Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chaos

Best Affirmative

Recommended Posts

No assertions allowed. Let's talk about what the best affirmative next year will be.

 

Based on my analysis of Maury's cool post from a couple years ago here are my standards for what the best affirmatives will be next year.

 

Strategic Affirmatives do/have the following:

 

1. Framework – attempt to exclude the negative arguments most threatening to your case through a defense of ethics, or through indicts of predictions, or through kritikal arguments. Or you can not defend the USFG. Ideally your case can operate in your framework but also in the framework which the negative will try to defend.

 

2. Link specificity / Link turn specificity – obviously awesome. Including reasons that your link / link turn are most important can make this even more awesome.

 

 

3. CP / PIC Vulnerability – CPs are deadly when they solve case because with most judges any risk that the negative gains offense on the DA is enough to vote negative.

This is especially important:

A. Against Agent CPs – these are always extremely popular. You'll need advantages that are specific to US development if you want to avoid hearing different variations on “X should do the plan” for the entire year.

B. Against alt tech CPs – this depends more on your affirmative, but it could be deadly for certain affirmatives. Be sure that you use the best mechanism possible to develop or explore space.

 

 

4. Add Ons – have lots of short add ons which stem from different parts of the plan so that no CP will be able to solve all of case.

 

 

5. Be able to leverage case as offense against the K. It's hard to tell now, but I think Heidegger or Deep Eco will be making a comeback next year. You should try to have a case that can access a unique reason that exploitation of outer space is a good thing.

 

 

6. Politics Turns – The strength of the politics DA stems from the ability it gives the negative to debate the same thing over and over regardless of what case they are facing. Therefore, if most 2ACs are reading impact turns your ideal case would have good link turns, or vice versa.

 

 

7. Econ / Spending DA Link Turns – this will probably be one of the most popular generic negatives next year due to its truth value – space is really expensive. You should be prepared to defend that cost.

Defense against “economic decline turns case – space programs get rolled back” is also crucial. This argument was fairly popular during the poverty topic and may be so next year as well.

 

 

8. Force the negative to answer case to access their DAs. If your case solves all war (or something similar) you can force the negative to invest lots of time just to get back to ground zero.

 

 

9. Don't use nuclear war as an impact. Then the 2AC can read climate studies saying that NW doesn't cause extinction and the case will massively outweigh the DA.

 

 

10. Impact Calculus – use impacts that grant you access to unusual weighing mechanisms. The magnitude/probability/timeframe form of impact calculus is overrated. The nature of the unusual weighing mechanisms will vary depending on the case so it's difficult to discuss or predict what they will be, but that's the point.

 

 

11. Predictability – your case should be unusual enough that few arguments apply to you, but common enough that the negative consistently reads from a small variety of arguments. If the negative goes oddball every time you debate the probability that you do not have a good 2AC block to their arguments will increase substantially.

 

 

12. Topicality – this depends entirely upon the skill level of the debaters involved. Don't be any more untopical than you have to be to access the above, and don't read a case that you are unable to prove topical.

 

13. Timeframe - see nathandebate's post at the bottom of this thread. TF is especially important on this year's resolution because the DA impacts may occur before the advantages are even solved, due to the nature of development and exploration projects.

 

 

tl;dr everyone should read he3 or cheater K affs

Edited by Chaos
nathandebate
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No assertions allowed. Let's talk about what the best affirmative next year will be.

 

Based on my analysis of Maury's cool post from a couple years ago here are my standards for what the best affirmatives will be next year.

 

Strategic Affirmatives do/have the following:

 

1. Framework – attempt to exclude the negative arguments most threatening to your case through a defense of ethics, or through indicts of predictions, or through kritikal arguments. Or you can not defend the USFG. Ideally your case can operate in your framework but also in the framework which the negative will try to defend.

 

2. Link specificity / Link turn specificity – obviously awesome. Including reasons that your link / link turn are most important can make this even more awesome.

 

 

3. CP / PIC Vulnerability – CPs are deadly when they solve case because with most judges any risk that the negative gains offense on the DA is enough to vote negative.

