Jump to content
Eric_W.

Question about what something means? Ask here!

Recommended Posts

Does that argument really work though? Because of that as long as they actually do find an article that says tech is bad or something like that. Regardless of perf con, they can just argue that although it's based on Heidegger, they don't support everything Heidegger says, kind of like the way how one might answer the incredibly stupid Nazi argument.

 

Also, outside of Wilderson, is it really possible to legitamately win on perf con?

 Umm i didnt know that arguement actually only was a win on perf con . I honestly use this against teams that think idk anything with the Military doing a plan and a Security - Cold War Rhetoric K fundmantenally contradict. Their are many times where this happens. Like lets say I run a Postive Peace K and a DA like politics they fundmentally contradict . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, outside of Wilderson, is it really possible to legitamately win on perf con?

1) explain what you mean by outside of wilderson?

2) Yes you can win on perf con.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I WON ON A PERF CON ONCE AND IT WAS SWEEEEEEETTTTTT

A coach told me a story of a win on perf con, way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. *ahem*

 

But anyways, so the neg runs anthro right? Usual kochi and ordan shit. Problem was, a bee somehow came into the room and one of the debaters on the neg started flipping out. Right before they swatted the bee their partner realized what was about to happen and tried to stop them but...

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A coach told me a story of a win on perf con, way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. *ahem*

 

But anyways, so the neg runs anthro right? Usual kochi and ordan shit. Problem was, a bee somehow came into the room and one of the debaters on the neg started flipping out. Right before they swatted the bee their partner realized what was about to happen and tried to stop them but...

so basically what you're saying is that the neg instead of killing the bee should've just killed themselves. 

 

#globalsuicideofhumanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you properly extend an argument? Also, any tips on giving an overview?

Extend <<author>> -- <<what the argument is in a couple words>>

Then answer their argument using analytics and warrants from the original card, such as:

Extend Topychanov -- No Nuke terror -- they say even a small attack would escalate but that's not responsive to our card -- their card assumes terrorists will get nukes without warrants while our evidence points out that they cant get nukes -- enriching uranium requires advanced facilities and a supply that simply doesn't exist on the black market -- takes out the impact, no new answers

 

^^granted that is pretty long, that would be an example I would give of collapsing to the warrants in a single card during later rebuttals

 

Overviews for what kind of argument?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extend <<author>> -- <<what the argument is in a couple words>>

Then answer their argument using analytics and warrants from the original card, such as:

Extend Topychanov -- No Nuke terror -- they say even a small attack would escalate but that's not responsive to our card -- their card assumes terrorists will get nukes without warrants while our evidence points out that they cant get nukes -- enriching uranium requires advanced facilities and a supply that simply doesn't exist on the black market -- takes out the impact, no new answers

 

^^granted that is pretty long, that would be an example I would give of collapsing to the warrants in a single card during later rebuttals

 

Overviews for what kind of argument?

Don't put the author first. Judges flow by arguments not slurred impossible to spell names.

 

A better format is

Extend no nuke terror -- warrant -- comparative analysis -- that's Author

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for a DA or an Advantage

DA-- some judges like it differently, I like to just do impact work in the overview unless there's a difficult link/internal link story and then you would need a really concise sentence explaining that.

 

Start off with either "the DA outweighs and turns the case" or "the external impact outweighs" then go on to some brief impact calc -- then go to the lbl

 

for advantages I would save overviews until the 2ar and just reiterate parts of the story of the aff that are necessary to answer key arguments the neg is making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't put the author first. Judges flow by arguments not slurred impossible to spell names.

 

A better format is

Extend no nuke terror -- warrant -- comparative analysis -- that's Author

 

While I really want to agree, it depends on how awful the tags are.  I've seen a disturbing tendency towards complicated tags, which makes referencing arguments by card author a lot more convenient for everyone.

