Jump to content
aburo

Double-Bind Strat

Recommended Posts

What's the most abusive double-bind start you've ever heard? What's the best double-bind strat you've ever used?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T - USFG is all three branches

ASPEC

Multi-actor fiat bad

Agent CP

 

your USfg interpretation and their w/m means they dont link to multi-actor fiat - the USfg is implied to act as one entity. Otherwise there's no brightline to the link and "you fiat 535 Congresspeople."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your USfg interpretation and their w/m means they dont link to multi-actor fiat - the USfg is implied to act as one entity. Otherwise there's no brightline to the link and "you fiat 535 Congresspeople."

 

That's the point they're trying to prove though: the three branches of Congress are three sperate agents. Essentially, one Congressman has no real power in the government without the other 534. So a Congressman can't really pass a law by himself. Congress can pass a law (and we don't even have to fiat the president, because even if he vetos, Congress can override) so that's the distinction. It sort of contridicts the first argument (USFG acts as all 3 branches) but that's just a topicality interp saying that the aff must use all three branches. For this theory to work, there's the ASPEC and the Agent CP. I sort of agree with you, but I think that the link is pretty legitimate because the ASPEC proves it and even if that point is made, the multiple actors bad is not really what they're going for. I think this strategy is badass because it's kind of difficult to get out of for the aff.

 

And it could be 536 (you forgot the vice president who could break the tie). lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually laws can pass with only 26 Senate votes and 110 members of the House voting for it.

 

A quorum is a majority of each house, so if 51 Senators & 218 members of the House were present, its legal. And you just need a majority of that group.

 

Plus the President of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aspec and Ospec simultaneously

 

This is bad because the aff should just concede the violation on whichever one is weaker (ospec) and cross-apply your aspec arguments as a counter-interp with counter-standards. They have the better time trade-off and they have the better offense of the two.

 

It can be switched too (concede that they don't specify their agent and use your ospec 1nc as c/i + reasons to prefer)--it's just a matter of which one they feel stronger on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one that sometimes works against gag rule is

1. T-gov to gov

2. Corruption disad

 

If they win they are gov to gov, links to corruption

If they spike the link to corruption because they arent gov to gov, u can prove the abuse on the T debate

 

EDIT: unless of course they turn the corruption lol

 

gag rule aff spikes out of corruption link, zomg!

 

t - usfg

statism disad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i actually like the ssa pic and t=all of ssa, they say we meet, neg says u link

 

semi-funny

 

It's not really semi-funny - I think it's very strategic. The point of such an argument would be that the aff should be representative of the language of the resolution as well as their plan that is representative of it. If the aff can sever out of certain words in the rez (like SSA), they can justify severing out of other words (like USfg, public health assistance, or worse yet: Resolved.)

 

That is just smart strategery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not really semi-funny - I think it's very strategic. The point of such an argument would be that the aff should be representative of the language of the resolution as well as their plan that is representative of it. If the aff can sever out of certain words in the rez (like SSA), they can justify severing out of other words (like USfg, public health assistance, or worse yet: Resolved.)

 

That is just smart strategery.

 

I remember you used to feel differently:

 

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1456249#post1456249

 

Although I disagreed with you in that thread on other issues later on, I think you were right when you said

 

My only issue with the K is that it assumes that the affirmative has to defend the whole rez. If 'Sub-Saharan' isn't in my plantext, and my advantages occur within that area, how am I untopical? I don't use that discourse - my evidence will talk about the DRC and Sudan, not "Sub-Saharan Africa."

 

While I think the K is legitimate, an aff that doesn't say SSA in plan text and at no point reads evidence descriptive of SSA (because it's a discourse K the link doesn't necessarily have to show up in plan text) should be able to no link the K. The K says the term is bad, not that the area shouldn't be talked about ever.

 

And if the aff severs out of USfg they're probably conceding they're not topical. This is different when SSA is descriptive of a geographic area which the aff can direct to without regarding it as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one that sometimes works against gag rule is

1. T-gov to gov

2. Corruption disad

 

If they win they are gov to gov, links to corruption

If they spike the link to corruption because they arent gov to gov, u can prove the abuse on the T debate

 

EDIT: unless of course they turn the corruption lol

 

i like that

 

i think this and the T SSA + the SSA PIC are the most viable

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...