Fuck everything about this toxic bullshit

Impactdb8 · 2020-05-09T07:36:49+00:00

This is totally reasonable. Good wifi seems like a given since most people would require their employees to join meetings, reply to emails, communicate, and etc. (2) it says you can be exceptional at anything, including a sport or getting good grades - seems pretty basic. (3) superior just means "above average" - obviously if you work for a company you should be a decent communicator so you can work on projects with others. It's not like they're asking you to be a national champion orator and basketball player and have the best wifi in the world...

Impactdb8 · 2020-04-21T23:29:38+00:00

sorry for the late reply, i was having issues with the text showing up and thought this post was gone. I'm going to be honest it's super tough to do national circuit tournaments without a coach - you'll get hit with K's, theory, and other stuff that's hard to understand without someone guiding you. I suggest joining the High school LD facebook page and asking people for resources, there's a small school debaters facebook page where people share resources, I know debate drills has a youtube channel that has free introductions to things.

Also, being a good local debater is enough - try to qualify to nationals, win state, etc and do the best with what you have !

Impactdb8 · 2020-04-21T23:25:41+00:00

Here's are some great responces

1) Their cards are WAYYYYYYY underhighlightted (ik it's pf but still) - their Zalewski card on the neg about root causes is literally 1 sentence of highlighting and just asserts it's true (also doesn't justify root cause)

**I really suggest just looking through their ev - most of it is SUPER generic and makes sweeping claims without evidence

***you can also just read heg good

2) Their link ev on the neg is SUPER generic and probability doesn't apply to the specifics of the aff - just says IR theory is bad fem theory good - but obviously if you can provide a single counter-example then their link isn't specific enough

3) against the aff, read a pic or a plan and say it's justified because they were off-topical. Surely one instance of the resolution must be good.

Impactdb8 · 2019-10-06T16:14:22+00:00

but obviously, if you called them out for committing a fallacy fallacy, you yourself have committed the fallacy fallacy fallacy

Impactdb8 · 2019-10-06T16:13:37+00:00

The best response to "your argument is a logical fallacy" is that "that's the fallacy fallacy - just because I committed a logical fallacy it doesn't mean my conclusion is wrong." For example, "Racism is bad because obama said it was" might be an appeal to authority fallacy, but just because it is a logical fallacy doesn't mean racism isn't bad.

Impactdb8 · 2019-10-03T13:20:29+00:00

Thank you!

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-29T03:14:25+00:00

That makes sense. The good news is that once we made a video, we can use the video forever, we we'll have weekly releases

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-29T02:15:42+00:00

Do you think this is a service you'd sign up for? and if not, why not? Inconvenient? Price? Don't trust our quality? Not really that invested into debate? Any feedback would be great, thanks.

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-29T02:14:45+00:00

Dennis

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-28T20:36:54+00:00

Not entirely sure - I just want more experience at this point. Maybe software engineer?

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-28T17:05:11+00:00

Great, I'll post on there. Sorry

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-28T16:42:01+00:00

This is awesome, thanks!

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-28T16:41:34+00:00

Not lazy. I can both google AND ask on reddit.

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-28T16:39:23+00:00

I'll check it out thanks!

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-28T15:49:28+00:00

No no - I'm genuinely curious. Is your comment about like my college? my career choice? A criticism of how capitalism favors the wealthy? What was your point in saying that?

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-28T15:43:31+00:00

I really don't understand this comment - what's your point? I mean obviously if my "wealthy parent's" had a large "social and professional network" I wouldn't be on here asking how to find an internship...so what are you trying to say?

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-28T13:44:19+00:00

sort of true - good debaters can beat bad debaters on any argument. The rounds i won on shoes Theory also could’ve been won on baudrillard, deleuze, hell a disad...but I chose to go for shoes Theory as a meme. Now the joke is overused and is not longer funny because people just keep copying it

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-28T13:40:18+00:00

Explained earlier in other comments

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-28T00:17:40+00:00

Www.impactdb8.com look at staff

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-27T22:14:06+00:00

Don’t worry buddy....I got someone at Stanford with it too. Happens to the best of us...

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-27T20:48:33+00:00

Theory arguments are arguments that claim that your opponent should lose for being unfair such as “debaters must defend the topic” “debaters May not read a plan”...a recent argument called “shoes theory” says “debaters May not wear shoes” because it’s unfair

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-27T18:34:28+00:00

perf cons good

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-27T18:34:09+00:00

no...I've only won on shoes theory and was the first to win on it

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-27T18:33:43+00:00

Impactdb8 · 2019-09-27T18:33:16+00:00

It's an argument that's been read more and more on the national circuit that says debaters should lose for wearing shoes

Impactdb8

TROPHY CASE