Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Eric_W.

Topicality Files

Recommended Posts

Do you know which one of the camps put out the best and most useful topicality file for an affirmative? (Space Force)

 

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh what?

 

if you are looking for T answers for a space force aff

 

1. this is not topical and we will be cool and cut the topical version of this case (which totally owns)

 

2. T isn't a voter

 

 

seriosly this case is just not T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea it really isnt, most of the args are usually reasonability, clash checks, no abuse etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you kidding? Creating a new branch of the Armed Forces to go into SPACE!!! is totally predictable/reasonable/grounded in the topic lit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which probably don't apply to a case like space force.

 

 

you've got to be kidding. if there is one case that literatures DOES check, it is one that claims advantages off of militarizing/weaponizing space. There thousands and thousands of articles going both ways. www.spacedebate.org

There isn't nearly as much literature for PICS and plan specific mechanisms as there is for arguments as to why space mil is bad and something like a treaty CP. The literature here is deeper which provides for better ground that you still get.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you've got to be kidding. if there is one case that literatures DOES check, it is one that claims advantages off of militarizing/weaponizing space. There thousands and thousands of articles going both ways. www.spacedebate.org

There isn't nearly as much literature for PICS and plan specific mechanisms as there is for arguments as to why space mil is bad and something like a treaty CP. The literature here is deeper which provides for better ground that you still get.

 

qfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you've got to be kidding. if there is one case that literatures DOES check, it is one that claims advantages off of militarizing/weaponizing space. There thousands and thousands of articles going both ways. www.spacedebate.org

There isn't nearly as much literature for PICS and plan specific mechanisms as there is for arguments as to why space mil is bad and something like a treaty CP. The literature here is deeper which provides for better ground that you still get.

 

That doesn't change the fact that it isn't topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't change the fact that it isn't topical.

 

Ok, whether or not that matters is contingent upon you winning the T framework debate.

 

But i think in the event where your a2: lit checks and you have a strategy is "you're still not topical"!!!! it gives quite a bit of credence to the substance crowd-out argument against competing interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you've got to be kidding. if there is one case that literatures DOES check, it is one that claims advantages off of militarizing/weaponizing space. There thousands and thousands of articles going both ways. www.spacedebate.org

There isn't nearly as much literature for PICS and plan specific mechanisms as there is for arguments as to why space mil is bad and something like a treaty CP. The literature here is deeper which provides for better ground that you still get.

 

Literature arguments are never based on the advantages, because unless the aff is completely crazy, the advantages they claim are probably something you already have answers to, or should. Obviously the abuse doesn't stem from not being able to answer the advantages, but not being able to answer solvency. Even if you win 99% chance of the advantages not happening, it probably doesn't matter if you concede solvency.

 

Besides, there is a ton of literature on why feeding Africa is probably a good idea; but does that mean we should be able to see it coming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Literature arguments are never based on the advantages, because unless the aff is completely crazy, the advantages they claim are probably something you already have answers to, or should. Obviously the abuse doesn't stem from not being able to answer the advantages, but not being able to answer solvency. Even if you win 99% chance of the advantages not happening, it probably doesn't matter if you concede solvency.

 

that doesn't make much sense. no abuse is done if you are packing impact turns to the aff. i.e. Space mil bad which my previous point is to why this is common/core literature that is still preserved under the affs interpretation. i don't see why not being able to answer solvency is abusive at all when you can impact turn the aff? plus, there is much much more, deeper, and better literature as to why space mil is bad and why ratifying treaties to prohibit them may be a good idea than about acquisition personnel or some mechanism to increase persons serving.

 

 

Besides, there is a ton of literature on why feeding Africa is probably a good idea; but does that mean we should be able to see it coming?

 

that analogy doesn't apply. refer back to the Revolution's argument that the air force space commond falls under the armed forces thus it IS something you should've seen coming.

plus i don't see why neg predictability is that important. "substantially" is in the resolution in order to check the proliferation of tiny affs. also, negatives are always able to fall back on generic arguments to increasing persons or even more relevant, generic args like "space mil bad" or "hege bad". there is usually pre-round disclosure. etc. i think aff flexibility/manuverability within the topic outweighs neg predictability especially on this topic where there is such shallow literature and so few affs that preserving aff ground should come first in order to maintain competitive equity. under your interpretation, there would be no new innovative affs for the rest of the year... if it becomes impossible to win on the aff, then people would just skip their aff rounds, destroys debate yadayadayada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...