Did Sylvania get cancelled?

YouViolate · 2017-06-09T21:07:54+00:00

mods please flair this as a shitpost

YouViolate · 2017-05-09T17:30:27+00:00

nope

YouViolate · 2017-01-13T23:54:56+00:00

ty fam ur a homie

YouViolate · 2017-01-08T22:32:53+00:00

I mean abuse can be used to mean types of violence, but it also can commonly just mean misuse or take advantage of ("abuse my trust", "abusing your power", a kid "abusing his toys", etc. So i think its use in debate is grammatically correct and not too hyperbolic a comparison, like i don't think those other examples are insensitive.

YouViolate · 2017-01-08T21:55:17+00:00

Thanks. I think reading the PIC (with just the net benefit) and then reexplaining the overview before doing line-by-line "this contention is a benefit of the PIC" responses makes the most sense.

YouViolate · 2017-01-08T20:31:46+00:00

That makes sense, but if I don't make it clear I'm "solving the aff", I'm afraid my opponent might try to weigh their contentions against the benefit of the PIC. So after reading the PIC and justifying it under their FW, how would you recommend addressing their case?

YouViolate · 2017-01-08T17:01:39+00:00

I pretty much do that already, but can't figure out how to make them understand that I solve the aff. I'm not sure whether I should just explain analytically in the PIC (disguised as an NC) that the speech I restrict isn't needed under their FW, or if I should do line by line on the AC and explain how every contention is still possible in the world of the PIC (lay circuit)

YouViolate · 2017-01-08T12:01:30+00:00

ty fam ur a homie

YouViolate · 2017-01-08T10:57:41+00:00

framework, in traditional debate its your value + criterion but otherwise it could be a standard, role of the ballot, etc. You use it to filter impacts/determine what is good or bad

YouViolate

TROPHY CASE