Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jbaker

Round 404: [MILITARY] Team slammin' wagon X (aff) vs. Spike and Murray (neg)

Recommended Posts

We will go neg on the space topic. Two teams enter, one team leaves. This is ragematch thunderdome crossed with mech warrior crossed with need for speed. No set speech times.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy (OHS-Banana) and I will throwdown if you guys like. You'll have to give me a little bit to write the aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge; cool with K's, but not real familiar with literature, so you need to explain your alt/how it functions with the aff. i evaluate T on competing interps.. no bias on theory - i really like clash @ the standards. Cool w/ all other policy/procedural arguments. ask questions if you have any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We will go neg on the space topic. Two teams enter, one team leaves. This is ragematch thunderdome crossed with mech warrior crossed with need for speed. No set speech times.

 

Steven Murray and I accept this challenge.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steven Murray and I accept this challenge.

Then it's settled....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then it's settled....

 

He and I will discuss the Aff later tonight. We'll have news on when to expect a 1AC shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He and I will discuss the Aff later tonight. We'll have news on when to expect a 1AC shortly.

 

Can you integrate my name into a hip contention title? :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll judge.

 

No.

Unless anyone has some particular reason they want you to judge.

 

This would be fun to judge...I'm in.

 

No.

 

I'll judge; cool with K's, but not real familiar with literature, so you need to explain your alt/how it functions with the aff. i evaluate T on competing interps.. no bias on theory - i really like clash @ the standards. Cool w/ all other policy/procedural arguments. ask questions if you have any.

 

Don't know you but you sound alright. Anyone else have a complaint on this guy?

 

Dibs judging if this happens

 

Yeah, you're cool Scott.

 

EDIT: How many judges are we rolling with? 3? 5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll adjudicate this shitfest.

 

Paradigm:

 

I profess to have an old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they pretended they were the president. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that framework; I am the president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president. For those worried about or intrigued by the implications, here's a guide:

 

Speed - Don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I didn't bother writing them down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president.

 

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, and you're just showing off your silly squirrel definition, I'm likely to put the secret service on you. So make sure you have a good case in reality, not in debateland.

 

DAs and advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed as a nutcase and then given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing you to be a nutcase and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, I will not allow DAs that destroy affirmative fiat. So, no “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important to the president. I do like getting re-elected.

 

CPs - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

 

K - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizzare solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

 

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, the secret service will be asked to not-so-gently escort you from the room. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

 

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider.

 

Lastly, enjoy this. It is a rare opportunity to debate for the president. Don't be rude and don't be lazy. Have fun within the seriousness of the fake situation.

Edited by Studley Dudley
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll adjudicate this shitfest.

 

Paradigm:

 

I profess to have an old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they pretended they were the president. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that framework; I am the president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president. For those worried about or intrigued by the implications, here's a guide:

 

Speed - Don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I didn't bother writing them down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president.

 

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, and you're just showing off your silly squirrel definition, I'm likely to put the secret service on you. So make sure you have a good case in reality, not in debateland.

 

DAs and advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed as a nutcase and then given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing you to be a nutcase and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, I will not allow DAs that destroy affirmative fiat. So, no “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important to the president. I do like getting re-elected.

 

CPs - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

 

K - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizzare solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

 

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, the secret service will be asked to not-so-gently escort you from the room. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

 

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider.

 

Lastly, enjoy this. It is a rare opportunity to debate for the president. Don't be rude and don't be lazy. Have fun within the seriousness of the fake situation.

 

holy shit I lol'd, I fucking love the president

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Chris, John said that I could judge. I like kritikal arguments. Boom.

 

Chris said you couldn't... All members of the debate have to agree on judges. Having a highly incompetent debater who "loves t3h k" but went to highschool with one of the participants seems disadvantageous for Chris/Murray.

Edited by Studley Dudley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alex dzeda is squirrely, I veto.

 

Chris and I agreed to 5 or 7 as legit as can be expected judges, so throw your hat into the ring of you want to rodeo at this rondezvous.

 

also brian kersch is still a douche nothing has changed!

Edited by jbaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want a more complete judging philosophy from this "habler" if that is his real name.

 

Yeah, same.

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...