Jump to content
CurryGuy123

Season's Over...

Recommended Posts

So our debate season's over and we're just wondering if anyone wants any of our evidence, just ask and I can email it to you. We have some pretty creative arguments that may or may not fly where you debate.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

de_spriter(at)hotmail(dot)com

Like MDMD, any impact offense/defense or kritikal files (especially DnG or Coercion/Libertarianism) would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heg Stuff, Impact Work, Focault K, AFF file, troll arguments would be nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please email me any core/impact files you have and any kritikal stuff if you don't mind. Thanks a ton! Super nice of you to do this. + rep from me all the way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mediafire...a0qcqkx7kq8oo4b (Asteroid Mining Aff w/ answers to DAs, CPs, and Kritiks)

 

http://www.mediafire...bxfx3dvt9d8w558 (Space Debris DA w/ two impact scenarios)

 

http://www.mediafire...76rwqe28dinzhqq (Deep Sea CP w/ solvency cards for hege, warming, education, and REMs)

 

http://www.mediafire...sb8y68jpco6eebz (GEO DA w/ links for SPS, BMD, and generic for satellites)

 

http://www.mediafire...uptc77wc5ve15ag (Good hege cards saying there is no threat to US hegemony now from March 2012)

 

http://www.mediafire...vym9zwsnaflfw9w (Space Militarization DA)

 

http://www.mediafire...s9u05gbxbz43uz7 (Minor Repair against SPS with a card saying SPS causes increased global warming)

 

http://www.mediafire...xludkoj9vadxali (Topicality argument on "beyond" with a kritikal standard and kritikal impact-kinda confusing, so just ask if you have questions)

 

If you have questions about anything, either PM me or email me at curryguy123@live.com

 

Oh, and I've never used mediafire before, so if something doesn't work, just let me know and I'll figure it out.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mediafire...a0qcqkx7kq8oo4b (Asteroid Mining Aff w/ answers to DAs, CPs, and Kritiks)

 

http://www.mediafire...bxfx3dvt9d8w558 (Space Debris DA w/ two impact scenarios)

 

http://www.mediafire...76rwqe28dinzhqq (Deep Sea CP w/ solvency cards for hege, warming, education, and REMs)

 

http://www.mediafire...sb8y68jpco6eebz (GEO DA w/ links for SPS, BMD, and generic for satellites)

 

http://www.mediafire...uptc77wc5ve15ag (Good hege cards saying there is no threat to US hegemony now from March 2012)

 

http://www.mediafire...vym9zwsnaflfw9w (Space Militarization DA)

 

http://www.mediafire...s9u05gbxbz43uz7 (Minor Repair against SPS with a card saying SPS causes increased global warming)

 

http://www.mediafire...xludkoj9vadxali (Topicality argument on "beyond" with a kritikal standard and kritikal impact-kinda confusing, so just ask if you have questions)

 

If you have questions about anything, either PM me or email me at curryguy123@live.com

 

Oh, and I've never used mediafire before, so if something doesn't work, just let me know and I'll figure it out.

 

 

How could any of this "not fly" where some people debate? They all seem like straight forward policy arguments.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could any of this "not fly" where some people debate? They all seem like straight forward policy arguments.

 

I was refering mostly to the topicality argument-->I don't know how many judges are familiar with attaching a kritikal standard to a t violation and in my area, no judge had ever seen it before...in addition, we added a big 1NR block on anthropocentrism and added a kritikal impact to a t argument.

 

I've never seen it before, but I don't know if people run it in other parts of the country more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read SETI I impact turned T-beyond as anthropocentric because if you're outside the mesosphere looking in, what's on earth would be "beyond the mesosphere" so saying ground-based telescopes aren't beyond the mesosphere presupposes an anthropocentric viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But our t violation is against looking outside the mesosphere, no matter where the technology is...unless the tech is looking at earth, you're inherently anthropocentric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree -- I think that tech looking at earth is especially anthropocentric. I also think another decent aff internal link turn to this standard is that assuming the alien/ET is knowable and we can simplify their perspective in a two-sentence interpretation privileges our own methods of coming by knowledge and overly simplifies the Other while framing ourselves as superior, more so because we are benevolent by including them or something. Not to mention that you're just using the ET to win you a debate round, as part of a competitive culture which is almost certainly a human social construct.

 

Despite your bright line argument, I really think that reasonability solves this -- not because reasonability is a good argument at all, but because a so-called permutation of the definitions solves any risk of the turn and isn't based on the mistaken idea that in order to avoid anthropocentrism, we have to completely reverse our attitudes and policies to fixate on the opposite thing just as badly.

