Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
annoying khs debater

Bikes

Recommended Posts

umm.....

just a thought, but since they are solving for biketivism, i dont think they think everyone thinks that bikes are friendly and eco-friendly.

 

infact, im fairly certain that they are trying to change the viewpoints of those who dislike bikes......

 

they are saying that bikes are eco-friendly, and you'll have a hard time proving that they arent (mostly becuase they are eco-friendly)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just a thought, but since they are solcing for biketivism,
They dont actually solve for biketivism
i dont think they think everyone thinks that bikes are friendly and eco-friendly.
I agree with you on the eco friendly part but not on the bikes are friendly there are people who are afraid of bikes and the plan would cause d-hum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I emailed the O.P a case neg and the ideas you guys are coming up with aren't very good. (de-humin of a couple people is a dumb argument and you should not make it, instead you should read the Dunn cards in the case neg I emailed which you can get too if you ask me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(de-humin of a couple people is a dumb argument and you should not make it

Im sure they are to stupid to ask how many people will be affected and even if they do im sure you can find some statistics on how lots of people are afraid of bikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im sure they are to stupid to ask how many people will be affected and even if they do im sure you can find some statistics on how lots of people are afraid of bikes.

 

Great for them, A better version of this argument is the shit about tricycles and how bikes excluded handicapped people in the UTNIF neg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They dont actually solve for biketivism

I agree with you on the eco friendly part but not on the bikes are friendly there are people who are afraid of bikes and the plan would cause d-hum.

what???? then what do they solve for????????????

 

and im saying i dont think that they (ie. kate & candace) think that everyone else thinks that bikes are cool. if they were solving biketivism (meaning they are changing peoples mindset on the general lameness of bikes), then wouldnt they working to change peoples who are afraid of bikes' mindset????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay. none of you understand what this case does. it does not claim to solve for biketivism. it does not claim to solve for phobias. it does not claim to change mindsets. it gives people food. they just read cards about bikes.

 

and, i cut a good case turn to this aff. i won't just hand you the ev, but i'll give you the cites:

 

1. Increased bicycling causes individuals to live longer and consume more energy creating “the greatest environmental peril”

Berger 6 (Eric, Staff writer, The Houston Chronicle, 9/5/2006)

"Ok, so...seat belts"

 

2. Overpopulation is the root cause of wars that cause extinction – this turns case

Thomas 94 (Steve Thomas, a member of Global Population Concerns. Global Population Concerns, November 1994, “Overpopulation and Violence, 6/27/07. http://perc.ca/PEN/1994-11/s-thomas.html)

"The world's...their homelands"

 

and here is the cap link that i cut:

 

Bicycle couriers alone sustain capitalism – even when an attempt is made to move away from the system

Wehr 06 (Kevin, “Bicycle Messengers and Fast Capitalism: An Old-School Solution to the Needs of Technocapitalism,” 2006, http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/2_1/wehrwithall.html)

"The concept...bicycle couriers."

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Increased bicycling causes individuals to live longer and consume more energy creating “the greatest environmental peril”

Berger 6 (Eric, Staff writer, The Houston Chronicle, 9/5/2006)

"Ok, so...seat belts"

I cant find this card i whent to the sight and looked typed name in search and everything nothing came close to what the card talks about can you post the link to the page?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would i do to say there non-inherent since they're incentivizing food, not bikes. So the commuter bicycle act doesn't work on them.
Inherency is not just the lack of the aff plan in the squo, but the lack of solvency for the central problem in the squo. So if the harms stem from too many cars and not enough bikes, the fact that the government already has a great many successful programs is enough. Because there are programs that can be more efficiently expanded than adding a new policy wholesale, no plan is needed. The key question inherency asks is "Do we need to do something we aren't already doing?" If the answer is "No" the ballot belongs to the negative. (For a rational policymaker)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inherency is not just the lack of the aff plan in the squo, but the lack of solvency for the central problem in the squo. So if the harms stem from too many cars and not enough bikes, the fact that the government already has a great many successful programs is enough. Because there are programs that can be more efficiently expanded than adding a new policy wholesale, no plan is needed. The key question inherency asks is "Do we need to do something we aren't already doing?" If the answer is "No" the ballot belongs to the negative. (For a rational policymaker)

 

Brolob, have you ever judged kate and candace from kamiak when they were aff this year, if so do you remember what there claim they solve for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brolob, have you ever judged kate and candace from kamiak when they were aff this year, if so do you remember what there claim they solve for.
No, the first time I saw either of them this year was the other day when you were debating neg with Kate in rd 6 at F way. Remember that distinction if you want to run inherency though; it's important. And of course, only do it if you have a judge you think might be willing to pull the trigger on inherency. Any real tabs judge will, if you set up framework for it, as should any policymaker or stock issues judge. So long as the objective of the policy is being met or will likely be met by the squo, there be major inherency issues. Whether this is true of Kate and Candace's (or anyone's) case depends on what the specific policy action is and what for what it claims to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olorb is making some good points. If you can win the framework debate and have some really really good inherency cards, neg wins.

 

But, they will most likely win the framework debate and have answers to your cards. They'll probably win the framework debate because their interpretation will be vague and they wont clarify for you what it means, and then the 2ar will make a new clarification and it's game over, with some judges.

 

If you're debating in front of Helman for practice, the inherency tactic works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Olorb is making some good points. If you can win the framework debate and have some really really good inherency cards, neg wins.

 

But, they will most likely win the framework debate and have answers to your cards. They'll probably win the framework debate because their interpretation will be vague and they wont clarify for you what it means, and then the 2ar will make a new clarification and it's game over, with some judges.

 

If you're debating in front of Helman for practice, the inherency tactic works.

I think you underestimate the power of arguing real-world policymaking as a framework. No real world policymaker would approve of a plan without inherency, so the judge can consider things like inherency as independent neg voters.

 

In our region, the debaters who argue framework best generally utilize the skill to force a kritikal debate. I don't necessarily think this is wise in front of most judges. At the larger Western WA tourneys there are a fair number of older judges who see the top debaters with some frequency. Todd Moore and myself to name just two. Because of our long experience, we understand how to evaluate within different frameworks, and because of our views we both allow that how we judge can be debated in round.

 

I contend that a negative who honestly feels they can out-debate their opponent is best served by arguing for a more restrictive framework when feasible. If the aff makes a central claim, like inherency, which you believe to be bullshit, why not expose that and argue for a framework which makes that an independent voter? Add in a DA and some solvency mitigation, framework for a pragmatic policymaking paradigm and argue it out on those issues straight up. If you genuinely have the better chops, you'll win every time in front of me.

 

Offense/defense means that a generally inferior but deviously clever debater will sneak some kind of voter through the 1ar and snap off a win at the end. In related news, ask how Roger C. from Puyallup feels about finals at federal way. He could have avoided that by using a more conservative strategy. Though, in his defense, choosing to go kritikal against Kamiak is a time tested tradition in the NW. (didn't see the round, but got the blow for blow from both Helman and Roger)

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...