Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. AlistairTheKDebater

    soft lefts on the immigration topic

    yeah it's barely a soft left, closer to a full on K Blood Quantum, however is very solid
  3. kasn113

    soft lefts on the immigration topic

    Figures... I'm in Indiana, and judges will literally down vote any aff like that.
  4. AlistairTheKDebater

    soft lefts on the immigration topic

    Something about leperosy being both metaphorically and literally excluded from the Metropolis, it's somewhat based in pyschoanalyisis apparently
  5. AlistairTheKDebater

    How do I run a plan specification argument?

    pretty much, however the double bind isn't flawless, ask them something like "do you increase the cap by [whatever you define substantial as]" if they say anything other than yes, you can do the double bind
  6. kasn113

    soft lefts on the immigration topic

    What is the point of the Leprosy aff? I don't understand
  7. kasn113

    How do I run a plan specification argument?

    If I'm understanding correctly, I ask in cx about the specification. If I don't get the specification, then I can run T substantial and put them in a double bind. Is that correct?
  8. AlistairTheKDebater

    How do I run a plan specification argument?

    yo make sure you run T substantial with that you could then do a sort of double bind, either the neg gets to assume you don't meet the t interp, or the aff proves that by not specifying the cap, they just get to spike out of T ask them how much they increase cx, if they aren't sure, drag them
  9. kasn113

    How do I run a plan specification argument?

    I planned to run it against a T visa case. They say they are going to increase the cap, but they never "clarified" and told us a number
  10. OGRawrcat

    How do I run a plan specification argument?

    The 1nc is structured like a t violation: - interp - violation - standards - voters The interp should be "the aff should specify x" Usually the violation can be assumed but you can say it if you want to make if clear that you do not, in fact, think they specified. The standards are almost always going to be geared toward ground arguments, so something like neg ground loss, aff conditionality, etc. Always flag what arguments that they make problematic, what DAs you cant get, what CPs. Remember, you don't have to zero in on in round abuse, procedurals are establishing the best standard for what affs should do on this topic or generally, so justifying those arguments is bad enough. You can make other standards but a) you're less likely to win them (like limits is kind of more of an aff arg since specifying increases the number of aff cases), b) other standards args you make would really just be used to hedge against aff answers, so you can save time in your 1nc and just make those arguments in 2nc/1nr blocks. An exception to that is when you're reading a specification arg that is topic specific (like exact increase on visas), in which case you should make a topic education arg. This is really the only place you should need to use a card in a spec debate and evidence you read should be like "specification on x thing is important to the immigration discussion." For voters, fairness is the impact to ground. Topic education is a voter in and of itself. This is kind of rambling, I hammered it out on my phone.
  11. Last week
  12. AlistairTheKDebater

    soft lefts on the immigration topic

    Oh try Blood Quantum or Leperosy (there's a version with actual plan text) Blood Quantum is really solid if you get your framing in has a good answer to T substantial too Leperosy is just odd, the plan text version is like some preformative revolutionary fiat just be ready for that disease da, or afropess links
  13. AlistairTheKDebater

    Russell K

    "[Thought] is having the courage to not know what others do."
  14. wheresthepotatoes

    PREP SHARING DROPBOX (MUST CONTRIBUTE)

    wheresthepotatoes@outlook.com
  15. AnthonyUwU

    Can I Kick T in my 1NR or is that abuse

    Thanks, I asked this when I was a dumb novice now I am a Dumb Varsity and this info is still valuable also they do yes they do also best boi is between Rantaro and Kokichi
  16. Sparks29032

    Nurses AFF- whats the deal?

    Domestic CP is a pretty common one, but teams that run nurses generally have that blocked out. Telehealth CP is also good as long as you 1. argue that care is specialized (since they could argue that only nurses provide individualized care) and 2. leverage how it gives rural solvency (so you can use solvency defense on case as an NB)
  17. Sparks29032

    soft lefts on the immigration topic

    I say why not just run nonrev since there is a lot of T def against it (especially if you read a Tasoff 16 interp) If you do want to cut something, I say go through some court cases on grounds of inadmissibility (section 212 of the INA)
  18. Sparks29032

    Can I Kick T in my 1NR or is that abuse

    First, Rantaro is bae, but the real question is if robots have... nvm Anyway, for T, you never have to explicitly concede it. The only reason you have to concede an argument is if you think they could generate offense on that flow, like if they turned an impact or link. On T, people generally won't turn standards, and judges are probably not going to vote on T is a rvi. Also, though I'm rehashing a lot of people, the 2nc and 1nr essentially function as a single speech since there is no aff speech between them. Judges probably won't flow CX, so you have no worries for the 1nr if the 2nc did extend T. Also, for the block (2nc and 1nr), I recommend dividing it as 1. K and case for 2nc; T for 1nr or 2. DA, CP, and case for 2nc; another DA or case (if not in the 2nc) for 1nr There are better strats, but this is a generic one that works against most affs
  19. Sparks29032

    How do I run a plan specification argument?

    If you want to run ASPEC, use Elmore 80. Even if they contest that it's not a voter, you can still use it as a solvency takeout. Also, if you're going to make an arg on the number of immigrants let in just run T substantial (though I would recommend not to unless you think you can adequately argue a clear brightline) What aff(s) are you going to run it against?
  20. Sparks29032

    HELP: Translators/Moral Obligation Dilemma

    Then frame the debate around the people's lives at stake. If you're running a hard right DA, do impact calc as part of your OV On magnitude: show that your DA causes the greatest amount deaths (util framing) and turn their morality framing by saying translators die too On timeframe: translators die before they can even apply for visas On prob: if you have a GPW impact, find some empirics Also, do turns/solves case analysis You could also run CJR DA or something and access their framing, but it's probably about to die soon On T, if their implementation is anything except reducing quotas, run T restriction is not regulation with a Tasoff 16 interp. If you decide to go for it, flesh out extra T, which most SIV teams are.
  21. OurAltIsTerrorism

    How do I run a plan specification argument?

    Well, see, there's the problem.
  22. policyzuccedmysoul

    soft lefts on the immigration topic

    Alternatively, you could realize that soft left affs are viable and not impossible to beat. if they actually stopped a debate from occurring no one would use camp affs like HSI. Unfortunate to see someone from St. Marks make such a lackluster response.
  23. PrideOfLenin

    soft lefts on the immigration topic

    Alternately, you could run one of the more well-known soft-left affs and not try to prevent a debate from occurring.
  24. policyzuccedmysoul

    Nurses AFF- whats the deal?

    Obvi I dont know what the nurses aff you deal with says but the one on my circuit is super easy to beat with T tasoff
  25. policyzuccedmysoul

    soft lefts on the immigration topic

    Hey yall, I'm trying to cut better at cutting soft left affirmatives, I know about soft lefts like public charge and asylum seekers but the problem with those is that most competent debaters already know who runs those and what they are, I need help finding super obscure topics to write an aff such as west BN's consular non-reviewability So with that being said, Any tips for finding the aforementioned obscure topic literature?
  26. jamespotter

    Russell K

    AT-Paraconsistency: "either paraconsistency or not paraconsistency not paraconsistency Ergo, neither paraconsistency nor not paraconsistency" recurse that formula and repeat for each individual element of paraconsistent logic. I fail to see how explosion doesn't == paraconsistency. Edit: Added a link to "Affirm the Other" to Lacan. spivak.doc
  1. Load more activity
×