[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 24 KB, 1280x720, phe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4576157 No.4576157[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I guess this is the best place to ask, but are there any good, dense theory arguments to make in policy debate? I made a phenomenology argument last debate tournament in my college league, and it won me 8th seed. People will be blocking that out next week in the elimination rounds (of 32 teams) and I need something that nobody can argue against.

>> No.4576170

>>4576157
How the fuck did you incorporate phenomenology into a policy debate?

>> No.4576178

Don't be a pretentious fuck. If you can't argue by your own arguments, it's because you don't know enough to talk about. Just shut up, get off the stage and watch to learn. You bastard.

>> No.4576181
File: 288 KB, 1019x1380, 1392253610640.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4576181

>>4576170
This.
OP outline that debate.

>> No.4576188
File: 166 KB, 305x479, 1391859973769.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4576188

One word: spread.

>> No.4576217

>>4576181
I was negative, and told the judge that the affirmative has nobody with firsthand experience in policy making advocates the plan in their evidence, and therefore we cannot know any truth from their objective facts and cannot weigh their impacts against our "Obama says no" and Politics disadvantages.

Got perfect speaker points in my negative rounds, too.

>> No.4576236

>>4576157
Policy debate? Not sure if this is what you mean, but http://mises.org/midroad.asp..

>> No.4576240

kiritk is cancer

>> No.4576297

>>4576236
>arguments
>libertards
Enjoy the audience laugh.

>> No.4576303

>>4576297
Good refutation.

>> No.4576334

>>4576240
Theory is not a kritik. Theory arguments are a priori; kritiks aren't. I do agree that the K is cancer and literally no good teams can run it properly.

>> No.4576350

>realism first
>Thayer
>Ferguson
>Kagan

Why read theory when you could have a hegemony debate?