This is especially important:

A. Against Agent CPs – these are always extremely popular. You'll need advantages that are specific to US development if you want to avoid hearing different variations on “X should do the plan” for the entire year.

B. Against alt tech CPs – this depends more on your affirmative, but it could be deadly for certain affirmatives. Be sure that you use the best mechanism possible to develop or explore space.

 

 

4. Add Ons – have lots of short add ons which stem from different parts of the plan so that no CP will be able to solve all of case.

 

 

5. Be able to leverage case as offense against the K. It's hard to tell now, but I think Heidegger or Deep Eco will be making a comeback next year. You should try to have a case that can access a unique reason that exploitation of outer space is a good thing.

 

 

6. Politics Turns – The strength of the politics DA stems from the ability it gives the negative to debate the same thing over and over regardless of what case they are facing. Therefore, if most 2ACs are reading impact turns your ideal case would have good link turns, or vice versa.

 

 

7. Econ / Spending DA Link Turns – this will probably be one of the most popular generic negatives next year due to its truth value – space is really expensive. You should be prepared to defend that cost.

Defense against “economic decline turns case – space programs get rolled back” is also crucial. This argument was fairly popular during the poverty topic and may be so next year as well.

 

 

8. Force the negative to answer case to access their DAs. If your case solves all war (or something similar) you can force the negative to invest lots of time just to get back to ground zero.

 

 

9. Don't use nuclear war as an impact. Then the 2AC can read climate studies saying that NW doesn't cause extinction and the case will massively outweigh the DA.

 

 

10. Impact Calculus – use impacts that grant you access to unusual weighing mechanisms. The magnitude/probability/timeframe form of impact calculus is overrated. The nature of the unusual weighing mechanisms will vary depending on the case so it's difficult to discuss or predict what they will be, but that's the point.

 

 

11. Predictability – your case should be unusual enough that few arguments apply to you, but common enough that the negative consistently reads from a small variety of arguments. If the negative goes oddball every time you debate the probability that you do not have a good 2AC block to their arguments will increase substantially.

 

 

12. Topicality – this depends entirely upon the skill level of the debaters involved. Don't be any more untopical than you have to be to access the above, and don't read a case that you are unable to prove topical.

 

 

tldr; everyone should read he3 or cheater K affs

 

I dont see why nuke war is so terrible, there is impact defense to everything. And was Maury the kid that said read teach indian babies how to read was the best aff on the topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting assertions for "Best Aff". I'll add one. You are on the side of truth. Debaters make sophists, but truth will win more times than not. Lay judges and flow judges alike prefer to vote on the side of less BS.

 

Based on all of the above criteria, a First Contact or Kill the Buggers aff could be the best, but I'm guessing something like Mars colonization or SSP will be best.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting assertions for "Best Aff". I'll add one. You are on the side of truth. Debaters make sophists, but truth will win more times than not. Lay judges and flow judges alike prefer to vote on the side of less BS.

 

Based on all of the above criteria, a First Contact or Kill the Buggers aff could be the best, but I'm guessing something like Mars colonization or SSP will be best.

 

Mars cyclers ftw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont see why nuke war is so terrible, there is impact defense to everything. And was Maury the kid that said read teach indian babies how to read was the best aff on the topic?

Their DAs will end in NW, your advantages won't. You should be more prepared for the NW does / doesn't cause extinction debate than the negative will. You should also be more prepared to defend that your non NW impacts will cause extinction.

 

Maury's post about indian babies was stupid, but his post on the "best aff" was very helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their DAs will end in NW, your advantages won't. You should be more prepared for the NW does / doesn't cause extinction debate than the negative will. You should also be more prepared to defend that your non NW impacts will cause extinction.

 

This is not true. This is what I did for a lot of the year, and once people started figuring it out, they just ran warming disads or whatever stuff that we couldn't impact turn. At some point or another you'll have to debate your aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maury's post on the "best aff" was stupid, but his post about indian babies was very helpful.

 

fixed

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not true. This is what I did for a lot of the year, and once people started figuring it out, they just ran warming disads or whatever stuff that we couldn't impact turn. At some point or another you'll have to debate your aff.

