Skip to main content
Create interactive lessons using any digital content including wikis with our free sister product
. Get it on the
Pages and Files
Aliso Niguel RG (Regan Grishaber)
Apple Valley CT
Bainbridge AT (Alex Teiche)
BASIS Scottsdale CD (Connor Davis)
Ben Franklin SF (Sean Fahey)
Brentwood JL (Jackson Lallas)
Brophy College Prep SR
Byram Hills PE (Paul Erlanger)
Cambridge OS (Oliver Sussman)
Clements FT (Felix Tan)
Crossroads NS (Noah Simon)
Crowley DL (Daniel Lumpee)
Cy-Fair CM (Cameron McConway
Cypress Woods JD (Jordan Durrani)
Delbarton RT (Ryan Teehan)
Evanston EB (Erik Baker)
Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy MA (Monica Amestoy)
Add "All Pages"
Bainbridge AT (Alex Teiche)
VERY IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
IF YOU ARE A LITTLE EICHMANN DESIROUS OF STEALING OUR WICKED ARGS AND BEING RADICALLY EVIL YOURSELF YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT NONE OF THE CARDS IN THIS ARE FULL TEXT AND THEY ALL HAVE ELLIPSES. HERE IS AN ELLIPSES BAD SHELL TO RUN IF YOU HIT THIS "ARG" WE THINK IT IS FROM AN ANCIENT TEXT UNEARTHED BY ASTRO-BIOLOGIST mike bietz IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
A) Interpretation: Debaters must not use ellipses in their evidence.
B) Violation: My opponent’s evidence contains ellipses, which maligns debate for several reasons.
1) Transparency– Ellipses hide and ignore certain aspects of the text that precludes debaters from checking each other from miss-cutting or miss-tagging card; which debaters have an incentive to do as debate is a competitive activity. The precludes checks because it enables debaters to cut cards out of context and leaves me without any checks unless I have the article, book or more complete excerpt with me. Therefore, this is mal-educational, since they could be mis-cutting the author, and bad for fairness.
2) Skews Ground- Ellipses leave me at a structural disadvantage because I cannot make arguments about the intent of the author or attack certain ways in which my opponent is cutting cards, this precludes checks upon abusive cuttings and power tagging of evidence, which structurally skews the adjudication of rounds because there arguments perceptual appear better than they are. This puts me at a disadvantage in the round.
3) Anti-educational- unlike academic journals, which allow for the use of ellipses, debate has time constraints that preclude the ability to access the original source of the text, thus precluding checks upon the usage of other authors. Furthermore this allows debaters to cut authors out of context which skews the understanding of the author’s philosophy. This further maligns education in that ellipses destroy the grammatical legitimacy of texts because antecedents can easily be manipulated to distort the true message.
D) Voter- This is an independent voting issue because ellipses alter the educational legitimacy of rounds, which is a voter because debate is instrumentally in providing us with skills to use in the outside world, while competitive incentives are not inherent goods, thus education functions as a procedural check in round to meet that end. Further you pull the trigger on this argument because ellipses structurally skew the fairness of the round. Fairness underwrites debate as a procedural check else I could keep on talking after my timer goes off, tear up my opponent’s cases, or get up and sign the ballot for myself right now.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER. JUST LIKE NOAH STAR - WE ARE BETTER THAN YOU AT THIS. DON'T TRY TO PLAY AROUND WITH CHAOS AND MATCHES. ALSO, RULE-CONSEQUENTIALISM. ALSO, ON WHAT MATTERS. ALSO, DAS KAPITAL.
THIS DISCLAIMER WAS WRITTEN BY MY COACH REBAR NIEMI AND NOT ME.
LE FLEUR ROLE OF THE BALLOT
THIS IS A framework.
THE COVENANT HAS BEEN VIOLATED, WE ARE IN A DEBATE OF NATURE. WHERE EV'RY DEBAT'R HATH RYTE TO EV'RY ARG. IN A DEBATE OF NATURE, THERE CAN BE NO COMMODIOUS ROUND, NOR FAIRNESS THEREOF, NOR SIGNPOSTING, OR ANY INTERP THAT AIMS TO PROTECT DEBATER FROM BEING A WOLF UNTO OTHER DEBATERS. HOBBES DEFINES WHAT IT MEANS TO DO THE BETTER DEBATING:
Hobbes in 1651[Thomas.
