Jump to content
darthbananasnpajamas

These affs all suck

Recommended Posts

before the combination of impotent rage and spoiled hot pockets simmering in your gut compels you to neg rep me, consider your aff and the 1NC of

 

States, Politics, Capitalism K

 

Really think about it.

 

No, lack of federal funding doesn't work. States have money.

 

No, social services=communist doesn't work. Zizek writes books.

 

I have not seen a single affirmative, kritikal or not, that has an effective or even unique response to this simple strategy, and if you are researching an affirmative that dies to any of these arguments, you are wasting your time.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have articulated my thoughts about the capitalism K as an effective strategy in the other topic. We deviate in our perception of the magnitude of the link and ultimate utility of the kritik to solve case, I suppose, but your post still makes sense.

 

While trying to research an affirmative, I have been frustrated in finding fed key warrants. I remember thinking last year's topic wasn't very fed key at first, but then researching it a little and finding amazing articles like the one by Annie Petsonk on why Congress must pass climate legislation to access or modeling, or Benjamin Sovacool's article on RPS, which has like 20 pages of comparative state v federal action, or the NSSO SPS article, which concludes pretty concisely why the DOD is a crucial actor. And these are pretty much the seminal articles on their subject.

 

I have not had much success finding comparative state v federal action literature for poverty, but I doubt myself or really anyone has looked exhaustively - or will, until camp. It seems that most social services are exclusivly state or federal programs - it will be interesting to see how this is played out in round, but I assume that there can be some jurisdictional solvency defecits that will be pretty good.

 

Regardless, I'm still optimistic. Lab leaders across the country, as well as debaters, will figure out new and interesting ways to spin fed-key warrants and defeat states counterplans (as they have done every year).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unfortunate nature of the debate research process is that its so early that. To prematurely eliminate one alternative because there doesn't seem to be a go to strategy on states, politics, and the cap. K seems a bit premature at this stage of the game.

 

Some of the "this agent is key" cards may only come out during camp....some even after camp. Thats how this process usually works year after year after year.

 

Second, a lot of these affs still have critical viability without those components.

 

Third, you don't have to have a built in answer to zizek. No case (except perhaps a K case or performance based case) will have a viable answer to zizek. Their likely answer will be impact turning 1) capitalism 2) the alternative and 3) framework.

 

Fourth, some people thrive in the federalism debates. They want that debate. They can suck their opponents into it and hose them. I know I would be internally impact turning federalism (state action destroys the local)

 

Fifth, there is still a viable alternative in theory. Staking the house on theory isn't a good idea--however someone who has the bizness on theory can get around these issues.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh...and one more thing. Not only will more research at camps create more fed. key warrants....but also camps will also likely put out a lot of the old X agent = key to solve. For instance the mental health topic, the education topic, and others provided this. (my argument = backfiles solve partially)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
before the combination of impotent rage and spoiled hot pockets simmering in your gut compels you to neg rep me, consider your aff and the 1NC of

 

States, Politics, Capitalism K

 

Really think about it.

 

No, lack of federal funding doesn't work. States have money.

 

No, social services=communist doesn't work. Zizek writes books.

 

I have not seen a single affirmative, kritikal or not, that has an effective or even unique response to this simple strategy, and if you are researching an affirmative that dies to any of these arguments, you are wasting your time.

 

What will your aff be then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, lack of federal funding doesn't work. States have money.

 

uh, no they don't:

 

According to the nonprofit Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, some 47 states face budget gaps in the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years. (Hats off to you Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota.) The collective shortfall is a staggering $350 billion. Congress offered some relief with $140 billion in state funding packed into the $787 billion stimulus bill passed in Februrary. California is set to receive $8 billion of that. But the appetite in Washington to work out additional funding for the true basket cases like California is nil.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2009/db20090522_625957.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gotta agree that a lot of states are facing budget deficits that are crazy. And unlike the fed gov't that can print their own money, state governments cannot.

 

Cali is facing a huge budget cut this upcoming fiscal year and it scares me how many california residents are still unaware how messed up their lives are about to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you think about, almost every non critical aff will always link into these common arguments. If your aff is running on policy analysis framework, its automatic to just have states/politics/cap blocked out.

