Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JFS

[DEAD] Round 325: [MILITARY] gurumdb8 (aff) vs. jfs (neg) aka gdi scholars showdown

Recommended Posts

standard wordcount, prep time will most likely be lenient, looking for judges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

craw sex, biaaaaatch

 

1. How many drones are in Iraq and Afghanistan?

2. Where do these drones launch from?

3. Is your Callam evidence talking about drones in Iraq and Afghanistan?

4. What is assignation drone presence, as per your plan text?

5. Are you opposed to all biopower?

6. All technology?

7. What’s the internal link between UAV’s and speed?

8. What is speed?

9. Do you defend the plan?

10. Under what circumstances should the judge vote aff?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slow down you raccoons, still need another judge.

 

 

That would be me.

 

 

Here's my back file paradigm:

 

1. Theory. Generally a reason to reject the argument not the team. I need a good reason to reject the team if you want to go for it. Even if they drop a theory w/ voters, i still dont vote on it w/o good explanation about why i should drop the team, which shouldn't be hard.

2. T. Always a voting issue, rarely an RVI. As far as i'm concerned, T is always a voter, and its hard to convince me otherwise. I default to competing interpretations in the CI v. reasonability debate, but i can be easily persuaded either way.

3. Ks. I like smart Ks with smart stories. There are some K's that make no sense and are just stupid. This doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means that I need a lot more explanation of everything. I like more specific links, the more specific the better. I dont like the traditional K very much: "Generic Link, Impact is a case turn, and alt is to vote neg." This doesnt mean i wont vote on it, it just means i want it to be better. Give me a case specific(ish) link, with a good impact that is not just a turn, and an alt that actually solves the issue, not just makes a statement about the issue. I love alts that solve the case.

4. Disads: Yep. Key to neg ground, key to debate. Once again, i like case specififc links. I like good impact analysis in the 2nc, even if it takes 2mins. I like good explanations.

5. CPs: Are awesome. I like pretty much all types of CPs, from a good agent CP w/tics to a case specific CP w/ a case specific DA to an advantage CP. I defult to policy maker.

6. Case: "It only takes a few analytics to destroy a bunch of bad arguments." (that guy from fullerton that wrote a debate bible.) Make analytics, make turns, give analysis. Case is always a good strategy. (though generally not by itself)

7. Framework: Should be in every debate. However, if it doesn't seem like it's going either way, i will go with my defaults- policy maker for DA/CP, DA/case and DA debates, competing interps on T debates and comparing the alt to the plan/perm in K debates.

 

Finally, i believe in offense/defense, but there are times where i buy a defense story to the point of zero risk.

 

 

 

 

Additionally, I will add a few more details b/c I'm too tired to re write my above paradigm.

 

1. I think that theory needs warrants on voters for me to vote on it. More than "voter for fairness."

2. I find Perms and Link Turns particularly persuasive for K's on this topic.

3. I went to SDI this summer, and have likewise turned into a politics hack.

 

But since one of you went to scholars, I'm pretty sure this will become a K debate, or a really strategic debate.

 

edit:

This is my default:

 

Affirmative’s plan v. Squo/CP/K alt

 

If there is anything beyond this, run framework. I will be persuaded by a different frame if you win the flow.

 

T:

1. generally a voter.

2. There are some stupid ones this year, and there will be some clearly topical affirmatives. Don’t expect me to vote on “withdrawal from Afghanistan is untopical because reduce =/= withdraw.” There are too many ways this is stupid.

3. I’d buy reasonability for this and a lot of other clearly topical plans.

4. I default to competing interps, but will be persuaded by reasonability.

 

K’s:

1. Repko’s thoughts on the K:

2. I like smart Ks with smart stories. There are some K's that make no sense and are just stupid. This doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means that I need a lot more explanation of everything.

3. I dont like the traditional K very much: "Generic Link, Impact is a case turn, and alt is to vote neg." This doesnt mean i wont vote on it, it just means i want it to be better. Give me a case specific(ish) link, with a good impact that is not just a turn, and an alt that actually solves the issue, not just makes a statement about the issue.