. E-Book. Philosopher, Companion to Calvin, Freedom Fighter.]
naturally love liberty, and dominion over others)
HE GOES ON:
Hobbes in 1651[Thomas.
. E-Book. Philosopher, Companion to Calvin, Freedom Fighter.] GENDER PARAPHRASED
[DEBATERS] live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal.
nor use of...
and which is worst of all...
the life of [DEBATERS]
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
THE DEBATE OF NATURE NEGATES ALL THEORETICAL OBLIGATIONS AND AGREEMENTS, AND MAKES EVERYTHING EXCUSABLE BUT NOT PERMISSIBLE. THIS IS SPECIFIC IN OUR HOBBES CARDS. READ THE UNUNDERLINED TEXT IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE US.
PART ONE: THE DEBATE OF NATURE IS THE STATUS QUO IN LD. BABB 12:
its on the vb website we shouldn't have to cite this shit.
Fragments of evidence are read in rapid sequence...
no analysis. Evidence itself is rarely engaged with any scrutiny or counter-evidence. The spectacle is pure mockery
Most of the average debater’s thinking goes into what kind of irrelevant off-case position they can use to derail the debate...
The schizophrenic side-shows typifying most 1NCs are as good for my brain as Happy Hour...
After the 1AC, I’d be shocked if half the rounds...
had anything to do with the topic. That’s ridiculous.
In the few debates that don’t spiral into theoretical self-gratification, 90% of the dialogue has either to do with tangential philosophical non-sense or absurd and un-researched armchair speculation.
THERE IS NO ARBITER IN DEBATE TO DEFINE THE GOOD OR THE RIGHTEOUS, AND THUS THE DISPARATE INTERPRETATIONS FORWARDED TRIGGER A CONDITION WHEREBY EACH DEBATER HATH RIGHT TO E'RY THANG BY LACK OF THE COMMON POWER TO KEEP THEM ALL IN AWE. EACH DEBATER ATTEMPTS BY WAY OF LOGICK AND PUZZLES TO ENSNARE AND DESTROY THEIR OPPONENT.
PART TWO: WITHIN THE DEBATE OF NATURE, ACCESS TO THE BALLOT AND THE BETTER DEBATING ARE DEFINED THUSLY.
A. THE BETTER DEBATERS ARE THOSE WHO BECOME RADICALLY EVIL. ONLY BY DESTROYING CRITICAL REFLECTION AND NON-CONTRADICTION CAN WE SPEAK TRUTH IN THE MODERN AGE. THIS FORM OF DISCOURSE IS NECESSARILY MORE POWERFUL AND THUS BETTER ADVOCACY THAN CRITICAL INTELLIGENCE. WHEN THINGS ARE VACUOUS AND DECEPTIVE, THEY ARE THE BEST ARGUMENTS BAUDRILLARD 05:
Baudrillard, Jean. “From Domination to Hegemony”
The Agony of Power
. October, 2005 Pg. 38-40
Critical intelligence no longer measures up to the collapse of reality and to the passage into total reality. The truth, or the inhumanity of this situation, can only be revealed from the inside, voluntarily or involuntarily, by the agents of the embezzlement of reality...
We must look to the side of evil for the clearest indications, the harshest reality. Only those who show no concern for contradiction or critical consideration in their acts and discourse can, by this very means, shed full light, without remorse or ambiguity, on the absurd and extravagant character of the state of things, through the play of objective irony.
B. BETTER DEBATERS ARE NOT THOUGHTLESS LITTLE EICHMANNS LIKE YOU WHO CEDE THEIR NATURAL RIGHT AND LIBERTY TO SOME ARBITRARY GURU LIKE [INSERT GURU] WHO INSTRUCTS YOU IN THE RIGHTEOUS CRITICAL INTELLIGENCE OF THE MAN. BETTER DEBATERS ARE THOSE WHO TURN DEBATE OUTSIDE IN FROM INSIDE. SPANOS 11:
Insofar as its logic is faithfully pursued, the framework of the debate system...
produce horrifically thoughtless Eichmanns, which is to say, a political class
is thoughtless in that it is totally separated from and indifferent to the existential realities of the world it is representing.
