Jump to content

Recommended Posts

havent really hit any extremly crazy da's this year, besides a coercion DA westwood ran in quarters of unt, i always thought that arg was better suited as a k :confused: but oh well

 

last year on the other hand, bellaire read this crazy sao tome da and a cocoa beans prices disad

 

not to mention their nigerian oil disad impact was that nigerian pirates will hijack our oil transport ships and then proceed to burn the crews alive...talk about a fate worse than death huh? lol

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my personal experience...... I ran in to this Spark DA, which says nuclear war shoud happen right now instead of later. I'm like what the hell am I suppose to say, but I won it though.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice Age DA isn't really that strange. It's relatively "realistic" because Ice Ages have occurred in the past. One of the dumbest ones I've heard went something like this:

Plan causes Bush to pass legislation that makes US and Japan get buddy-buddy.

This makes China build up nukes.

This leads to nuke war.

 

We asked if they had evidence saying that Bush had any intention of passing legislation in his last two months in office. They said "no, but it is possible."

 

We read evidence saying Japan had treaties with China and the US preventing nuclear buildup, and they said, "but treaties can be broken. Look at Hitler."

 

What does wipeout DA say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuke war good

 

yeah basically thats the internal link, the reason why it is good is usually something to the effect of;

 

a) humans are bad becuz we will lead to the destruction of the universe at some time with our thirst for power and new tech like time machines and particle accelerator - so a utilitarian calcusus allows us to strive to save the most lives possible - by killing humans we save the rest of the universe

 

B) suffering inevitable so dying now better than dying later after prolonged suffering of systemic harms

 

c) some type of variation of the above

 

This is very distinct from Spark like mentioned before - spark argues nuclear war is survivable and necessary to, more or less, restart civilization and promote a better society. The best answer to this is nukes = extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone ever encountered a neg that has actually won with that DA because it sounds like one of the stupidest things a human could say.

 

what arg wipeout or spark?

 

ive picked up on wipeout before against a good team with a good judge, and i know ppl that have won on spark before

 

just becuz it sounds dumb isnt good enough - anything is up for questioning in a debate round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone ever encountered a neg that has actually won with that DA because it sounds like one of the stupidest things a human could say.

But yes, you're right; dont run it because its not a winning strategy at the TOC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

 

Our team would always K that argument "feminizing nature bad"

Inevitably their authors would talk about "mother earth"

The argument is pretty unturnable...you just have to win the critical framework.

 

I guess "ethic of care good for earth"--but thats not really a turn.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David,

 

Our team would always K that argument "feminizing nature bad"

Inevitably their authors would talk about "mother earth"

The argument is pretty unturnable...you just have to win the critical framework.

 

I guess "ethic of care good for earth"--but thats not really a turn.

What do you mean "unturnable"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David,

 

Our team would always K that argument "feminizing nature bad"

Inevitably their authors would talk about "mother earth"

The argument is pretty unturnable...you just have to win the critical framework.

 

I guess "ethic of care good for earth"--but thats not really a turn.

 

feminizing nature bad? how does that answer the argument that the entire human population should die because we are inherently evil and bad for the universe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There aren't a lot of authors who tend to write feminizing nature good.

 

I guess the only way to turn it is to say patriarchy good--but saying that you have to say domination of nature good + military--which heges against your original argument. So that arg is pretty useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Priority DA, saying that we have other priorities other than Alternative Energy. Didn't help much when they tried to run it as K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There aren't a lot of authors who tend to write feminizing nature good.

 

I guess the only way to turn it is to say patriarchy good--but saying that you have to say domination of nature good + military--which heges against your original argument. So that arg is pretty useless.

I think you have too much of a debate oriented mindset when it comes to terms like "patriarchy" or "feminizing".

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...