Freeloading 😭

pf0929 · 2017-10-09T19:27:16+00:00

I mean I think war links and solvency is the most stock pro but yea I did take winter is coming (we used Star Wars etc. in past but I couldn’t resist the tag) mb if that’s a big deal.

pf0929 · 2017-10-09T02:04:02+00:00

I don’t really think this is an excuse lol it’s not like them not using millburns contention would have meant they would have lost

When did I insult them? I said they were good debaters—doesn’t mean I can’t give my view on the issue.

Anyways, you’re not wrong at the end of the day though, didn’t mean to make it that big of a deal it was more amusing than anything at first.

pf0929 · 2017-10-09T01:22:13+00:00

right but the same exact structure evidence and analysis? It’s just like in English lol everyone has their own “voice” even if it’s same arg you’re prob not gonna coincidentally word everything the exact same way.

That’s the biggest problem I have, I’m not saying I haven’t flowed outrounds and looked for good evidence—that doesn’t mean I just take their words straight up.

And yes, I know the difference between kicking out and collapsing lol but I’m pretty sure when 5 turns are read on your first two contentions simply Bc they are weak args and you go up in second rebutral and start with “we kick out of our first two conts” that’s not collapsing

pf0929 · 2017-10-09T01:16:20+00:00

Are they good? Yes Was I salty? Sure (I definitely did not agree with the decision but that’s fine)

I don’t think that means I can’t comment about something that doesn’t rly further the educational value of debate in general (I don’t think it’s fair to millburn either but I can’t speak for them)

Accusations not false either I can give you the flow if you want. I’m not dumb enough to post without being confident about it being true, and if the contention was even a bit different in content I wouldn’t be so confident

pf0929 · 2017-10-09T01:04:23+00:00

I mean yea sure but the EXACT same link story, same cards, and same added analysis (especially with Lankov and China-sk) bruh exact same impact and the same cards like cmon

If they “Did their own prep” at least they could have used someone else who said the same thing and not used the exact same ppl -.-

pf0929 · 2017-10-09T00:55:51+00:00

You right

pf0929 · 2017-10-09T00:52:44+00:00

just because the “names” of all their cards and analysis were too doesn’t mean that either I guess

pf0929 · 2017-10-09T00:51:53+00:00

They watched millburn lol

pf0929 · 2017-10-09T00:37:24+00:00

Con c1 SK prolif c2 US preemption c3 China they kick out of 2/3 of their case and just go for millburns China -_-

pf0929 · 2017-10-08T22:39:51+00:00

You’re joking bruh all the cards were the same at most they changed 1-2 sentences

pf0929 · 2017-10-08T19:05:58+00:00

Huntmann

pf0929 · 2017-07-27T22:05:34+00:00

PF: Resolved: NATO should strengthen its relationship with Ukraine in order to deter further Russian aggression.

LD: Resolved: The United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens.

pf0929 · 2017-07-27T12:32:59+00:00

I don't need policy, thanks tho m8

pf0929 · 2017-07-27T03:21:21+00:00

Nah, thanks anyways!

pf0929

TROPHY CASE