Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ohheywhatsup?!

[DEAD] [M] Round 323: [MILITARY] Ohheywhatsup?! (aff) vs. OHS-Banana (neg)

Recommended Posts

Paradigm;

 

Topicality: A priori issue, never a reverse voter. If there isn’t a clear abuse story on why you absolutely just can’t win the debate or that the affirmative forces and unfair uphill climb upon the negative, then I will default to reasonability. Keep in mind though that I prefer competing interpretations and if handled correctly I tend to reward the aff on this flow fairly easily. Also keep in mind that I’m more likely to limit the topic than unlimit it.

 

Disads and Counterplans: I’m a policy maker thus I enjoy debates focused on the plan versus a competitive policy option or the status quo as I find they translate into more education over the topic. If the negative pushes for the status quo in the 2nr and the debate seems even (which it rarely is) then I default to neg on presumption. However if the 2nr comes down to weighing the solvency deficit of a competitive policy option and the counterplan clearly isn’t a substantial difference from the plan, I default to aff on presumption.

 

Kritiks: Regardless of what was said above, I used to be a K hack. Feel free to criticize the assumptions and representations of the plan, however I doubt the negative will fulfill the purpose of the Kritik. The point of the K is not to settle for just the ballot which keeps it distinct from disads and counterplans etc, keep that in mind when the 2nr comes around. You’ll have to do more work to win this than some other policy focused arguments, but that doesn’t mean you have to shy away from the K. That just makes it that much harder for me to not vote for you if you utilize the criticism correctly.

 

Theory: On most theory arguments I default to reject the argument not the team in order to get the debate on track to a more substance based level. I find theory to be more helpful when you base your claims more as a reason why I should reject the argument, and at times a reason why the negative should be stuck with some of them like the K or the CP. For example, the negative runs a counterplan conditionally. The affirmative would have more weight standing up and saying conditionality is bad which is a reason to stick them with the counterplan, instead of claiming the usually reject the team.

 

Questions ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can judge if you still need someone. Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can judge if you still need someone. Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm.

Sure, I've seen your paradigm.

 

When is 1AC going to be up?

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...