Jump to content
Darth Antonist

So...about next year...

Recommended Posts

The apostrophe placement makes it the proper use of a slang term.

 

Slang =/= correct grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slang =/= correct grammar

 

"Correct" is arbitrary. While I do have an obsessive love with "proper" and slightly old English, language is fluid. Slang shapes languages. Fun fact of the day: The common term "rascal" is derived from a slang form of the antiquated word "rapscallion." This is just one example of slang shaping language. Words and language, though I personally view them as a medium for art, are in essence just sounds/symbols that trigger recognition. When the sound/symbol is recognised, the brain can extract the meaning. Because society, and microsocieties, evolve(s), change(s), and fluctuate(s), language has to be able to catch up and change with us. If language didn't do this, we'd lose so many of the fascinating splinters of the English language. So as a Grammar Nazi myself, I commend you for your care towards respecting the language. However, you need to recognize the inherently amorphous method of communication that is language, as paradoxical as that may seem.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Correct" is arbitrary. While I do have an obsessive love with "proper" and slightly old English, language is fluid. Slang shapes languages. Fun fact of the day: The common term "rascal" is derived from a slang form of the antiquated word "rapscallion." This is just one example of slang shaping language. Words and language, though I personally view them as a medium for art, are in essence just sounds/symbols that trigger recognition. When the sound/symbol is recognised, the brain can extract the meaning. Because society, and microsocieties, evolve(s), change(s), and fluctuate(s), language has to be able to catch up and change with us. If language didn't do this, we'd lose so many of the fascinating splinters of the English language. So as a Grammar Nazi myself, I commend you for your care towards respecting the language. However, you need to recognize the inherently amorphous method of communication that is language, as paradoxical as that may seem.

 

 

this reminds me of a) a forced introspective college essay B) a sophomore's first k overview

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Already got the Cap K/Econ DA turn written and ready to go. I'm going to enjoy the cap debates.

 

 

can u send me this? Joncookdebate@yahoo (dot) com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Correct" is arbitrary. While I do have an obsessive love with "proper" and slightly old English, language is fluid. Slang shapes languages. Fun fact of the day: The common term "rascal" is derived from a slang form of the antiquated word "rapscallion." This is just one example of slang shaping language. Words and language, though I personally view them as a medium for art, are in essence just sounds/symbols that trigger recognition. When the sound/symbol is recognised, the brain can extract the meaning. Because society, and microsocieties, evolve(s), change(s), and fluctuate(s), language has to be able to catch up and change with us. If language didn't do this, we'd lose so many of the fascinating splinters of the English language. So as a Grammar Nazi myself, I commend you for your care towards respecting the language. However, you need to recognize the inherently amorphous method of communication that is language, as paradoxical as that may seem.

 

Not according to major college entrance exams or prep exams like the ACT and the SAT. Also in the formal world slang is never accepted. Whether slang may shape reality or whatnot is irrelevant; what is "correct" may be subjective but also is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in a formal society as "correct grammar" is the standards and norms that are accepted, and recognition of this distinction is a valuable life lesson that is ultimately necessary to move up the social order, if you ever have that intention in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the last space topic, hte rez origionally didn't include that, making it easy for somebobdy to develope earth. "In the Mesosphere" means not in earth, so AFF's can't go to earth.

 

I dislike this topic because of the negative bias -

a. Topicality - "explore" and "develope" are so broad of terms, and most AFF's won't include those words in the plan text, so it'll be very easy to run T against every aff. There's also T - space, which will be run as a time suck many rounds

b. Spending - soooo much link evidence, it'll link harder than ptx on this years topic

c. Solvency - most AFF's are impossible, and their impacts are probably a big strech.

d. All of this, coupled with the fact that the negative can get away with 4 worlds and a international fiat (ESA CP will destroy), means the neg will win a ton of rounds. Hopefully, this will be a wake up call to the community to get itself togethor and stop giving the negative so many things that make it easy to be neg.

