Added: 2 years ago
From: ArgumentiveSilence
Views: 1,157
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (13)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • u are good broken harts

  • Comment removed

  • This is policy debate. Kerpen gets money from a file advertised as "having a card that makes Mead obsolete". Kerpen wrote said card and profits from every file sold as such. Regardless of whether or not this means it's biased, to say that Katryna is wrong for, I don't know, asking cross-x questions that indict a source is absolutely ridiculous.

  • Comment removed

  • The, uhm, the card wasn't written for the TF. It was National Review Online.

    I just don't think that an author indict gets you anything particularly useful. If that cite said Mead 09 instead of Kerpen 09, would there have been an indict?

    Also, Kerpen's name being attached to the impact card doesn't change the amount of money he makes from selling files.

  • If he;s the only one writing the nuclear war impact he needs for the file to work, then yeah, it would have an impact on his file's success.

  • he doesn't even write files anymore. the impact card was not written to be published in any thursday file.

  • HippoLaBamba:

    Anyone who knows Katryna knows that she is smart and I am pretty sure she isn't undermining Kerpen's education or qualifications to say what he does.....It's debate....and it's debate cross examination....you find something to undermine their impact then you do it.

  • I'm sure that if she spent that much time asking about the evidence, it played into the strategy in some way. Calling into question the legitimacy of a nuclear war impact to a politics disad seems strategic to me. Plus she's right.

  • These are the kinds of questions being asked in outrounds at NFL?

    Author indicts? Of Kerpen? Really?

  • She's one of the best debaters in the country

    12 TOC bids say shen knows what she's doing

  • I don't doubt that. I have nothing but respect for Bishop Guertin's success or accomplishments. It's specifically a question of the tournament itself. More than that, good debaters make bad arguments. Saying that you can't trust Kerpen because he makes money is a bad argument. Answering the warrants internal to the card is a good argument.

    Not that it mattered. Guertin picked up two ballots that round, and I assume it was because they had OFFENSE. Not because Kerpen's a capitalist.

  • well they do run the Cap K a lot

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more