Jump to content
azstud

Truth

Recommended Posts

-Textual competition rocks.

-Plan flaw arguments are bad and have absolutely no basis for them. Unfortunately, most teams don't know how to argue against them correctly.

-Hypotesting should be refurbished (i wish it could be run for this topic although the freaken framers changed the rez, so its not a hypothesis anymore :(. )

-Spec arguments suck and deserve to be spit on.

-I love case specific disads.

-Kritiks rock on this topic...This topic rocks period and my condolences to all those who have to debate on next years topic (it was cool before the revision).

-Inherency is underrated and has less credit than it deserves.

-Narratives are cool, and not n00b like most people think.

-Not having a plan is stupid and is like saying "hi everybody i'm a moving target."

-If you're the only one timing don't be a dick and accidently stop the timer during your speech or prep time and be like "let's just say I have four minutes left"

-Consult CPs are about the stupidest thing ever to happen to policy debate. In addition to being flat-out not competitive, they are extremely abusive and ALWAYS conditional.

-Genetics plays very little of a role on the strength of a debater.

-Arguing with the judge when you know you have an illegit decision is stupid, what the hell are you trying to prove? Asking questions with legit judges is smart, because it shows you where you could have improved and possibly picked up the ballot.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Textual competition rocks.

-Plan flaw arguments are bad and have absolutely no basis for them. Unfortunately, most teams don't know how to argue against them correctly.

 

it's funny how your one of thoes teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's funny how your one of thoes teams

 

seriously - are you kidding me? We don't defend our plan so we obviously don't care about plan flaws. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

p.s. maerowitz is wrong - plan flaws are basically the coolest thing since sliced bread (without the crust)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seriously - are you kidding me? We don't defend our plan so we obviously don't care about plan flaws. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

p.s. maerowitz is wrong - plan flaws are basically the coolest thing since sliced bread (without the crust)

Sliced bread without the crust is cool? Well...I guess if you think plan flaws are cool, you have a pretty low threshold for coolness, so I can't be too surprised :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seriously - are you kidding me? We don't defend our plan so we obviously don't care about plan flaws. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

p.s. maerowitz is wrong - plan flaws are basically the coolest thing since sliced bread (without the crust)

 

 

eeeer you werent even in that round divvneet, it was last time we debate merowitz when he ran that gitmo aff with like 4 flaws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eeeer you werent even in that round divvneet, it was last time we debate merowitz when he ran that gitmo aff with like 4 flaws

Dude, that's because I didn't care about the Mountain View tournament, I wanted CJ to get practice with his affirmative. In fact, you saw his plan text before I even did.

 

But still there is no justification for plan flaws, like if you are really concerned about plan flaws, then why don't you point them out when the aff team hands you there plan text so the aff team can correct it???

 

Next Year You All Better Watch Out, You Will Hate Having Me Judge You...

Paradigm:

-Plan Flaw = No Vote (unless the plan is completely unreasonable and there is no way you can decipher what the plan is trying to do).

-Spec Arguments = No Voter

-Time Cube = I Sign Ballot Aff Right After the 1NC

-Kritiks = No, unless it's the F word

-Politics = Sweetness

-Case Specific DAs = Sweetness

-Theory = Trigger Vote

-Inherency = Neg Biased

-Perms = Aff Biased

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, that's because I didn't care about the Mountain View tournament, I wanted CJ to get practice with his affirmative. In fact, you saw his plan text before I even did.

 

But still there is no justification for plan flaws, like if you are really concerned about plan flaws, then why don't you point them out when the aff team hands you there plan text so the aff team can correct it???

 

Next Year You All Better Watch Out, You Will Hate Having Me Judge You...

Paradigm:

-Plan Flaw = No Vote (unless the plan is completely unreasonable and there is no way you can decipher what the plan is trying to do).

-Spec Arguments = No Voter

-Time Cube = I Sign Ballot Aff Right After the 1NC

-Kritiks = No, unless it's the F word

-Politics = Sweetness

-Case Specific DAs = Sweetness

-Theory = Trigger Vote

-Inherency = Neg Biased

-Perms = Aff Biased

what if the aff perms inherency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Inherency is underrated and has less credit than it deserves.

 

someone learned that the hard way :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
someone learned that the hard way :P

That's true, but sheesh that decision was harsh, yes while inherency is overrated I got the sense that the judges didn't quite understand the warrants in that card because it assumes your NAGPRA law argument on-face. The middle judge gave the words of reason on that.

 

Besides any risk that the aff is inherent means the affirmative wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's true, but sheesh that decision was harsh, yes while inherency is overrated I got the sense that the judges didn't quite understand the warrants in that card because it assumes your NAGPRA law argument on-face. The middle judge gave the words of reason on that.

 

Besides any risk that the aff is inherent means the affirmative wins.

 

yeah, it was harsh, and i think they just bought our risk of a win turns discourse. and yes the decision was a bit shady. but it just proves that u CAN lose on it.

 

and who cares if it was a bad decision anyways, u guys won when it mattered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, that's because I didn't care about the Mountain View tournament, I wanted CJ to get practice with his affirmative. In fact, you saw his plan text before I even did.

 

But still there is no justification for plan flaws, like if you are really concerned about plan flaws, then why don't you point them out when the aff team hands you there plan text so the aff team can correct it???

 

Next Year You All Better Watch Out, You Will Hate Having Me Judge You...