This governing class has, in large part, their origins, in a preparatoary relay consisting of the high school and college debate circuit, political science departments, and the law profession. The moral of this story is that the debate world needs more outsiders -- or, rather, inside outsiders -- if its ultimate purpose is to prepare young people to change the world
rather than to reproduce it.
C. RATIONAL ARGUMENTATION AND THE TRANSPARENT TRANSFER OF INFORMATION ARE WEAK STRATEGIES THAT DESERVE TO BE CRUSHED IN THE DEBATE OF NATURE. THEY DO NOT CONFRONT POWER OR EFFECT CHANGE, BUT GUERILLA AND DISRUPTIVE MECHANISMS OF COMMUNICATION DO. FROM THE DEEPER GERMAN BACKWOODS:
What about Communication Guerrilla? A message about guerrilla communication out of the deeper German backwoods / Version 2.0 (all rights dispersed) autonome a.f.r.i.k.a.-gruppe, Luther Blissettt and Sonja Brünzels
The confidence that the simple presentation of information represents an effective form of political action is almost unshakeable. Critical content and the unimpeded spread of 'truth' are supposed to be sufficient to tear up the network of manipulating messages,
Information by itself has neither meaning nor consequences - both are created only through the active reception and through the scope of action of the audience
Guerrilla communication doesn‘t focus on arguments and facts
it inhabits a militant political position, it is direct action in the space of social communication.
it doesn‘t aim to destroy the codes and signs of power and control, but to distort and disfigure their meanings as a means of counteracting the omnipotent prattling of power.
RECALL THAT IN THE DEBATE OF NATURE, THOSE WHO WOULD IMPOSE THE GOOD AND RESTRICT THE NATURAL LIBERTY OF DEBATERS ARE CONVENTIONALLY EVIL.
THE ROLE OF THE BALLOT SHOULD BE ONE THAT PRIVILEGES NEW VITAL FORMS OF COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE ARCANE DATA-SET OF LD. MY FRAMEWORK IS PREFERABLE BECAUSE IT DISPENSES WITH PRETENSIONS TO FACT AND RATIONAL ARGUMENTATION AND ATTEMPTS TO CREATE A POWERFUL AND SEDUCTIVE REFLECTION OF WHAT DEBATE IS IN THE STATUS QUO. POWER IRL CAN DENY FACTS AND RATIONAL ARGUMENTATION, SO IN ORDER TO EDUCATE US FOR IRL LIVING WE NEED TO ACCESS THE KEY INTERNAL LINK OF POWER.THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE IS TO STOICALLY INTERPRET AND RETURN VACUITY. AS MEANING LONGS TO ESCAPE ITSELF WE SHOULD EMBRACE THE DECEPTION OF STRUCTURE AND JOYFULLY RETURN ABSURDITY TO ABSURDITY. DO UNTO OTHERS AS THEY HAVE DONE TO YOU. BAUDRILLARD 94:
Radical Thought Jean Baudrillard Translated by Francois Debrix. Collection Morsure. 1994: Paris.
to render transparent
the enigmatic function of the world,..
deceiving rather than validating meaning.
if language wants to "speak the language" of illusion, it must become a seduction. As for "speaking the language" of the real, it would not know how to do it...
because language is never real. Whenever it appears to be able to designate things, it actually does so by following unreal, elliptic, and ironic paths. Objectivity and truth are metaphoric in language...
in fact, it is reality itself which foments its own contradiction, its own denial, its own loss through our lack of reality.
Hence, the internal feeling that
the world, thought, and language
emerged from some place else and could disappear as if by magic...
The absolute rule, that of symbolic exchange, is to return what you received. Never less, but always more. The absolute rule of thought is to return the world as we received it: unintelligible. And if it is possible, to return it a little bit more unintelligible. A little bit more enigmatic.
THEORY IS BRACKETED BY THE DEBATE OF NATURE IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS:
WE ARE A RESPONSE TO THEORY WHICH MEANS YOU CAN'T RUN THEORY BECAUSE I'M ALREADY CRITIQUING THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU WOULD USE TO CRITIQUE ME
I AM ALSO CRITIQUING LANGUAGE, THEORY USES LANGUAGE TO BUILD ARGS, YOU CAN'T BUILD THOSE ARGS BECAUSE I DOMINATED YOUR LANGUAGE AND THERE IS NO INDUSTRY OR POSSIBILITY THEREOF IN THE DEBATE OF NATURE.