 

Warming impact turns are the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember his warrant for why it was good was because 50% of american are below the national average reading level. i lol'd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not true. This is what I did for a lot of the year, and once people started figuring it out, they just ran warming disads or whatever stuff that we couldn't impact turn. At some point or another you'll have to debate your aff.

Obviously you'll have to debate your aff during the year.

 

You'll still be more likely to win the impact calc flow by reading the non NW impact because there's no guarantee that people will figure it out. Also you'll get a few easy wins at the beginning of the year, which is still pretty nice.

 

Even if I'm wrong, you still restricted the number of good strategic options available to the negative by reading the warming impacts. The fewer good negative strategies against your case there are, the better prepped your 2AC blocks will be because it will be easier to anticipate the negative's arguments.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GW k2 Bio D

GW k2 Local Agriculture

GW k2 Econ

GW k2 preventing infectious disease

GW k2 prevent poverty

GW k2 Trade

GW k2 preventing water wars

GW k2 preventing land disputes

Also Ice Age

Edited by Mr. T
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously you'll have to debate your aff during the year.

 

You'll still be more likely to win the impact calc flow by reading the non NW impact because there's no guarantee that people will figure it out. Also you'll get a few easy wins at the beginning of the year, which is still pretty nice.

 

Even if I'm wrong, you still restricted the number of good strategic options available to the negative by reading the warming impacts. The fewer good negative strategies against your case there are, the better prepped your 2AC blocks will be because it will be easier to anticipate the negative's arguments.

 

Or, a team can just read like 4-off, T, random CP, politics or whatever, and the K, then spend 4 minutes putting a shit ton of defense on your advantage and reading a bunch of "nuke war causes extinction" cards. They will do that at the beginning or the end of the year regardless, and it's hard to defend against that strategy - especially if the block just goes for disad and case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, a team can just read like 4-off, T, random CP, politics or whatever, and the K, then spend 4 minutes putting a shit ton of defense on your advantage and reading a bunch of "nuke war causes extinction" cards. They will do that at the beginning or the end of the year regardless, and it's hard to defend against that strategy - especially if the block just goes for disad and case.

You should be more prepared for the NW does/doesn't cause extinction debate than they are because you will have it many rounds while they will only have it during a few rounds. You should also be more prepared to debate your case than they are.

 

You can't have it both ways. Either the negative will adapt like you said they would in your earlier post, and thus the non NW impact will restrict the good strategic options for the neg, or the negative will have to invest lots of time in case defense to have a chance of winning the round.

 

Either one of those is good for the affirmative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the only problem of forcing teams in one direction of a neg strat is that they try to get out of it, usually by coming up with new and improved shit that's random. That's why having a mix of the warming impacts and nw impacts is the all around better strat because

 

A.) You'll be the only team with an impact if either of you reads nw =/= end of humanity

 

B.) Judges in my neck of the woods like diversity in argumentation, getting up to the podium with 5 impacts that look something like econ decline -> nw or war in the ME spills over (lol empirically denied) is going to make it too easy. The same can be said if you have 5 GW impacts.

 

C.) It makes you sound more intelligent when you have multiple routes to major loss of life or extinction

 

D.) allows you to be strategic with how you deploy your case. outweighing 4 off with 4 nw impacts or 4 gw impacts is going to be interesting if you can't cross apply case or have to answer impact defense.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should be more prepared for the NW does/doesn't cause extinction debate than they are because you will have it many rounds while they will only have it during a few rounds. You should also be more prepared to debate your case than they are.

 

So what if you're prepared to debate the case? You still have to spend time on it, and if the neg spends 2 minutes on warming good and 2 minutes on nuke war happens, that's a pretty decent time tradeoff.

 

You can't have it both ways. Either the negative will adapt like you said they would in your earlier post, and thus the non NW impact will restrict the good strategic options for the neg, or the negative will have to invest lots of time in case defense to have a chance of winning the round.