 

tl;dr version - I love being a 2n.

 

Sure, but

1. There's no good internal link evidence to an econ impact because money is allocated every year to a "NASA Budget" fund, means that spending is going to happen no matter what.

 

2. Spending/Econ Impacts suck (empirically disproven, non-unique, etc.).

 

But I think a cool idea for a DA is to say that X plan that the Aff passes takes money out of the account for a different Y plan (I.E. your schools aff) which is much more crucial...or maybe like a CP or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly dont understand what is so bad about the strat in his sig

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not according to major college entrance exams or prep exams like the ACT and the SAT. Also in the formal world slang is never accepted. Whether slang may shape reality or whatnot is irrelevant; what is "correct" may be subjective but also is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in a formal society as "correct grammar" is the standards and norms that are accepted, and recognition of this distinction is a valuable life lesson that is ultimately necessary to move up the social order, if you ever have that intention in life.

 

Nice link wall.

Impact turn: the formal world is boring as balls and the world doesn't need it.

 

lolcatsdotcomph1bn8ragyuj06jp.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, but

1. There's no good internal link evidence to an econ impact because money is allocated every year to a "NASA Budget" fund, means that spending is going to happen no matter what.

- doesn't have to be an econ impact

- It obviously isn't just going to be NASA's budget. NASA gets a couple billion a year - all space projects have to go through congress and be put into thre budget, which would mean cutting something else. Easy link and internal.

 

2. Spending/Econ Impacts suck (empirically disproven, non-unique, etc.).

Doesn't have to be econ. Also, most spending impacts are pretty decent, because they're liike politics scenarios. There is always evidence quoting some senator as saying "money for XXX is key to YYY"

 

But I think a cool idea for a DA is to say that X plan that the Aff passes takes money out of the account for a different Y plan (I.E. your schools aff) which is much more crucial...or maybe like a CP or something

 

I mean, i guess thats cool, though it would require you to read non-inherent ev against your own aff which, if you use a wiki, people would cut against you or just steal your cited in round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice link wall.

Impact turn: the formal world is boring as balls and the world doesn't need it.

 

lolcatsdotcomph1bn8ragyuj06jp.jpg

 

That turn goes over just as well as an impact turn to killing debate does in round haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the last space topic, hte rez origionally didn't include that, making it easy for somebobdy to develope earth. "In the Mesosphere" means not in earth, so AFF's can't go to earth.

 

I dislike this topic because of the negative bias -

a. Topicality - "explore" and "develope" are so broad of terms, and most AFF's won't include those words in the plan text, so it'll be very easy to run T against every aff. There's also T - space, which will be run as a time suck many rounds

b. Spending - soooo much link evidence, it'll link harder than ptx on this years topic

c. Solvency - most AFF's are impossible, and their impacts are probably a big strech.

d. All of this, coupled with the fact that the negative can get away with 4 worlds and a international fiat (ESA CP will destroy), means the neg will win a ton of rounds. Hopefully, this will be a wake up call to the community to get itself togethor and stop giving the negative so many things that make it easy to be neg.

 

tl;dr version - I love being a 2n.

 

I agree and disagree with you. I dislike this topic - but I actually think that there is a huge aff bias.

 

a. Just because an aff doesn't use resolutional terminology doesn't mean that it's not topical. If anything, the fact that the aff will use specific terminology means that it would be harder for negatives to get counterplan competition because they will only have resolution words defined.

 

b. The internal link to the impact for the spending DA isn't exactly stellar. In addition, the wealth of link-turn evidence about why NASA would create jobs, revitalize the aerospace industry, is pretty good. And even if the spending DA is badass, it's the *only* badass DA on this topic.

 

c. Affs on this topic will find hyper specific solvency evidence from some random dude with a Ph.D. Even if it doesn't make sense, the depth of ideas on space will make for a huge negative research burden.

 

d. Negatives can read four conditional worlds and an international fiat CP on any topic. It's probably not strategic though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree and disagree with you. I dislike this topic - but I actually think that there is a huge aff bias.