Paradigm:

-Plan Flaw = No Vote (unless the plan is completely unreasonable and there is no way you can decipher what the plan is trying to do).

-Spec Arguments = No Voter

-Time Cube = I Sign Ballot Aff Right After the 1NC

-Kritiks = No, unless it's the F word

-Politics = Sweetness

-Case Specific DAs = Sweetness

-Theory = Trigger Vote

-Inherency = Neg Biased

-Perms = Aff Biased

You are a horrible judge, your paradigm is functionally "I intervene against arguments I don't like."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are a horrible judge, your paradigm is functionally "I intervene against arguments I don't like."

 

i didnt know utah was oblivious to sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are a horrible judge, your paradigm is functionally "I intervene against arguments I don't like."

Are you kidding me Elliot?

Ok 1) I was just kidding

2) Judge intervention is inevitable, whether you like it or not you will have to face the fact that EVERY single judge intervenes to some degree on arguments he or she doesn't like. Look I'd vote on stupid things like Consult NATO, that doesn't mean I like it, while at the same time if the aff makes what I THINK are the right arguments and argues them the right way I will probably vote aff (regardless if they are REALLY the right arguments). At the end of the round the judge is INTERVENING through choosing a reason for decision. Oh ya and JR Maycock is the coolest ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, it was harsh, and i think they just bought our risk of a win turns discourse. and yes the decision was a bit shady. but it just proves that u CAN lose on it.

 

and who cares if it was a bad decision anyways, u guys won when it mattered.

Neufer, I'm sorry if it came across that way, but I'm not saying that the round was illegit, there is obviously some stuff that I could have explained better to the judges. And I meant to say that inherency is underrated in my previous post, cause ya inherency can be pretty sweet at times although if that is ALL you go for it shouldn't be a reason to win the entire debate, but you're right we have proved that you CAN lose ot it.

 

Random, but not random (you don't have to read this rambling part)

One last thing. I believe everything on a K flow must be solved by the alternative and I will in no way evaluate arguments on flows which have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the flow, in other words I don't reward sloppy debates.

 

In otherwords:

A. Protectionism is high now.

B. Boosting civil liberties derails protectionism.

C. Bush will backlash the plan.

D. Weakend protectionism causes terrorism.

E. Terrorism will go nuclear.

 

I will not grant the C argument whether it is answered or not, because I'm not going to do work for the negative team for making me puzzled over my DA flow or try to convince themselves that their only way they can win is by hoping the other team only answers the DA part on the DA flow. The only way I would ever grant this is if the neg said something like explicitly said: "Cross-apply that Bush will backlash against the plan that was stuck in the DA flow meaning the plan won't get rolled back even in the event of an affirmative ballot, plan doesn't happen so neg wins on presumption." Because if you want me to treat this as a solvency take out, then you better freaken lable it as such. Cause how the hell am I supposed to know Bush will backlash the plan (which is on the DA) is supposed to take out the entire of solvency. Cause I'm going to treat that as part of the DA, so unless you can make it somehow fit with the Disad, it doesn't work.

 

The only reason I mention this is because Helepota tried to win rounds (and in some cases successful) off stupid "hidden solvency take-outs" stuck in between T violations and Kritiks which had nothing to do with either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reason I mention this is because Helepota tried to win rounds (and in some cases successful) off stupid "hidden solvency take-outs" stuck in between T violations and Kritiks which had nothing to do with either.

 

Its too true. He tells me how he wants to insert perms in the middle of cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elliot, when i judge here is my paradigm.

 

-Plan Flaw = i love it if it is actually there.

-Spec Arguments = excellent

-Time Cube/bacon/on case kritiks = I Sign Ballot Aff Right After the 1NC

-Kritiks = Gotta have uniqueness

-Politics = Sweetness

-Case Specific DAs = Sweetness

-Case specific PICs = excellent

-Theory = Trigger Vote

-Inherency = Neg Biased

-Perms = Aff Biased

-Utopian alternatives = no go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elliot, when i judge here is my paradigm.

 

-Plan Flaw = i love it if it is actually there.

-Spec Arguments = excellent

-Time Cube/bacon/on case kritiks = I Sign Ballot Aff Right After the 1NC

-Kritiks = Gotta have uniqueness

-Politics = Sweetness

-Case Specific DAs = Sweetness

-Case specific PICs = excellent

-Theory = Trigger Vote

-Inherency = Neg Biased

-Perms = Aff Biased

-Utopian alternatives = no go

Luckily you can't judge me Nick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i hate that, they did it to us too, they did it on an agamben k, some wierd signing statement card that the tag said nothing about, it just said bush uses soverginty to take out the plan or something

 

Actually Charlie we beat you on the authors kritik when you severed out of your plan text and went for the acronyms k (that was a fun round). jared and debeus might have done that but not michael and i. we havnt face you since i believe mesa.

 

Jared, you and debeus are the one who just kick the k and just go for the solvency takeout. :) you have only gone for the k one round this entire year and that was at redlands. michael and i go for the k in the 2nc and many times in the 2nr and usually dont even end up going for the solvency take out.

 

Maerowitz, i think you argument is functionally debunked. i dont think your actually realizing that the card works very well with the k. our k argues that the liberal state can make no sense of its own confusion and usually screws stuff up. the signing statements card is just another warrant for this claim. And as i remember i didnt go for the k in our round. i went for the cp. and come on no one hides solvency take outs in T! (actually GBN did this to michael and i round 6 at USC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...