THEORY CLAIMS COME BEFORE OTHER ARGUMENTS BUT I'M NOT AN ARGUMENT. I'M GUERILLA COMMUNICATION
THEORY DENIES THE ABSOLUTE RULE, WHICH IS TO RETURN WHAT YOU RECEIVED – WHEN SOMEONE ABUSES YOU, YOU SHOULD ABUSE THEM BACK.
YOU NEED POST-DATING THEORETICAL EV TO BEAT MY VERY RECENT THEORETICAL EVIDENCE. POST-DATING ON THEORY IS KEY BECAUSE THEORY NORMS CHANGE.
THEORY IS FOR LITTLE MINDLESS EICHMANNS. THE NAZIS USED THEORY.
THEORY REQUIRES LETTERS, THERE ARE NO LETTERS.
==META-ETHIC PRACTICAL RAISINS==
My meta ethic is practical raisins. Pratical raisin is the root of all morality and moral agency, because whenever we ask why we have raisins, that implicitly concedes the authority of raisins. Thus we see that we have raisins for raisins, and asking for raisins for raisins only leads to further raisins for raisins.
And, practical raisins necessitate negation of the resolution because we could never have a raisin that willed a raisin to destroy someone elses raisin because other raisins are our raisins. All raisins are univerally accessable.
==META-ETHIC: PARFAITS ARE WHAT MATTERS
My meta ethic is the superiority of the split-brain people over your inferior deontology. Since every ethical theory that isn't split-brain is deontology. My brain has been split in half and now i'm two people. I'm my own warrant for why identity is just a state of affairs and I also warrant util comes first because I can aggregate my brain halves.
This has a few impacts
you don't know your meta ethic or ethic is true because you haven't lived it. I've lived mine.
This disproves existence and time.
Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford [u.a.: Clarendon, 1987. Print.
The Physical Criterion: (1)
What is necessary
[for identity] is not the continued
of the whole body, but the continued existence of enough of the brain to be the brain of a living person. X today
one and the same person as Y at some past time if and only if
brain continued to exist,
and is now X's brain,
there does not exist
a different person who also has enough of Y's brain. (4) Personal identity over
just consists in the holding of
like [the former] (2) and (3).
Parfaits solve, but only when they're split brained. Redish:
If you find yourself getting stuck in the game, keep in mind
advancement is often arbitrary.
If nothing is happening
you need to make sure that you have spoken to everyone until they have nothing more to say, looked around every area to see if there are any objects you haven't noticed, and used every object in your inventory. If all those things fail, take a look at this checklist of important tasks you will need to complete to solve the game (the order is somewhat up to you):
1) Talk to all the NPC's. Repeatedly. Having certain conversations with them (and obeying their requests) is necessary for the plot to progress.
2) Answer the phone immediately any time it rings (this will happen a couple of times.)
3) Make tea for Minette.
4) Examine the red paint on the wall in Minette's studio. (The game eventually stalls if you don't do this.)
at the market for Minette. (Must have finished #3 first.)
6) Fix the plotter.
7) Develop Dieter's photos and deliver them to Jean-Michel.
8) Pick an envelope up from JJ.
9) Solve Prudence's ensemble puzzle. (She will call on the phone about it after you solve enough of the previous tasks.)
10) Beat Minette's computer game for her.
11) Bake cookies for JJ. (Must have finished #5, #7, #8 and #10 first.)
12) Solve the dodo bird puzzle. (Must have finished #11 and possibly #4.)
13) Fetch a stuffed parrot. (Must have finished #11 and possibly #4.)
14) Open the secret passage in Dieter's house. (Must have finished #13.)
15) Open the safe in the secret passage. (Must have finished #14.)
16) Fix Minette's cockroach problem. (Must have finished #12.)
for Jean Mi.
18) Take stock photos for Dieter.
19) Get Jing's autograph for Zu.
20) Solve the colored eyes puzzle. (Must have finished #15 and #18.)