 

a. Just because an aff doesn't use resolutional terminology doesn't mean that it's not topical. If anything, the fact that the aff will use specific terminology means that it would be harder for negatives to get counterplan competition because they will only have resolution words defined.

 

b. The internal link to the impact for the spending DA isn't exactly stellar. In addition, the wealth of link-turn evidence about why NASA would create jobs, revitalize the aerospace industry, is pretty good. And even if the spending DA is badass, it's the *only* badass DA on this topic.

 

c. Affs on this topic will find hyper specific solvency evidence from some random dude with a Ph.D. Even if it doesn't make sense, the depth of ideas on space will make for a huge negative research burden.

 

d. Negatives can read four conditional worlds and an international fiat CP on any topic. It's probably not strategic though.

 

Ill respond to you point by point:

 

a. I think you miunderstand what im saying here, Jack. AFF's won't use resolutional terminology, which means that a form of topicality can be run against them under that use of the word. Im actually talking about how there will be many many ways that each AFF can be proven untopical. This both time sucks the aff a ton, and it allows for way more neg strats. I'd say that a huge difference between this year and last was the amount of 2nr's that went for T. I saw very few 2nr's go for t this year, simply because a lot of negs had "military presence" in the plan text, or something to that effect. The year before, every negative could run an interp of increase and an interp of social services the AFF didn't meet and they would, in both instances, be strategic options. Im saying that this will happen again on space with even more T.

 

b. Yes, the I/L to spending sucks, but the negative can so easily prove the I/L and impacts with the amount of time they have. Its just how people said at the beginning of the year that every AFF linked hard to ptx, but that it still had not brink. 2N's would read 9 brink cards and suddenly the 1a wouldn't be able to extend the no brink. Also, there is still ok I/L evidence, it just depends on the scenario. There will always be decent cards quoting law makers or industry personal as saying XXX is good for stuff. And the impact will not necessarily be the economy.

 

c. Yes, AFF's will find solvency advocates from random people with Ph.D's, but, for every article about why we should take some aciton of going into space, there are a ton saying that the action would be impossible because of technology or that the plan costs a ton of money.

 

d. I think less and less 2a's go for theory, which makes it easy for neg's to read a rediculous number of worlds. And international fiat can be pretty damning on this topic - im sure your specific solvency advocate from a guy with a phd never wrote that the USfg should do the plan and not a privitized company or the ESA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

 

 

On the poverty topic, thats a pretty good strat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That turn goes over just as well as an impact turn to killing debate does in round haha

 

You mean revolutions don't go over well with the system?

Jeez, what a surprise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think next year's topic may have a negative bias. How does the affirmative get past time frame arguments? Affirmative will spend a (generally) huge amount of money now for an advantage that occurs several years from now. Politics and spending, however, are relatively immediate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not according to major college entrance exams or prep exams like the ACT and the SAT. Also in the formal world slang is never accepted. Whether slang may shape reality or whatnot is irrelevant; what is "correct" may be subjective but also is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in a formal society as "correct grammar" is the standards and norms that are accepted, and recognition of this distinction is a valuable life lesson that is ultimately necessary to move up the social order, if you ever have that intention in life.

 

Do published books of fiction count? If so, you have clearly never read Huckleberry Finn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do published books of fiction count? If so, you have clearly never read Huckleberry Finn.

 

I have read Huckleberry Finn. No, I would say they don't. Just because Twain used the word "nigger" in a satirical novel criticizing American life at the time doesn't mean its now formal by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think next year's topic may have a negative bias. How does the affirmative get past time frame arguments? Affirmative will spend a (generally) huge amount of money now for an advantage that occurs several years from now. Politics and spending, however, are relatively immediate.

 

They usually:

A) Just use "magnitude outweighs timeframe" arguments and then claim a structural advantage with something that has a large timeframe, or

B) Find really niche affs that have close timeframes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...