 

It's not like there are no good impacts that aren't nuclear war; the fact that you're reading a warming impact in your aff probably proves this. Plenty of teams this year win rounds on EPA politics, or Russia relations with warming impacts, or whatever. And you've kind of got it backwards with the case defense thing; I don't know about you, but I'd say that a 2NC that's 8 minutes of case defense/turns and a 1NR that's 5 minutes of the deterrence disad or a block that's just 13 minutes of impact turns are both pretty devastating to handle in a 5 minute 1AR.

 

This aff is designed to make debates small and easy to handle; if the neg makes it into a really big disad/case debate it'll be very hard to handle. I'm not saying it's unstrategic to do this, but it's not gonna make you win all your aff rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your entire line of argument is assuming that I'm hypothetically reading only non NW scenarios, I wouldn't be. I agree with yoyoma, reading both is best because it increases the number of strategic options available to the affirmative.

 

You said that teams would read EPA impacts instead of their usual strategies. That's my point. By reading a non NW impact you will force the negative to debate arguments they are less familiar with and that you are more prepared for than they are. The negative reads DAs that end in NW more than they read DAs that end in non NW, which means this has a comparative advantage.

 

You say "so what" if the affirmative is more prepared to defend the case than the negative. The "so what" is that the chief advantage of the affirmative is infinite prep time. The affirmative can maximize this advantage by forcing the negative teams to consistently read similar arguments because when the affirmative consistently faces the same arguments they will have much higher quality 2AC blocks against those arguments. The affirmative also has comparatively more experience debating the case than the negative, which grants them an additional advantage.

 

Preparedness solves back any time tradeoff caused by forcing the negative to debate case because the comparative quality of the negative's arguments will be much lower than the affirmative and the only factor which should influence 1AR time commitment is the probability the negative will win on a certain argument, and that probability depends upon the quality of the negative arguments.

 

The affirmative can also leverage their experience here - it's likely that the block will waste time on arguments that aren't crucial for the affirmative to win and the affirmative can ignore certain arguments - this is more likely to occur when the disparity between affirmative and negative preparedness increases.

 

Strategic concessions can also minimize the impact of the time tradeoff - if the negative invests lots of time on the NW -> extinction debate the 1AR should concede that and focus on beating the case defense.

 

Lastly, if the negative has enough evidence to debate 13 minutes of case in the block they'll then be reading it anyway because they won't want the research to go to waste and because of the reasons that you feel it is difficult for the 1AR to respond to.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about space infrastructure affirmatives? I ran SSP on the energy topic in 2008-2009. A lot of our evidence (specifically NSSO 2007) talked about how infrastructure and SBSP satellites went hand in hand. How would a "give NASA research and development grants for the development of sustainable space faring infrastructure" affirmative hold up against topicality?

 

That way you could claim a pretty wide range of advantages. Granted, yes, it does open the floodgates for generic disadvantages.

 

Another question I have for the community involves an argument we struggled with when defending SSP: feasibility versus plausibility. There's a lot of literature out there that claims SSP is plausible but not feasible. I imagined this debate happened before the space program that sent astronauts to the moon -- and will probably happen before we sent the next batch of individuals to explore (Mars). Anyway, is the generic "funding/R&D solves back shitty tech" an adequate answer to equally generic "not feasible/space debris" frontlines?

 

Sorry if any of that is/was muddled. Looking forward to hearing back from OP/other posts.

Edited by F-22 Tradeoff
Confusing comment in third paragaph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about space infrastructure affirmatives? I ran SSP on the energy topic in 2008-2009. A lot of our evidence (specifically NSSO 2007) talked about how infrastructure and SBSP satellites went hand in hand. How would a "give NASA research and development grants for the development of sustainable space faring infrastructure" affirmative hold up against topicality?

 

That way you could claim a pretty wide range of advantages. Granted, yes, it does open the floodgates for generic disadvantages.

It's probably FX T because you don't directly develop, you give an incentive that might result in development. The SPS case will be very common and the negative will have lots of good arguments against it from the energy topic. There is a chance that everyone will be lazy and not update their stuff, but it is a slim one.

