Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LSK

We Are In Poverty aff

Recommended Posts

This is not an idiotic aff, I assure you. It's not meant to be run seriously, but it's not meant to be a joke aff either. Read the analysis below the outline before deciding to give me neg rep.

 

Here's the outline:

 

- Contention 1: We Are In Poverty

- Definition: Persons = two or more people.

- Hence, anything that helps us is T.

 

- Plan text: The judge will vote neg.

 

- Framework: The judge should vote for the team that the arguments in the round most support voting for.

 

- Contention 2: Losing is the best form of education.

- You learn more when you lose than when you win.

 

- Contention 3: Normativity

- The ballot is ultimately insignificant.

- Hence, real-world advantages (education) outweigh.

 

- Contention 4: Skepticism

- It's important to be skeptical about debate-world reality.

 

- Contention 5: (A Totally Different) Tempt

- If the neg says anything opposing our plan, vote defaults to aff.

- Feel free to skip your 1NC.

 

So, how do you win off this "vote neg" argument? You drop the plan. In the 2AR, use the framework to explain that, because the plan was dropped, the judge cannot vote neg, so they must vote aff. The advantages are not unique to voting neg, so you claim them off an aff vote.

 

Just be sure to have reeeeeally good arguments backing up your framework, because without it, it becomes harder to win (you have to do it off of normativity or skepticism.)

Edited by LSK
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
holy schnikeys

Could you clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

get out your abuse good blocks guys!

 

all you have to win is that the plan is condo....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Education is non-unique, one side will always lose. 2ar is kinda new...

 

Double bind:

Neg hums "happy days" during speech time, everything goes as plan, you lose.

Neg makes arguments, neg wins, you lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neg strats:

 

- concede plan is a good idea, 8 minutes of abuse bad/condo affs bad

- space hijack the plan, indict concepts of education

- run presumption theory. Presumption wouldn't flip aff here.

- K normativity (i hear this Schlag guy wrote something about that)

- Double win theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i could see another twist on this aff

you could argue for a plan text in which the judge votes for the aff

and say something along the lines of "the neg is in poverty" and talk about how if they win, they go on to stay in the tournament, which costs money

and on the "education N/U", u need some card talking about education is key to getting out of poverty so that educating one of the sides is more important than educating the other side

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i could see another twist on this aff

you could argue for a plan text in which the judge votes for the aff

and say something along the lines of "the neg is in poverty" and talk about how if they win, they go on to stay in the tournament, which costs money

and on the "education N/U", u need some card talking about education is key to getting out of poverty so that educating one of the sides is more important than educating the other side

The trouble is that the monetary cost is (more often than not) subsidized, and it's entirely possible that the neg can prove you wrong in your assessment that they're in poverty. If I were running this as "vote aff", it would be useful to have a card talking about education key to escape poverty (though the round's not the brink); as it is, the plan wants to be shoddy so it can be dropped.

 

Yep, abuse good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Counterplan: Vote Aff

 

Aff gets last speech. Keep both the plan and CP in the air, ignoring the framework issues, until the 2AR, then just drop the plan and win on the basis of the CP.

 

unless neg calls abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Persons, not people. this has been a very large misconception of the plan text... it might even affect the T Debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
t- social services.

That part of the argument wants to be shot down, so the aff can more readily concede it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw you typing this at the Chase Urban Nationals I was like WTF?

 

lol Hedgedigger

Yeah, "We didn't have any heg cards so we read these cards that said 'Hedge digger.'" But I digress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, not being topical doesn't mean you ignore plan text, it means you lose for not allowing fair distribution of ground (or some other standard). You can't make a "reject the argument not the team" when "the argument" is your plan text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
early nominee for stupidest thread of the year right here.

 

Eh, early nominees never win anyways. People were saying all last summer that the Dark Knight would at least be nominated for Best Picture, but that didn't turn out so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is this Topical?

It's not really, which is kinda the point. The aff's goal is to convince the judge that because they can't vote for the plan, they MUST vote aff instead. (As people above have pointed out - good luck with this.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...