Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

ronniesportman

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

ronniesportman last won the day on December 4 2018

ronniesportman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About ronniesportman

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Ah Gotcha - Sorry - Just some kids are like the aff and the judge are whining cuz they can't debate, those kids erk me lmao
  2. I don't think thats true - Like I think folx like us are remarkable strong to survive and to engage in forms of militant preservation, but i think that simultaneously we should call out folx for problematic doody
  3. WTF no - its "U said violent doody that causes real pyschological violence within this space, You didn't give us a T/W for thrat doody that we could prepare to cope with before the round" I think ur framing of it is super essentializing and is part of the reason why minority debaters don't feel safe in debate
  4. By disquallified they meant that the judge stopped the round and voted for the other team because they didn't give a TW for doing Messed up doody that causes Pyschological Violence.
  5. Yeah - I definitely that this is true. Neg ground now IMO has become doodyty Cp's w/ Internal Net Ben, Parole CP Internal Net ben, Base, And K's. I think the lack of neg ground may actually push more policy oriented teams to attempt to learn K's. That is at least what has been happening at my school.
  6. You know I gotta do it for my sisters
  7. Its Fred Moten and Stefano Harney - The book I would recommend I'm attaching rn undercommons-web.pdf
  8. Like you'd have to cut it yourself - And like I said earlier Harney and Moten are really good authors for this
  9. Correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm assuming that this is coming from a round where you were against a K aff - Basically an academy DA/K is a criticism of the way that the affirmative operates in academia/the university. It is an alternative theory of power to explain what happens when the affirmative is introduced into a debate setting and what that means and what it means to be traded for a ballot. Depending on what type of path you are thinking of going impact wise there are a bunch of links. One example is Co-option. The aff gets co-opted by academia defanging it of its radical potential while providing the farce of change in order to further violence. Other examples include commodification, the Spending of some type of social guilt etc. Basically you gotta find an author you get and understand that Theory of power and just be able to explain what that means for the debate and the aff. I usually would put this as a Case turn to the aff on the case flow. The author that I enjoy the most to make this type of argument is Moten and Harney because they talk a lot about academia/the commons vs the undercommons and professionalization yada yada yada.
  10. You want to win a link - Why does the affs method necessitate violence against indigenous folx. And if your reading a good alt, not using the state does not mean they can resolve the violence you criticize
  11. Sorry for the Delay but heres my RFD - Fun Round to watch. Sorry if it comes off as grumpy, I've just been really tired and wanted to give ya'll as much feedback as possible because I see a lot of room fro improvement and can't wait to watch y'all grow RFD ronniesportman .docx
  12. I need to finish my chem lab by tonight and I should have the round flowed and RFDed by tomorrow,
  13. I can Judge if ya'll want - I'm mostly tab. Done both straight policy and straight K. Done stock issues and offense defense. Will default to offense defense unless told other wise and Tech over truth unless told otherwise
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use