 

and if you don't have blocks... drop the case and go for impact turns on the da ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Research has led me to believe this topic is uniquely lacking in fed key literature, and I haven't seen a single affirmative capable of dealing with this counterplan. Such affirmatives will no doubt surface, but that's really the point of this discussion. Where are they?

 

The unfortunate nature of the debate research process is that its so early that. To prematurely eliminate one alternative because there doesn't seem to be a go to strategy on states, politics, and the cap. K seems a bit premature at this stage of the game.

 

Some of the "this agent is key" cards may only come out during camp....some even after camp. Thats how this process usually works year after year after year.

 

If you have found no evidence supporting a fed key solvency deficit and have no credible arguments in mind, then I'm not sure why you're continuing to research the affirmative. Hoping camps will produce them for your aff is quite the stretch.

 

"Critical viability" is rarely a fed key warrant. Unless you just flat out don't endorse implementation of the plan, the action of the states counterplan as well as the negative's advocacy, probably solves your K, assuming they didn't read something else that links to it and you pop them on a discursive solvency turn.

 

While I agree that aff's don't have "built-in" answers to Zizek, the inevitable proliferation of this K on next year's topic should incentivize debaters to choose advantage areas not easily sucked up by the capitalism K, poverty and econ collapse both being common and very vulnerable. Obviously, there are strategic advantages to both of these impacts, but teams running them should be conscious of their vulnerability to the best K on the topic, and choose affs that are also capable of IR advantages or add-ons to weigh against the K.

 

The federalism D/A to states doesn't work considering states largely have control of implementation of social services now. Maybe you mean just impact turning the federalism d/a, which will no doubt be viable, though irrelevant to the question of choosing an affirmative, and usually not applicable, considering most people will read politics anyway.

 

Theory is criticalhitsupereffective against states, easily. But, like with consult counterplans, it's very important to have other viable 2AC strategies against the K, and that's why finding viable solvency deficits is so important.

 

As to state budgets being stretched: negatives will simply argue funding is reallocated and defend an interpretation of fiat that indicates they don't have to specify from where. This is defensible because fiat should be a question of should not would, and maximizing educational discussion means ignoring proximal limitations of legislation. Or maybe they'll just cut funding from one set of programs and be able to defend those programs are bad.

 

I haven't read the article, because I'm not a subscriber. But the abstract looks promising:

 

http://www.povertylaw.org/clearinghouse-review/issues/2006/may-june-2006/weill

 

This looks excellent. Could anyone post this?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As to state budgets being stretched: negatives will simply argue funding is reallocated and defend an interpretation of fiat that indicates they don't have to specify from where. This is defensible because fiat should be a question of should not would, and maximizing educational discussion means ignoring proximal limitations of legislation. Or maybe they'll just cut funding from one set of programs and be able to defend those programs are bad.

 

Or the aff just argues that social services are good and states cp means no net increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On your 1NC Strategy:

 

I think the cards and advocates for the fed gov being key will come out of the woodwork this summer or early on in the season. I realize you're concerned because they haven't already, but I'm sure teams will be ready to go on this.

 

I think teams will be wise to try to find advantages that the States CP can't capture in the same way. Once again, don't have specifics here, but I'm sure it exists.

 

More specifically:

 

On the CP, there's theory to be had, and I know that this CP has been around for forever, so I'm sure lots of teams has adequate backfiles. I will concede that this CP is a LOT more viable this year.

 

On the Politics DA, you're going to need to be set up for uniqueness and link debates. Sure, there are LOTS of different viable DAs, but the link scenarios for politics disads are fairly predictable to where you're going to need to be able to answer the theory and carded responses (more than likely turns) going down on this part of the flow. The internal links and impacts will also be suspect.

 

On the K, this has already been addressed. The Aff challenge isn't going to be writing a K proof Affirmative because the team that runs this strat isn't going to go "oh shit." They'll run it anyway. Why? Well, I'll jump to that in a bit when I say how this strategy, as a judge, looks to me. This K will be addressed on the link and impact levels. Affirmatives will also go after the alternative and a framework. A lot of this will be theory, but some may be carded.

 

Now, overall, here's why I think this is weak. It's clear this strategy has THREE 2NR roadmaps, and in my mind, only three.