 

I don't like the idea of saying SSP causes infrastructure because it's a fairly generic link argument. The negative could read offense based on many of the other affirmatives that would be topical that year - you'd be better off just reading those other cases. But, those other cases might not be viable without a SSP system, which makes this tricky. There are probably a bunch of advantages for SSP that don't involve infrastructure, I'd use those instead. (Resource Wars and Warming?)

 

SSP definitely does have a lot of advantages and add ons, which is good. But you're also right to say that the negative would have a lot of arguments against your case. I think that if your school is small or if teams read different affirmatives you should not read this case. If you can handle the workload necessary for this case, I'd consider it.

 

This also depends on the breadth of the topic, because if there are a lot of case negatives you need to research you will have less time to write 2AC blocks.

 

Another question I have for the community involves an argument we struggled with when defending SSP: feasibility versus plausibility. There's a lot of literature out there that claims SSP is plausible but not feasible. I imagined this debate happened before the space program that sent astronauts to the moon -- and will probably happen before we sent the next batch of individuals to explore (Mars). Anyway, is the generic "funding/R&D solves back shitty tech" an adequate answer to equally generic "not feasible/space debris" frontlines?

 

Sorry if any of that is/was muddled. Looking forward to hearing back from OP/other posts.

In terms of solvency I like the idea of investing in R+D. I think it would be a good answer against claims that the technology isn't ready. Its problem is topicality. The negative also might leverage your answers to their tech arguments as "in round" abuse.

 

Your decision should be based off your skill as a T debater (and possibly the biases of your judging community). If you think that you are more likely to lose rounds due to the technology argument than to the T, you should defend the R+D mechanism. If vice versa, don't do it.

Edited by Chaos
its =/= it's
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's probably FX T because you don't directly develop, you give an incentive that might result in development. The SPS case will be very common and the negative will have lots of good arguments against it from the energy topic. There is a chance that everyone will be lazy and not update their stuff, but it is a slim one.

 

I don't like the idea of saying SSP causes infrastructure because it's a fairly generic link argument. The negative could read offense based on many of the other affirmatives that would be topical that year - you'd be better off just reading those other cases. But, those other cases might not be viable without a SSP system, which makes this tricky. There are probably a bunch of advantages for SSP that don't involve infrastructure, I'd use those instead. (Resource Wars and Warming?)

 

In terms of solvency I like the idea of investing in R+D. I think it would be a good answer against claims that the technology isn't ready. It's problem is topicality. The negative also might leverage your answers to their tech arguments as "in round" abuse.

 

Your decision should be based off your skill as a T debater (and possibly the biases of your judging community). If you think that you are more likely to lose rounds due to the technology argument than to the T, you should defend the R+D mechanism. If vice versa, don't do it.

 

Have you read the NSSO card? He basically argues that since launch costs are so high, the satellites would have to be assembled in space. Infrastructure, though, would have to be developed prior to (or alongside) the launch of the satellites in order to guarantee assembly. In my opinion, I think it's a pretty legitimate claim. I don't say that to contest your argument, though -- because you are right; development can happen independently.

 

I, like you, also think that "R&D" solves back is a legitimate argument against current technological gaps/concerns that negatives will read as solvency frontlines. But you did bring up an interesting argument (one that we stumbled across pretty frequently): "solvency claims prove abuse, as evidence is only speculative". I think that's what the negative should be arguing, but I don't think any given judge should discredit the affirmative's initiative. As cliche as I'm sure it will sound by the end of next year... space is the next step in scientific progress and human exploration. It is the next (but probably not 'final') frontier.

 

I'm glad my four years ended two years ago. I probably would have granted any decent K debater a number of links off those last few lines.

 

Either way, I do appreciate your response. I'd be willing to help anyone interested in structuring an infrastructure/SSP affirmative out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The SPS case will be very common and the negative will have lots of good arguments against it from the energy topic. There is a chance that everyone will be lazy and not update their stuff, but it is a slim one.

