Policy Part-Time

[Chelmsford4n6 10]

Hello everyone.

 

My and my friend are both varsity LDers. We can both spread, and we know the ins and outs of the structure of policy debate.

 

We wanted to try policy at just one tournament, but didn't want to go in there with "tubs" if you catch my drift. We are both critical LDers, so we know many critical authors run (Heidegger, Foucault, etc.) We'd most likely be going in varsity, maybe in novice.

 

Are there any arguments that can be run any round, without much adaptation?

 

Thank you.

[Skeletor 999999949]

My friend and I*

[Chaos 2587]

Next year you can probably read a security K 90% of the time. You can run this as an affirmative as well.

[DML 727]

Next year you can probably read a security K 90% of the time. You can run this as an affirmative as well.

 

Security (imo) will be better on the aff; on the neg, because of the whole negative state action thing, you'll have to get around the whole negative state action thing with masking links (which I feel like aren't normally the best if you're not reading Foucault).

[Needs More Consult Japan 1753]

Security (imo) will be better on the aff; on the neg, because of the whole negative state action thing, you'll have to get around the whole negative state action thing with masking links (which I feel like aren't normally the best if you're not reading Foucault).

 

not really... the way securitization/threat con gets run is usually as a critique of the way affirmatives choose to discursively frame the 1ac in terms of threat scenarios. if the negative is reading 7-8 minutes of security in the 1nc, the last place the aff is gonna win is at the link level.

[DML 727]

not really... the way securitization/threat con gets run is usually as a critique of the way affirmatives choose to discursively frame the 1ac in terms of threat scenarios. if the negative is reading 7-8 minutes of security in the 1nc, the last place the aff is gonna win is at the link level.

 

True enough. Would the "perm: reduce presense in ___ as a way of rejecting securitization/whatevs" be a strong argument though?

[zaudragon 12]

Would the "perm: reduce presense in ___ as a way of rejecting securitization/whatevs" be a strong argument though?

It still severs out of the 1AC's security framing, and as Needs More Consult Japan said, the negative's link scenarios based on the 1AC are unavoidable even in the world of the perm.

 

If you want to go for this argument, you need a few good arguments:

1. Why it's okay to sever out of portions of your 1AC.

2. Why some sort of state action is key.

3. Why the alternative does nothing.

 

Good security teams are gonna win a link no matter what (or else they wouldn't read it).

 

Also, good security teams probably have a more nuanced alt than "reject securitization." In our team's case, we say: "Our alternative is to criticize the 1AC’s security framing. Instead of viewing security as an objective science we should look to historical and critical reflection to reconceptualize the way we evaluate threats." And that's gonna be pretty hard to reconcile with a Perm like you said, since your aff's not about to be "historical and critical reflection"

[Needs More Consult Japan 1753]

True enough. Would the "perm: reduce presense in ___ as a way of rejecting securitization/whatevs" be a strong argument though?

 

This past year in 1ARs, when extending perm: do the alt, I'd often characterize the alt as being plan plus because the alt would probably including not doing bad shit with nuclear weapons. I think that you can probably do the same thing in high school debates given that you're doing enough defensive work in other parts of the flow. Granted, if you've conceded too much in terms of framework, the negative can easily pull the "plan action doesn't matter" shtick, but if you're doing your job, it can work.

[Studley Dudley 814]

Security (imo) will be better on the aff; on the neg, because of the whole negative state action thing, you'll have to get around the whole negative state action thing with masking links (which I feel like aren't normally the best if you're not reading Foucault).

 

You clearly haven't heard of Spanos.

[Red Spy 146]

You clearly haven't heard of Spanos.

He actually hasn't

[CaDan 123]

I think NMCJ's strat has a lot going for it. I suggest creating a few blocks for each of the geographical problem areas so you customize it a bit for each round.

[totally_not_hadoken 3]

instead of doing

 

policy part time

 

how about you stop being ld

 

people and start

 

doing real debate