21) Solve the puzzles in the park. (Must have finished #20.)
22) Go into the secret sewer tunnels and take two important items. (Must have finished #19, plus you also need a wetsuit.)
23) Solve the bomb-defusing puzzle. (This appears on its own at a certain point in the game, I believe after you have completed #21.)
24) Decode the M380 code. (Must have finished #22 and #17.)
25) Once you have finished all 24 of the previous steps, you can solve the final string of puzzles in the windmill and learn the truth.
Finally, you have to beat up the villain. No kidding, you have to win a physical fight.
And that's it, you've won!
4. We cannot misrepresent the split-brain parfaits without recognizing the aceticism of the parfaits.
, Jacques. “The Cathars: Cathar Beliefs: Roman Catholic Propaganda: Sexual Equality” November
Times change, and equality of women is now regarded as laudible outside the Roman Church.
misreprenting Parfaites as being fully equal to
Parfaits. The truth is not quite so straightforward.
Certainly, Parfaits underwent the same training as Parfaits. They took the same vows at identical ceremonies.
They led the same ascetic lives
and probably enjoyed the same rights at least in theory.
In practice Parfaites do not seem to
have travelled and preached, nor did they normally
administer the Consolamentum
nor do they seem to have been elected as bishops. Instead they lived together in communities, often in large town houses.
this is not an off
A IS THE UNIQUENESS: SKEP IS LOW AND UNTRIGGERED IN THE SQUO.
B IS THE LINK: THE AFF TRIGGERS SKEP AND SKEP GOES UP POST PLAN BY SAYING THAT THINGS ARE TRUE AND EXIST, BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE A REASON TO DISBELIEVE THAT.
C IS THE IMPACT: SKEP NEGATES AND RUSE OF SOLVENCY TURNS CASE SINCE THINGS DON'T EXIST AND AREN'T TRUE.
==DROP IT AND LOSE==
THE AFF BURDEN IS TO BEAT MY ARGS. SCIENCE PROVES: THE LATEST EV IS ON MY SIDE. BABB 12:
When debaters sign up for this activity, I think they should be prepared to defend both sides of the topic. And, I don’t think that obligation stops in the 1AR. If theory in the 1AR isn’t grounded by an egregious violation, judges should be calling these routines out.
Force AFF debaters to actually debate—it might just be good for them in the long term. The whining has
been going on for years, and it’s
never demonstrated a consistent benefit to AFF w[H]in[N]ing percentages. This NIBs fad is only the latest in a line of grievances that lazy debaters have when informed they actually have to beat someone’s argument. There’s a time and a place for
to be sure, but
debate isn’t it.
POST DATING ON THE THEORY DEBATE IS CRUCIAL BECAUSE ONLY THE BEST RESEARCHED AND STOLEN PREP CAN WIN A THEORY DABAIT. THE IMPACT IS DROP IT AND LOSE.
A is the link. This is a K.
B is the impact. It's skep, or a NIB, or both.
C is the alt, Reject the aff.
GOOD SUBJECT K
A is the link. Their framework is either ends based OR means based. Both link.
B is the impact. This either constructs the subject as concerned with ends, or concerned with means. Both outweigh.
C is the alt. Reject their construction of the subject and vote neg.
REALY GUD DISAD
A. is the uniqueness. Wehavenoauthor 2012. [Extemp card]
B. is the link. Wehavenoauthor 2 2012. [Extemp card]
is the impact. This part is optional.
A. is the counterplan text. The counterplan text is to mail the plan to the American Lumberjack Association.
B. is the competition. The counterplan competes through net benefits.
is the net benefit. The counterplan outweighs the plan.
COMPOUND DURATION CP
A. is the counterplan text. The counterplan text is to restart the round so the plan can be read again, following by reading this plantext again.
B. is the competition. The counterplan competes through net benefits.
C. is the net benefit. The counterplan outweighs the plan infinitely on magnitude, probability, and compound duration because this aggregates infinite series of the plan and counterplan, leading to an infinite multiplication of the plans benefits. Compound duration is the most important weighing standard because it takes infinite simultaneous policy actions and adds their net benefits together over time.
Table of Contents
help on how to format text
Turn off "Getting Started"