Saturday, April 12, 2014
Lying about evidence 2
SH -- Same round, same person. I read evidence that said political conditionality worked 2/18 times. She read evidence obstensibly from the same study saying that the results were actually unclear. Well, her evidence was LITERALLY FROM A DIFFERENT STUDY by the same author.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
This guy
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/31/ivy-league-admissions-college-university/7119531/
His stare just radiates "I'll fuck you up"
His stare just radiates "I'll fuck you up"
Saturday, March 22, 2014
On new args.
New arguments in the 2AR read at state and nat quals (referred to by initials only for privacy):
SS -- She's a repeat offender. I read the social contract on state quals as neg, she completely misunderstood the philosophy (this wasn't even philosophy; it's basic 8th grade social studies crap). When I pointed this out, she ran the new arg in the 2AR that we must look BEYOND the social contract and achieve net benefits. She also read new args against AS in the 2AR, though I forgot which ones they were.
AH -- He autoqualled to states with 5-0, so I thought he'd be pretty ethical at nat quals. Not so. He read a stock AC, I ran a pretty troll ex post conditionality NC. He said my arguments were nonunique, which he later repeated despite my refutations. In the 2AR, he told the judge to vote on a study that didn't even mention the world "conditionality" (I pointed this out in both my speeches, of course). He also told the judge to vote on the fact that the money in the neg world is only going to countries with already good policies like the US and Canada -- a totally new argument with a very simple response (Collier evidence completely contradicts this). Finally, he told the judge to vote on the definition of political conditionality, which he failed to extend in his 1AR.
SH -- I ran a stock AC with a definition of humanitarian aid as impartiality. She read another definition, which had another part, which she cut off, that talked about impartiality. Then, when I noted that impartiality independently takes out her entire case, she came back in the 2NR and read a new refutation to impartiality. Not AS unethical, but still pretty darn bad. I'll give her a pass because I extended an argument in the 2AR as a voting issue that kinda, but not really, was extended in the 1AR.
Note that ALL THESE PEOPLE went 4-1 or 5-0 at state quals, so they were all really good at debate in general. They could have been ethical. But they decided to break the rules of debate in front of people that did not know such rules.
Lay debate is a joke.
SS -- She's a repeat offender. I read the social contract on state quals as neg, she completely misunderstood the philosophy (this wasn't even philosophy; it's basic 8th grade social studies crap). When I pointed this out, she ran the new arg in the 2AR that we must look BEYOND the social contract and achieve net benefits. She also read new args against AS in the 2AR, though I forgot which ones they were.
AH -- He autoqualled to states with 5-0, so I thought he'd be pretty ethical at nat quals. Not so. He read a stock AC, I ran a pretty troll ex post conditionality NC. He said my arguments were nonunique, which he later repeated despite my refutations. In the 2AR, he told the judge to vote on a study that didn't even mention the world "conditionality" (I pointed this out in both my speeches, of course). He also told the judge to vote on the fact that the money in the neg world is only going to countries with already good policies like the US and Canada -- a totally new argument with a very simple response (Collier evidence completely contradicts this). Finally, he told the judge to vote on the definition of political conditionality, which he failed to extend in his 1AR.
SH -- I ran a stock AC with a definition of humanitarian aid as impartiality. She read another definition, which had another part, which she cut off, that talked about impartiality. Then, when I noted that impartiality independently takes out her entire case, she came back in the 2NR and read a new refutation to impartiality. Not AS unethical, but still pretty darn bad. I'll give her a pass because I extended an argument in the 2AR as a voting issue that kinda, but not really, was extended in the 1AR.
Note that ALL THESE PEOPLE went 4-1 or 5-0 at state quals, so they were all really good at debate in general. They could have been ethical. But they decided to break the rules of debate in front of people that did not know such rules.
Lay debate is a joke.
On lying about evidence.
I've literally had two people blatantly and clearly lie about evidence at state/nat quals:
RR -- Lied about her evidence saying that Syria and Ukraine were examples of successful political conditionality. The evidence literally did not say anything of the sort. When I pointed out that she had no examples of successful conditionality, she lied in her 1AR about those two countries and had the judges vote on that.
SH -- Lied about the Paldam evidence. She claimed that the Paldam evidence said that, out of 27 studies, conditionality worked. If you look at the physical evidence (which I literally read in my case) it clearly states that in those studies it failed. She literally read the setup and I read the conclusions.
I'll give them passes on these because I didn't call them out sufficiently.
RR -- Lied about her evidence saying that Syria and Ukraine were examples of successful political conditionality. The evidence literally did not say anything of the sort. When I pointed out that she had no examples of successful conditionality, she lied in her 1AR about those two countries and had the judges vote on that.
SH -- Lied about the Paldam evidence. She claimed that the Paldam evidence said that, out of 27 studies, conditionality worked. If you look at the physical evidence (which I literally read in my case) it clearly states that in those studies it failed. She literally read the setup and I read the conclusions.
I'll give them passes on these because I didn't call them out sufficiently.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Alex Jones Disad
On Mar/Apr topic, an Alex Jones disad for IMF/World Bank reports would be so funny.
http://www.infowars.com/imf-pushes-plan-to-plunder-global-wealth/
http://www.infowars.com/this-world-bank-insider-will-blow-you-away-there-is-a-huge-global-conspiracy/
http://www.infowars.com/imf-pushes-plan-to-plunder-global-wealth/
http://www.infowars.com/this-world-bank-insider-will-blow-you-away-there-is-a-huge-global-conspiracy/
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)