 

Even better would be if people would number their arguments, or otherwise label them.  It's so much easier to say 'on their number 1' than just about anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I really want to agree, it depends on how awful the tags are.  I've seen a disturbing tendency towards complicated tags, which makes referencing arguments by card author a lot more convenient for everyone.

 

Even better would be if people would number their arguments, or otherwise label them.  It's so much easier to say 'on their number 1' than just about anything else.

Extend 2ac #3 - no nuke terror - their ev presumes that terrorists already have nukes but our evidence indicates that it's impossible for them to actually get nukes - prefer our ev because we have analytical warrants while theirs is just guesswork - that's Heimerdinger

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extend 2ac #3 - no nuke terror - their ev presumes that terrorists already have nukes but our evidence indicates that it's impossible for them to actually get nukes - prefer our ev because we have analytical warrants while theirs is just guesswork - that's Heimerdinger

 

... but you don't say what the warrants are

I was taught to try to do as little tagline debating and as much warrant debating as possible.

 

The only thing i'm thinking is maybe this is shorter for, say, a 1ar but in the 2ar you'd list out the warrants and do comparative analysis on the lbl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extend 2ac #3 - no nuke terror - their ev presumes that terrorists already have nukes but our evidence indicates that it's impossible for them to actually get nukes - prefer our ev because we have analytical warrants while theirs is just guesswork - that's Heimerdinger

I thought Heimerdinger played Mid Lane; I had no idea he was also a debate card :0 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... but you don't say what the warrants are

I was taught to try to do as little tagline debating and as much warrant debating as possible.

 

The only thing i'm thinking is maybe this is shorter for, say, a 1ar but in the 2ar you'd list out the warrants and do comparative analysis on the lbl

I mean, yeah I would, but I made up a card. Not also gonna make up warrants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you become a good 2ar?

 

I'm okay but there's a ton of room for improvement, are there any tricks, secrets, or drills I can do?

Rebuttal redos. Sacrifice your social life to the Debate deity and memorize your affirmative by heart. No open tricks or secrets though. Record yourself whenever you're talking.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the difference b/w static and fluid identity?

 

Static identity can't change. Fluid identity can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Static identity can't change. Fluid identity can.

what do you mean by change? Like changing identities? Or is it changing that identity? Is static/fluid identity referring to that whole group of people that identify as that or does static(ness)/fluidity determined on the personal level? e.g. are all Black Feminists Fluid or Static?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you mean by change? Like changing identities? Or is it changing that identity? Is static/fluid identity referring to that whole group of people that identify as that or does static(ness)/fluidity determined on the personal level? e.g. are all Black Feminists Fluid or Static?

So I think that the best explanation for the fluidity of identity is Sartre's idea that existence precedes essence. That means that because we were not built with some telos by a higher being (god is dead) we have no fundamental purpose. We build a chair for us to sit in, so that is it's static identity. However, we merely exist without a fundamental purpose, so what we are is only contingent. I am a debater, but that is not all I am, and it is not all I can be.

 

As to the last part of your question, some people will give you different answers, but the most logical conclusion is that whatever your conclusion about the staticness/fluidity of identity is, it must be true of everyone

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When making blocks for the upcoming season, should I regard GBTL as a seperate block to Colonialism? Or are most of the cards equally applicable and I can just add specific alternative solvency deficits from GBTL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When making blocks for the upcoming season, should I regard GBTL as a seperate block to Colonialism? Or are most of the cards equally applicable and I can just add specific alternative solvency deficits from GBTL?

A lot of Colonialism cards should be applicable against a GBTL K, but I would make a separate block against GBTL that has specific evidence

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the Hypothesis Testing argument/paradigm? I've seen it referenced in a few threads, but I'm unclear on what the reasoning. A teammate suggested that it might mean that due to extenuating factors in a society it's impossible to know for sure whether the plan or counterplan would have better impact, so you perm. I'm not sure if that's the real meaning or just his speculation, though. 

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...