JoshGordons_burner


























  1. Literally every single night in the NBA someone who missed shots for 3 quarters makes a bunch in the 4th.

  2. When he drained those, I then knew the Knicks were going to win.

  3. The suns wolves game has to end first

  4. conservatives care what the rich think, so if that 74% includes a majority of his owners then he will, but it probably doesn't, so it won't

  5. I haven't been to Mexico City but I'm genuinely curious what puts it leagues ahead of Chicago.

  6. Those arguments are just impact calculus. In the past few years, people have taken to calling it a "framework" or "the role of the ballot," but that almost always means impact calculus. (Sometimes a "role of the ballot" argument is actually about the role of the ballot, but I think I've heard only 1 argument about the role of the ballot all year, despite hearing "the role of the ballot is" in 1/2 of rounds.)

  7. I don’t think this is true at all. Framework is a question of how the judge should procedurally evaluate the content of a debate round. Impact calculus is instruction of how to evaluate the impacts in a round.

  8. The only time the pullout method doesn’t work is when you don’t pullout. (I’ve successfully used it for a couple of decades at least)

  9. Death Cult is a traditionally negative argument, though teams have certainly read Baudrillard affs.

  10. Do they not want to fight because they are against the settlements and war or is it because they're scared?

  11. They believe that Torah study is equally (if not more) as important for Israel as military service.

  12. You got no bids because you haven’t won your bid rounds, but they have. If they’re bad, what does that say about you?

  13. actually he wasn’t, he was appointed as a replacement after Agnew resigned in the wake of Watergate, he’s the only person to hold the office of the president for any significant amount of time without ever being elected

  14. Evicted? You just said they have half the house? What is a fair solution in your opinion

  15. That a single man from Long Island not take over half of a family’s home?

  16. But he’s only there at the behest of the owner of that half of the property?

  17. The owner of that half of the property was awarded it in Israeli court by an order that evicted the family from half of the property, as I’ve detailed.

  18. When I vote neg on presumption, I generally mean that the aff has failed to carry their initial burden of persuasion by making out a prima facie case for the affirmation of the resolution. Often this happens because the negative points out as an analytic a missing link in the aff's solvency or advantage story and the aff mishandles the response. I think we don't see this in modern policy debate all that often because of a generally held reluctance to vote on terminal defense of any kind in the face of try or die stories.

  19. Which is dumb. Dropped defense is zero risk — it’s a logical corollary of dropped offense is 100% risk.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin