Jump to content
JustAlex

[DEAD] [M] Round 368: [MILITARY] JustAlex (aff) vs. Skisteak (neg)

Recommended Posts

only other follow up i have is again on CBWs.

 

you said that north korea will use them. i guess my question is why

 

Oh, I misread your question the first time. North Korea has a low threshold for usage of CBW's- they feel that they need to counterbalance against the US with asymmetrical military strategy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That 2AC was troubling. There was a lack of Sheen. That 1AR better fuckin shape up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm showing up late, but can I judge too? I have dreamed of being on a panel with Bro Dan. If anyone needs a paradigm, I can post one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know I'm showing up late, but can I judge too? I have dreamed of being on a panel with Bro Dan. If anyone needs a paradigm, I can post one

 

OMG T THUR IS AUTOMATICALLY ON THE PANEL <3 x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

Come back to GDS :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is chill straight up policy, so pretty much anything goes from here. Unless the block reads a new K.

 

I'm a policymaker/think tank, like Kevin Kallmeyer in real life. ZING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll keep this short, I'm tabs, and I will vote on anything in this round. Below are just some dispositions.

 

CP- I think that my favorite ones are those that are specific to the case with case turns as net benefits. Aside from that, I think that I am more inclined than most to vote aff on the perm when there is a trivial/mitigated net benefit vs. a smallish solvency deficit, but in the end I would hope you would tell me what to value first. In terms of theory, I think that there are some types of perms that are illegitimate, but that does not mean that they are voting issue. That is an extreme uphill battle. The best recourse is probably just to reject the permutation.

 

DA- I take these almost every 1NR. I think that all DA debates should have a focus on the IL to impacts of the affirmative-- this means make arguments like we access or we turn their impact. I love IL debates.The only thing that you need to know with this is that I think that judges should weigh probability more than they should. I would prefer to avoid the offense/defense framework (unless you tell me to use it), and I think that defense can take out a DA (or case). In your final rebuttals, you need to isolate what the key arguments are and WHY they take out the disad. If you do this, and do nuanced impact calc, you will win (most likely, pun intended).

 

A side not on impact calc. As stated above, all debates should have a focus on probability impact calc. This involves considering the mathematic chance the DA happens, not just "were systemic, that means most probable". Use your speeches to consider the chance of each internal link (note... the final probability is them multiplied, not added). In terms of other impact calc, obviously timeframe and magnitude are important, but consider more advanced arguments like intervening actors etc.

 

T- I think the Ross Smith lecture on T and framework is amazing. I default to resonability, but I can be convinced (with a frown) that Competing Interps are good. I should add, I'm a 2a if that says anything. Forcing a team to win that their interp is uniquely better seems dumb... I digress. The neg does not need actual abuse, but they do need to win why their potential abuse is likely (i.e. allowing military presence=troops probably wont lead to hundreds of possible affs.) Lastly, remember that theory is an argument too and that it should be treated as one. This means it has a claim, warrant and support. They kill education which kills debate is not an argument. "They explode the topic to every weapons system. This makes it impossible for us predict which affs to research. We need to research to gain education because its where we read relevant literature. If we don't have the proper research to debate, we can't participate in this discourse which is the IL to education. We need this specific education to advocate our ideas in the future" is an argument.

 

I should add that I agree with Bro-dan... Kallmyer does have a great outlook on debate, and many of my thoughts stem from him.

 

Anything else just ask. I'm sure I'm missing something..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's chill, just wanted to make sure the participants were still alive. I'm super excited about this panel......................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP

 

I will NOT let this go away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The epic panel must make a decision together!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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...

×
×
  • Create New...