4. “Alt solves the case” is always a good argument to make.

5. I find myself viewing K debates like disad counterplan debate too often.

6. I find Perms and Link Turns particularly persuasive for K's on this topic.

 

 

Disads: a few thoughts

1. I like disads. Just thought I’d say that.

2. Affirmatives should try to make good analytics on disads, because they often have stupid stories.

3. i like case specififc links.

4. Give impact calc if you want to win. If only one team is giving impact calc, they have won a 100% risk on the impact level, and the debate becomes a lot easier for them as long as they are not behind on the Uniqueness/Link/I-L debates.

5. I like politics. Not much to say here.

6. I think that, on most disads, the debate comes down to the team with the better cards on the “lower debate” (as Scott Harris calls U/L/I-L parts of the disad) and the team doing the better impact calc in the impact debate, or the “upper debate.” Those two items make up the way I evaluate disad case debates.

 

Theory:

1. I like Tim Mahoney’s paradigm on theory: “ “Voting issue – fairness and education” usually gets flowed as VI F@E and I presume that means it’s a voting issue if they go for whatever argument you have identified as a VI. If you expect it to be a voting issue if they don’t go for it then you need to give some type of warrant as to why the debate has been skewed by them merely making the argument.” I would add that I need this warrant to be articulated in the original shell.

2. T > theory

3. O/D is irrelevant in theory debates. If you have a good defense argument, I’ll give it to you.

4. I think that including theory in framework is the only way to move from these biases.

 

 

CP’s:

1. I don’t care if it solves case.

2. Perm’s are good arguments on many CP’s. They are tests of competition unless a net benefit is articulated before the 2ar, preferable the 2ac.

3. CP theory is surprisingly a lot more legit than some other types.

4. I think the neg should be allowed 1 conditional CP, or 1 condo and 1 dispo. Beyond that, I think that I start leaning towards the aff on condo theory if a good warrant for voters is given (see above).

 

Case:

1. affirmative: Be strategic – kick advantages you’re losing. If you’re winning Uniqueness and a link turn on a disad, and they have some damaging case args, kick case. Just make sure you have offense – in the long run, offense is the only purpose of having a case.

2. It only takes a few analytics to destroy a bunch of bad arguments." (that guy from fullerton that wrote a debate bible.) Make analytics, make turns, give analysis.

3. Case turns are pretty legit, though I still need more experience with them.

4. CP/case turns makes a good strategy.

Edited by liampirate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But since one of you went to scholars, I'm pretty sure this will become a K debate, or a really strategic debate.

 

Both, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
craw sex, biaaaaatch

ANSIRS poooooooots

 

1. How many drones are in Iraq and Afghanistan? 223 in commission sir

2. Where do these drones launch from? Bases in Afghanistan and Iraq

3. Is your Callam evidence talking about drones in Iraq and Afghanistan? It was written after a big uproar about assassinations in Pakistan, but these things are also in Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. What is assignation drone presence, as per your plan text? The UAVs

5. Are you opposed to all biopower? No, bad kind

6. All technology? No, bad kind

7. What’s the internal link between UAV’s and speed? Our Virilio stuff is talking about producing advanced technology quickly without any evaluation of the implications. I'll claim that via the status quo, we didn't do that.

8. What is speed? Going fast, Ricky Bobby, going fast.

9. Do you defend the plan? Do I defend it as a good idea? Yes. Do I defend plan passage? Sure, I dig disads, but I'll defend what we say as generally important as per that Virilio card and that Debrix card.

10. Under what circumstances should the judge vote aff? I don't defend a specific framework as per the 1ac.

 

Just going to say this now - sorry if I'm late with stuff, I'm busy with school biz/watching Godzilla movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the plan happen immediately?

 

What is speed and why is it bad (seriously now, man)?

 

"I'll defend what we say as generally important as per that Virilio card and that Debrix card."

What do you say is generally important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the plan happen immediately? Yeah

 

What is speed and why is it bad (seriously now, man)? I answered this on you seventh question, "producing advanced technology quickly without any evaluation of the implications" Also, why so serious?