 

Option 1) K

Option 2) CP and DA

Option 3) DA

 

I mean, technically, I suppose you could go CP, but I don't think you're going to have an easy time selling it to me without the NB. I don't foresee being able to take all 3 in the 2NR because I don't think your CP will escape a link to the K. At this point, theory arguments are going to gain a bit more weight because it's fairly apparent that your strategy is transparent. While it's true that the 2NR is almost always clear about taking what's undercovered, I would weigh taking something undercovered about a strategy that played well together differently than taking something undercovered from a strategy that contradicted itself. Not all judges will be like that, but that's a personal thing.

 

In conclusion, I would agree that there aren't many affirmatives being discussed right now that would escape that strategy, but it's a relatively predictable and well-worn strategy when you break it into its components. They don't really gel together, so them being run as a unit isn't anything special.

 

I guess another thing that I would pick up on as a competitor and a judge is that you're running 3 off in a debate that could easily be 1 off or 2 off. To me, this says you have some concern aout putting your eggs in only those baskets. While diversification is generally a smart thing, I think you neuter a lot of potentially damning theory and framework arguments by limiting yourself to either the CP with a couple of NBs or the K, especially if you're confident that you're on the winning side of those debates rather than counting on them to undercover something enough to exploit it.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
before the combination of impotent rage and spoiled hot pockets simmering in your gut compels you to neg rep me, consider your aff and the 1NC of

 

States, Politics, Capitalism K

 

Really think about it.

 

No, lack of federal funding doesn't work. States have money.

 

No, social services=communist doesn't work. Zizek writes books.

 

I have not seen a single affirmative, kritikal or not, that has an effective or even unique response to this simple strategy, and if you are researching an affirmative that dies to any of these arguments, you are wasting your time.

 

Yes. I have one that does, which I will not disclose. But it's on the basis of a Supreme Court ruling under the premise of the 14th Amendment. That already eliminates politics and states. And my aff idea has no connection with economic initiatives, just the protection of fundamental liberties.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I have one that does, which I will not disclose. But it's on the basis of a Supreme Court ruling under the premise of the 14th Amendment. That already eliminates politics and states. And my aff idea has no connection with economic initiatives, just the protection of fundamental liberties.

 

Supreme Court affs make me jizz in my pants.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I have one that does, which I will not disclose. But it's on the basis of a Supreme Court ruling under the premise of the 14th Amendment. That already eliminates politics and states. And my aff idea has no connection with economic initiatives, just the protection of fundamental liberties.

 

I am sure you will have thought of this, but be weary of all the possible things people could say against you from regurgitating arguments from the college Courts topic that happened two seasons ago. Court stripping DA plus constitutional convention CP anyone? Congress CP plus courts politics DA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I have one that does, which I will not disclose. But it's on the basis of a Supreme Court ruling under the premise of the 14th Amendment. That already eliminates politics and states. And my aff idea has no connection with economic initiatives, just the protection of fundamental liberties.

 

If your aff is Miliken v. Bradley, which is certainly pertinent to the 14th amendment, I wouldn't hold my breath on other people not knowing about this. It was a case on the courts topic a few years back, and planet debate has already put out a neg file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I have one that does, which I will not disclose. But it's on the basis of a Supreme Court ruling under the premise of the 14th Amendment. That already eliminates politics and states. And my aff idea has no connection with economic initiatives, just the protection of fundamental liberties.

There are links for obama taking blame on a supreme court ruling - especially when he appoints people.

 

And Lopez is the states cp for court affs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a few rather larger posts earlier in the year about these essentialist views on the topic (case in point - this years topic is mostly states/politics but affs stil win!). Outside of clearly federal cases (overturning supreme court decsions, offering federal reform on something [education and health care are huge. Time just came out with a fucking bomb article on federal reform on education and a national standard being the only ticket to getting the US to be an educational leader internationally], vetern services [maybe]) and funding nonprofits and the state programs (normal means in the squo which ill get to later), there is a lot of cases...

 

Research has led me to believe this topic is uniquely lacking in fed key literature, and I haven't seen a single affirmative capable of dealing with this counterplan. Such affirmatives will no doubt surface, but that's really the point of this discussion. Where are they?

 

There are a bunch of issues with this:

 

First-about 90% of social service funding comes from either the feds or nonprofits. In fact, in almost all cases of social services states/nonprofits apply for grants (which have to be written every quarter in order for programs to keep money) and the feds review those grants. Even if they are 'federal cases' the solvency mechanism is the states themselves since they are the ones that USE and ENFORCE those services. Thusly, 'perm: the cp is a result of the plan' makes a hell of a lot of sense.