 

I don't mind the negative having lots of good arguments, so long as I feel my turns are specific and persuasive. I prefer predictability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your entire line of argument is assuming that I'm hypothetically reading only non NW scenarios, I wouldn't be. I agree with yoyoma, reading both is best because it increases the number of strategic options available to the affirmative.

 

I mean, it seems to me like that moots the whole "nuke war preempts" thing, but each to his own.

 

You said that teams would read EPA impacts instead of their usual strategies. That's my point. By reading a non NW impact you will force the negative to debate arguments they are less familiar with and that you are more prepared for than they are. The negative reads DAs that end in NW more than they read DAs that end in non NW, which means this has a comparative advantage.

 

Familiarity shouldn't an issue. Any half-decent team is gonna know how to run a warming impact as well as a nuke war impact, and they should be familiar with the politics scenario; if not, they've got other problems.

 

You say "so what" if the affirmative is more prepared to defend the case than the negative. The "so what" is that the chief advantage of the affirmative is infinite prep time. The affirmative can maximize this advantage by forcing the negative teams to consistently read similar arguments because when the affirmative consistently faces the same arguments they will have much higher quality 2AC blocks against those arguments. The affirmative also has comparatively more experience debating the case than the negative, which grants them an additional advantage.

 

Again I say so what? Someone breaks a new aff against me, my entire strat is impact turning their advantages. There will be generics that apply to that new aff regardless of what the impact turns are. It is just as easy to impact turn a warming advantage as it is an economy advantage (some might argue easier).

 

Preparedness solves back any time tradeoff caused by forcing the negative to debate case because the comparative quality of the negative's arguments will be much lower than the affirmative and the only factor which should influence 1AR time commitment is the probability the negative will win on a certain argument, and that probability depends upon the quality of the negative arguments.

 

And this, like a lot of your arguments, seems to depend on the neg's evidence sucking. Prolif good literature is awesome, as is heg bad or growth bad; if the neg spends 8 minutes on dedev or prolif good and then 5 minutes on the politics disad, I wouldn't want to waste my time ALSO extending all those nuke war preempts that were such a huge part of the 2AC while I'm busy answering all the arguments they made.

 

The affirmative can also leverage their experience here - it's likely that the block will waste time on arguments that aren't crucial for the affirmative to win and the affirmative can ignore certain arguments - this is more likely to occur when the disparity between affirmative and negative preparedness increases.

 

And what if the 2NC is just like 4 separate impact turns, or a K with all the cheating arguments that lose rounds, and the 1NR is another 5 minutes of impact work or a counterplan that solves the case? The aff can only ignore tiny arguments - semi-decent teams will not make these useless arguments.

 

Strategic concessions can also minimize the impact of the time tradeoff - if the negative invests lots of time on the NW -> extinction debate the 1AR should concede that and focus on beating the case defense.

 

Why are we assuming they just have case defense? Plenty of teams just straight turn the advantages. Neg spends 2 minutes on the preempts in the block, 6 minutes on the disad, and 5 minutes on the case turns, aff still has to answer 11 minutes of offense.

 

Lastly, if the negative has enough evidence to debate 13 minutes of case in the block they'll then be reading it anyway because they won't want the research to go to waste and because of the reasons that you feel it is difficult for the 1AR to respond to.

 

Lol not true. We have some pretty awesome disad/case cards but I go for the K because I'm a lazy cheating bastard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Familiarity shouldn't an issue. Any half-decent team is gonna know how to run a warming impact as well as a nuke war impact, and they should be familiar with the politics scenario; if not, they've got other problems.

Familiarity is only a part of it. The quality of the neg evidence is also a part. You've conceded that the affirmative will have comparatively better evidence than the negative if they are able to restrict the amount of strategic options that the negative has, and you've conceded that the affirmative can restrict the number of strategic options the negative has by reading non NW impacts.

 

Again I say so what? Someone breaks a new aff against me, my entire strat is impact turning their advantages. There will be generics that apply to that new aff regardless of what the impact turns are. It is just as easy to impact turn a warming advantage as it is an economy advantage (some might argue easier).

Aff preparedness solves this back. That was conceded.