 

"I'll defend what we say as generally important as per that Virilio card and that Debrix card."

What do you say is generally important? I'm going to most likely argue reps are important

 

Slam bam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Spurlock alerted me of this, I misspelled "assassination" in the plan text.

 

New plan text - The United States federal government should completely remove all surveillance and assassination drone presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not have internet most of today and tomorrow. Hopefully I'll have this up late tomorrow. I most just need a few cards. Other than that, kid stuff Moriarty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question for cx, do you defend your representations (everything you say)? If I can get a yes or no (more preferably "yes") on this we can proceed smoothly. Oh and status of the cps?

Edited by guru-mdb8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both conditional, as far as i know.

 

Can you rephrase the first question and make it more specific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your rhetoric, the words you use, how you describe the world, your disad/impact scenarios, do you defend all of that mumbo jumbo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your rhetoric, the words you use, how you describe the world, your disad/impact scenarios, do you defend all of that mumbo jumbo?

 

Sure, but I reserve the right to kick out of any arguments though i will answer any disco/reps args you put on those flows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Why is your framework argument a reason to vote affirmative?

2. What is wrong with our representations?

3. If none of your evidence on your biopower advantage is talking about drones, how can you access the Foucault impact if you do not oppose biopower?

4. You give the example of the atomic bomb; how will drones lead to atrocities like those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

5. Does the 1AC have a nuclear war impact?

6. Do our representations increase nuclear wars waged on Indigenous peoples?

7. What’s the impact to your Bennett argument?

8. Your Proulx card is talking about US-Israel relations, how is it responsive to the CMR DA?

9. Why are representations a reason to reject the counterplan?

10. Why is the PIC a state of exception?

11. List all voting issues, please.

12. Write out the text to all your perms, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Why is your framework argument a reason to vote affirmative? Your reps are bad, I don't have bad reps.

2. What is wrong with our representations? Be more specific, I have a bunch of arguments as to why. I could list them all?

3. If none of your evidence on your biopower advantage is talking about drones, how can you access the Foucault impact if you do not oppose biopower? I oppose insidious forms of biopower that would function to survey, kill and render people docile. Our argument is that drones are exactly the type of technology Debrix is talking about, even if they don't say "drones" in them.

4. You give the example of the atomic bomb; how will drones lead to atrocities like those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That's not my argument. It's that the driv to produce technology quickly as a means of security allow for atrocities to happen. Bad stuff is happening with drones now. We're assassinating people, that's not cool.

5. Does the 1AC have a nuclear war impact? No. It argues that the security paradigm and biopower is what allows for these things to happen. It's more of "I access your internals homie"

6. Do our representations increase nuclear wars waged on Indigenous peoples? Our argument is 1) you mask the reality of nuclear wars, that is nuclear testing, dumping, etc, this could, in theory, increase testing and dumping, and 2) you create a hierarchy of importance, as in "our form of nuclear war is more serious"

7. What’s the impact to your Bennett argument? a couple of things 1) you increase biopolitical control (vi the "social control biz), 2) it argues your dis ad scenarios are a contrived fabrication of reality, and 3) these contrived stories are bad for debate and education

8. Your Proulx card is talking about US-Israel relations, how is it responsive to the CMR DA? Drones piss everyone in the international sphere off. we'll defend that.

9. Why are representations a reason to reject the counterplan? it's a reason you should lose in general and our Blieker evidence argues language shapes policies. Your reps make for bad policies.

10. Why is the PIC a state of exception? "Most of you aff is good, EXCEPT, we still want to kill people."

11. List all voting issues, please. Reps (making every kritik of dis ad/counterplan a voter), pics, conditionality, consult.

12. Write out the text to all your perms, please. I have perm do both and perm do the counterplan on every advocacy

 

Mariska Hargitay

Edited by guru-mdb8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unclear as to how perm do both can function on all three counterplans. I want the text of the perm. For instance, if you had a courts aff and i ran an XO CP, the perm text could be:

The Supreme Court of the United States and the President should...

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...