 

Second-states are doing cutbacks to balance budgets and what are the first programs that get looked at? Social Services. I'll address your state funding here. You say:

negatives will simply argue funding is reallocated and defend an interpretation of fiat that indicates they don't have to specify from where. This is defensible because fiat should be a question of should not would, and maximizing educational discussion means ignoring proximal limitations of legislation. Or maybe they'll just cut funding from one set of programs and be able to defend those programs are bad.

 

Normal means would indicate that funding is allocated but taken from rainy day. Your interp of 'fiat means funding is reallocated' is stupid for a variety of reasons and if you wish to debate this then make a new thread in the theory section.

 

Moreover- empirically states have cut social service funding before PORK BARREL legislation. You will HAVE to win that social service funding is coming now in order for it to compete.

 

More specifically, state based politics on this question will be huge. There are some bomb articles talking about Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Ohio and a few other states having political revolutions and that the next 10-12 months will be crucial for them to define themselves politically. The hot-ticket issue of social services will likely be a button of interests for these states.

 

If you have found no evidence supporting a fed key solvency deficit and have no credible arguments in mind, then I'm not sure why you're continuing to research the affirmative. Hoping camps will produce them for your aff is quite the stretch.

 

I think the argument is more like 'thousands of students researching cases will turn out more evidence than 10 students doing it'.

 

 

"Critical viability" is rarely a fed key warrant. Unless you just flat out don't endorse implementation of the plan, the action of the states counterplan as well as the negative's advocacy, probably solves your K, assuming they didn't read something else that links to it and you pop them on a discursive solvency turn.

 

But there are other arguments to be made. For example in Lacan affs you get the 'you can't reproduce an act' arguments or the indicts against their netbenfits. Rememeber-in order for them to win the cp they need a netbenifit which is also a big question on this topic. Fism is a live and kicking in terms of social services, there is a shit-ton of cooperation between states and feds on these issues, Obama is going to pass social service reform anyway (he did a major overhal of the FAFSA system), and social services are being supported right now via non-profits.

 

While I agree that aff's don't have "built-in" answers to Zizek, the inevitable proliferation of this K on next year's topic should incentivize debaters to choose advantage areas not easily sucked up by the capitalism K, poverty and econ collapse both being common and very vulnerable. Obviously, there are strategic advantages to both of these impacts, but teams running them should be conscious of their vulnerability to the best K on the topic, and choose affs that are also capable of IR advantages or add-ons to weigh against the K.

 

Actually--this topic is finally suitable for the 50x cards on 'cap solves poverty'. ON any other topic, poverty is never impacted out - on this topic it will be. The internal link turn debates will be fucking awesome on this topic. Teams should not be afraid of Zizek. They should be afraid of teams that can go for Zizek AND politics.

 

Yes. I have one that does, which I will not disclose. But it's on the basis of a Supreme Court ruling under the premise of the 14th Amendment. That already eliminates politics and states. And my aff idea has no connection with economic initiatives, just the protection of fundamental liberties.

 

First - the Supreme Court will still link to politics dis-ads. In fact, it opens you not only to politics dis-ads but to court political capital dis-ads to.

 

Second - there are a shit ton of authors who say that congress can essentially nullify court decisions as well.

 

Third - the turns to the 14th are good and the 'use this Amendment or overrule on these grounds instead' are, needless to say, good.

 

Fourth - Stare Decisis anyone? Court legitmacy?

 

Fifth - gay marriage is a boring debate to engange with anyways (Assuming its not milken v. bradley which opens you up to not only new stats but also every single k, dis-ad and cp ran on the college courts topic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rest assured, debate coaches and debaters who are good at research will find quality affs on any topic. The complaint that the States CP will swing the aff-neg win percentage significantly on this topic is ridiculous. It's crying wolf for the umpteenth time.

 

That the topic literature isn't very interesting might be a more legitimate complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also - i should add in that my child abuse aff idea would function around narratives. If you want to change the focus of violence to something asinine like a focus on actors i'm sure that not only Zizek, Delgado and Kappler say something about that but there might be a few 'impact turns' to your discourse. THere's a reason no one beat lbc or l'ville on 'let the states do it'....

Edited by Rhizome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...