

Kafka 25 (Franz, Novelist, Translated by David Wyllie, "The Trial", 1925) //Snowball

K. was informed by telephone that there would be a small hearing concerning his case the following Sunday. He was made aware that these cross examinations would follow one another regularly, perhaps not every week but quite frequently. On the one hand it was in everyone’s interest to bring proceedings quickly to their conclusion, but on the other hand every aspect of the examinations had to be carried out thoroughly without lasting too long because of the associated stress. For these reasons, it had been decided to hold a series of brief examinations following on one after another. Sunday had been chosen as the day for the hearings so that K. would not be disturbed in his professional work. It was assumed that he would be in agreement with this, but if he wished for another date then, as far as possible, he would be accommodated. Cross-examinations could even be held in the night, for instance, but K. would probably not be fresh enough at that time. Anyway, as long as K. made no objection, the hearing would be left on Sundays. It was a matter of course that he would have to appear without fail, there was probably no need to point this out to him. He would be given the number of the building where he was to present himself, which was in a street in a suburb well away from the city centre which K. had never been to before.


#20 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
448
Excellent

Posted 16 November 2017 - 12:45 PM

The other interesting thing about Real Debaters is that we only cite Real Authors. In order to be a Real Author you need to:

-always already use the phrase "always already" to describe the world

-make sure you Capitalize random Words so that they seem to mean something different than their Literal definition

-call random things "Foucauldian"

 

Anything I'm missing here?

 

yes this is Correct,

 

a Real Debater cannot cite a Fake Author, and a Fake Debater cannot cite a Real Author

 

You have, however, missed a Couple of points, which are additional qualities of a Real Author

 

 

-Real Authors may not address a Question without referring to "discourse"

 

-Real authors must know how to Refer To Themselves In Third Person

 

-Real Authors must instruct debaters to use the phrase "right now, in the status quo"


  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism






Similar Topics Collapse

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users