 

And this, like a lot of your arguments, seems to depend on the neg's evidence sucking. Prolif good literature is awesome, as is heg bad or growth bad; if the neg spends 8 minutes on dedev or prolif good and then 5 minutes on the politics disad, I wouldn't want to waste my time ALSO extending all those nuke war preempts that were such a huge part of the 2AC while I'm busy answering all the arguments they made.

It's about the comparative advantage that the affirmative has over the negative in argument quality, not an assumption that the neg will be terrible.

 

Your second point does not make sense.

 

And what if the 2NC is just like 4 separate impact turns, or a K with all the cheating arguments that lose rounds, and the 1NR is another 5 minutes of impact work or a counterplan that solves the case? The aff can only ignore tiny arguments - semi-decent teams will not make these useless arguments.

Preparedness solves by allowing more efficient aff answers. You've conceded that quality is the sole determinant of how much time investment is necessary.

 

Why are we assuming they just have case defense? Plenty of teams just straight turn the advantages. Neg spends 2 minutes on the preempts in the block, 6 minutes on the disad, and 5 minutes on the case turns, aff still has to answer 11 minutes of offense.

OK sure, whatever. This doesn't effect the entire scenario, and you understand the point I was trying to make.

 

Lol not true. We have some pretty awesome disad/case cards but I go for the K because I'm a lazy cheating bastard.

Every argument you make assumes that if the negative invests more time on case than the affirmative the negative will win. If that's true, the smart negative teams who you claim my arguments don't apply to will inevitably decide to spend more time on case than the affirmative.

 

Also, your wiki page contradicts this. And, even if you are lazy not everyone is. And, laziness shouldn't effect your willingness to read arguments that you already have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Familiarity is only a part of it. The quality of the neg evidence is also a part. You've conceded that the affirmative will have comparatively better evidence than the negative if they are able to restrict the amount of strategic options that the negative has, and you've conceded that the affirmative can restrict the number of strategic options the negative has by reading non NW impacts.

 

Lol @ "conceding." This isn't a debate round, a dropped argument isn't necessarily true. You are not necessarily "restricting" strategy or the quality of evidence. The best evidence isn't necessarily for nuclear war; which is probably proven by the fact that the hypothetical aff we're discussing is able to compete. If we're making this into a debate, there's no impact to restriction; the neg still has a bunch of strategic options. If an aff relies mainly on these nuke war pre-empts, what're you going to do vs a well blocked-out appropriations CP? "perm do both" and "only a risk there's no net benefit" probably aren't gonna cut it. The neg doesn't lose any vital strategies; any good team will be able to adapt.

 

 

Aff preparedness solves this back. That was conceded.

 

Again, lol @ conceding. No matter how many blocks you write, you're gonna have a hell of a 1AR to give after the block is just 13 minutes of case. Only bad debaters will be unable to adapt at all to the new aff.

 

 

It's about the comparative advantage that the affirmative has over the negative in argument quality, not an assumption that the neg will be terrible.

 

You still never make a point about how the aff's evidence is gonna be so much sweeter than the neg's. Take my aff - the internal link evidence for warming is pretty bad, and the neg literature is probably better on warming. There are multiple alt causes that the US-Japan alliance probably can't solve, I doubt it's gonna kill us all in 5 years, and maybe it's even good.

 

 

Preparedness solves by allowing more efficient aff answers. You've conceded that quality is the sole determinant of how much time investment is necessary.

 

And you've "conceded" that not every aff answer will be such great quality or that not every neg answer is gonna suck enough that the aff can ignore it. 1AR will always be time-pressured.

 

 

Every argument you make assumes that if the negative invests more time on case than the affirmative the negative will win. If that's true, the smart negative teams who you claim my arguments don't apply to will inevitably decide to spend more time on case than the affirmative.

 

This is definitely not what I'm saying. 4 minutes of case in the 2NC is often enough to win a round, and 8 minutes of case in the 2NC can be enough to lose around, depending on the team. I'm just saying that a decent team who is able to handle these big case debates will be able to devastate someone who decides to read this aff.

