Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dhanson

Manhattan

Recommended Posts

Varsity Quarters

 

Emporia (AFF) def. Washburn Rural (NEG)

Emporia (AFF) def. SHHS (NEG)

 

Garden City (AFF) vs Newton-Dickinson/Jefferies (NEG)

Hutch-Allsup/Curiel (NEG) def. Seaman-Lake/Morgan (NEG)

 

Emporia wins sweeps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim Ellis informs me that Emporia won finals.

 

Congrats to everyone that broke at the tournament. Manhattan always puts up a great tournament with a variety of judging.

 

I also heard that Andrew and Trevor ran into a little more bad luck in semis. I guess not everyone enjoys a good wipeout debate...Figures why we dropped our 3 extinction scenarios out of our case in 4th round...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim Ellis informs me that Emporia won finals.

 

Congrats to everyone that broke at the tournament. Manhattan always puts up a great tournament with a variety of judging.

 

I also heard that Andrew and Trevor ran into a little more bad luck in semis. I guess not everyone enjoys a good wipeout debate...Figures why we dropped our 3 extinction scenarios out of our case in 4th round...

 

Haha, yea we unfortunately did face a little unexpected bad luck but eh you win some and you lose some i guess. Unfortunately it was the latter of the two for us in semi's.

 

And don't worry man you werent the only one who dropped all their extinction impacts against us...in fact we didn't hit any teams that claimed extinction out of the 1AC :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larger question:

 

Team roles into a tourney with wipeout and you're afraid to link to it. Why didn't anybody claim wipeout as an advantage???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Larger question:

 

Team roles into a tourney with wipeout and you're afraid to link to it. Why didn't anybody claim wipeout as an advantage???

 

 

Too easy to counterplan out of, with an enormous intrinsic net benefit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats true. Although affs can always read ev on themselves to try and get the fastest timeframe on it. Like kill us now because plan kills us first. But it'd still probably be easier for the neg to win that there's a risk aff has some people live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking more in terms of counterplanning out of the reasons humanity is bad. Like, for instance, a counterplan to suspend nanotech research, antimatter weapons research, don't develop particle colliders, what have you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking more in terms of counterplanning out of the reasons humanity is bad. Like, for instance, a counterplan to suspend nanotech research, antimatter weapons research, don't develop particle colliders, what have you.

Ah that's true. You'd get into nasty fiat debates though. That's probably theoretically illegitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it be theoretically illegitimate?

 

We're not talking about "Counterplan: China won't invade Taiwan" here. In almost every case, your counterplan would represent the actual policy advocacy of the sources the aff was quoting.

 

It would be pretty spectacularly perverse to consider the counterplan out-of-bounds under those circumstances, particularly to protect wipeout as somehow being part of affirmative ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I'm guessing that in the case of nanotech for example (although it certainly applies to the rest) they're arguing that it is inevitable as long as humynity exists. That nanotechnology research is not necessarily a matter for just the USfg and that corporations and other nations can do it just as easily as the USfg can. In which case a counterplan to "not develop nanotech" is not only multiactor fiat, but international fiat, and individual and perhaps mindset fiat. It's one thing to say the USfg won't develop nanotech but entirely another to say that no scientist ever will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I'm guessing that in the case of nanotech for example (although it certainly applies to the rest) they're arguing that it is inevitable as long as humynity exists. That nanotechnology research is not necessarily a matter for just the USfg and that corporations and other nations can do it just as easily as the USfg can. In which case a counterplan to "not develop nanotech" is not only multiactor fiat, but international fiat, and individual and perhaps mindset fiat. It's one thing to say the USfg won't develop nanotech but entirely another to say that no scientist ever will.

 

Fair enough. I guess you could single-actor it and deal as best you could with the solvency deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... I will tell you this much.... That Wipeout Case was a nasty curveball. It took a good DA from the neg team to stop it. I think the aff was maybe two cards away from finishing the neg team off. This comes from the swing judge in that round. If that aff team that lost in semi's adds 2 cards.... it's gonna be hard to stop it. A lot of smart thinking will have to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough. I guess you could single-actor it and deal as best you could with the solvency deficit.

Yeah. Or you could read that ridiculous Greys and the Draconians arg. That's always hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah. Or you could read that ridiculous Greys and the Draconians arg. That's always hilarious.

 

QFA, coming from someone who's been in that debate.

 

I guess you could single-actor it and deal as best you could with the solvency deficit.

 

QFA, coming from someone who's been in that debate too :D

 

But in all actuality, I think Bonnet is right that the solvency deficit for such a CP is problematic, perhaps too problematic.

 

And curiocity: I'm interested how the DA interacted with the wipeout case. This isn't really the thread for this discussion though, but if you wanted to backchannel me, I'd be interested in talking with you about it. If not, this thread will work just as well, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh why not. I think everyone who wanted to know tournament results got them. An open discussion about some args that went down probably isn't too off topic and is slightly justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If last years WaRu thread can get sidelined by Greg Allen's "suprafiat", then there's certainly no reason to derail this one about a wipeout affirmative. :)

 

Maybe wipeout flows just get KS teams excited, I dunno. I suppose aliens is a fetish to everybody...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe wipeout flows just get KS teams excited, I dunno. I suppose aliens is a fetish to everybody...

 

meh... I'm really just curious how the DA interacted with an argument that is traditionally thought of as an impact turn. It sounds like it was an interesting debate.

 

No comment on the fetish part...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for trevor but on my behalf i think its time that i admit to the debate community that i have an alien fetish. Im sorry if i disappointed anyone. My utility extends to all sentient creatures.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking more in terms of counterplanning out of the reasons humanity is bad. Like, for instance, a counterplan to suspend nanotech research, antimatter weapons research, don't develop particle colliders, what have you.

 

It's a great idea, but it would probably force multiple counterplans because the 2AC would read add-ons on the counterplan and then the 2NC would counterplan out of those again and the 1AR would group it and read a different add-on and then the 2NR would counterplan then maybe the 2AR would read a new add-on.

 

Don't tell me you people couldn't see it happening. And if you wrote a counterplan text wrongly, wow would you be out of luck.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...