 

Also, your wiki page contradicts this. And, even if you are lazy not everyone is. And, laziness shouldn't effect your willingness to read arguments that you already have.

 

I lol'd. I'm pretty sure I know what I've gone for in 2NRs, and about 70% of the time in the last few local tournaments it's been the K. People are more likely to go for what they like, that's why you see Westminster never going for the K, or Notre Dame going for security, or Beacon going for deterrence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GW k2 Bio D

GW k2 Local Agriculture

GW k2 Econ

GW k2 preventing infectious disease

GW k2 prevent poverty

GW k2 Trade

GW k2 preventing water wars

GW k2 preventing land disputes

Also Ice Age

 

Anyone want it i give it for free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting insights all around.

 

I'm curious what the best DAs (or at least the core DAS) will be....in order to decide the later question of which Aff will be best:

 

1) Hege bad/Relations

2) NASA Tradeoff (probably both focus & spending/resources)

3) Politics/Elections

4) Spending (Economy)

5) Tech Spinoffs Bad (Nanotech, Biotech, CBWs)

6) Space Junk = Error/Solvency Turn & Miscalc

7) Soft power tradeoff (?)--but the impact stories don't make sense

8) Civil Military Relations (CMR)

Most of these aren't viable without a counterplan. But, i'm curious outside of XO & Consult what will be the most viable CPs.

 

Also, most all of the above commentary hasn't delved into the issue of timeframe, which is really an equally compelling & overlapping issue. I discussed 8+ ways affirmatives could access more short timeframe style advantages (or otherwise create arguments which exist outside of the timeframe debate):

 

If the timeframe question will be the definitive questions in soooo many debates next year, it certainly merits investigation, research, and in-depth strategizing. To that end, here are eight ways to solve the time frame question on the upcoming high school space exploration resolution (if you can think of more or you would like to take issue with any of the 8, feel free to add your suggestions):

1) Perception based advantages:

-competitiveness

-hege (and various forms of space weapons & militarization)

-softpower

-international law/treaty compliance

-trade/coop

 

2) Relations based advantages:

-china, russia, japan (although the links into this debate will likely go the other way, except with coop cases--which seem extra-topical)

 

3) Ethics based advantages:

-scientific discovery/knowledge

-innovation/technology

-US = uniquely qualified

-ecological ethics

-disaster based (like hunger)

-probably diseases

 

4) Niche Affirmatives with quick timeframes. Relatively small affs like Duane talks about (perhaps threat tracking or monitoring or perhaps disease tracking)

-weather

-disaster

-disease (?)

 

5) Critical Affirmatives.

And obviously **most** critical affirmatives generally avoid timeframe debates (except when disad turns the case or the speed of conciousness raising/mindset shift is in question. I've never seen a debate where this was a deciding factor for a critical affirmative unless they accepted DAs as legit)

 

6) Specific evidence.

-Advantages that change the risk calculus (evidence de jure on assessing impacts--my guess is innovation and technology based solutions have evidence specifically on this question which justify health research which may take decades to yield a viable solution to a disease which kills 100,000k to millions.)

-Advantages that quantify the risk. (I'm pretty sure evidence on this question exists in at least 3 areas of debate, but I'm sure more: malthusian/space/asteroid)

 

7) Indicts of Timeframe based thinking or frameworks (aka DA to your impact calc)

Some of this falls under #6, but I've seen poetry used on this question.

 

8) Credible Systemic Impacts (or hows its almost always been done):

And I'm sure there are a handful of other ways that people will find at camp. And decent system impacts outweigh fast, but probabalistic and contrived and historically disproven DA--otherwise we would never take any risks which results in paralysis.

 

Otherwise check out the lecture from Georgetown on the question of impact comparison (both the traditional impact assessment lecture and the exploding traditional methods lectures as well as the included document download for the evidence Batterman points to) and the files from Open Evidence on impact assessment and comparison (I think the only file on this question is from last years michigan files). And obviously check out the high school caselist wiki for existing evidence on this question (you might find 4 to 6 cards). Otherwise, investigate the literature on policy analysis and risk evaluation.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...