 

Not to mention the problem with the definition itself, that framer's intent is probably a true argument in terms of "we look at the earth every year, their topic paper's illustrate that this year's topic is about hyperreality and infinite possibility, blah blah" and that there isn't a great case list actually fitting your interpretation. Maybe 2 or 3 which are topical by most metrics anyway, with the elimination of most material camps produced and people are running. Therefore, there's "always a risk" that the aff is better for flexibility, choice, and breath of education.

 

Also, what ground do you lose if they're beyond the mesosphere? It actually seems like you wouldn't get debris, launches, insurance, or any of that if they were inside.

 

The second problem is that can't really simulate extinction from T, that doesn't make sense. It's a procedural which is picking what's best for debate as an activity, not what's best for the world. This isn't like a specific K link at all, since essentially you're criticizing them for a link of omission. And since the alt is just voting neg on your interpretation, I don't think it does enough. The idea of "causes extinction" is also really anthropocentric too, since we care about ourselves remaining alive because of our high development level. The other simple fact is that no one/nothing except humans will know wether we're being anthropocentric or not, so if we end up rejecting anthro, it's sort of just to make us feel awesome and righteous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree -- I think that tech looking at earth is especially anthropocentric. I also think another decent aff internal link turn to this standard is that assuming the alien/ET is knowable and we can simplify their perspective in a two-sentence interpretation privileges our own methods of coming by knowledge and overly simplifies the Other while framing ourselves as superior, more so because we are benevolent by including them or something. Not to mention that you're just using the ET to win you a debate round, as part of a competitive culture which is almost certainly a human social construct.

 

Despite your bright line argument, I really think that reasonability solves this -- not because reasonability is a good argument at all, but because a so-called permutation of the definitions solves any risk of the turn and isn't based on the mistaken idea that in order to avoid anthropocentrism, we have to completely reverse our attitudes and policies to fixate on the opposite thing just as badly.

 

Not to mention the problem with the definition itself, that framer's intent is probably a true argument in terms of "we look at the earth every year, their topic paper's illustrate that this year's topic is about hyperreality and infinite possibility, blah blah" and that there isn't a great case list actually fitting your interpretation. Maybe 2 or 3 which are topical by most metrics anyway, with the elimination of most material camps produced and people are running. Therefore, there's "always a risk" that the aff is better for flexibility, choice, and breath of education.

 

Also, what ground do you lose if they're beyond the mesosphere? It actually seems like you wouldn't get debris, launches, insurance, or any of that if they were inside.

 

The second problem is that can't really simulate extinction from T, that doesn't make sense. It's a procedural which is picking what's best for debate as an activity, not what's best for the world. This isn't like a specific K link at all, since essentially you're criticizing them for a link of omission. And since the alt is just voting neg on your interpretation, I don't think it does enough. The idea of "causes extinction" is also really anthropocentric too, since we care about ourselves remaining alive because of our high development level. The other simple fact is that no one/nothing except humans will know wether we're being anthropocentric or not, so if we end up rejecting anthro, it's sort of just to make us feel awesome and righteous.

 

There are some very good points here, but I don't agree with all of them.

 

Simplification of ET: I more or less agree. When the file talks about how 99% of all possible perspectives would put "beyond" to mean "within," that's good stuff. However, the Drake's Equation stuff is what links into this simplification argument. It probably isn't necessary to defend the existence or non-existence of intelligence in space; just find some cards indicating that a cosmocentric viewpoint is better than a geocentric one (most Anthro K files have this under alt solvency).

 

Bright Line: The idea of perming a rejection of the Aff interpretation doesn't really make sense. You're either topical, or you aren't... The only possible perm that I can think of would be something like "include both perspectives - anything is topical (as long as it isn't actually in the mesosphere)." However, that seems contrived and probably links real hard to limits.

 

Framer's Intent: Well, generally speaking, FI is a horrible standard... What's interesting is that this interp technically allows for a very wide number of cases that involve essentially doing anything on Earth; the added benefit is that almost all of them are technologically feasible. The main problem is just that the definition isn't predictable. The K standard could theoretically outweigh this, but an even better T argument would be one that is at least semi-legit even without the K standard.

 

Extinction from T: I disagree with the claim that extinction doesn't make sense on a T flow, but I do agree that having that as an impact is anthropocentric. A better impact would be VTL; Zimmerman 97 and Fogg 2000 might be good here. However, the idea of having that impact on a T flow isn't all that radical. Teams use extinction (or other large impacts) as impacts to Kritiks all the time, and there are a lot of similarities between T and K's. Both are a priori, pre-fiat issues that are based on normative arguments about what happens when the judge votes for something (the plan for K's, the Aff interp for T). Teams can say that voting for the Aff's interp is bad because doing so would destroy Neg ground, so I don't see much difference in teams saying that doing so would also devalue life, et cetera. K's critique mindsets, and that's really all that an interpretation is: a mindset determining what the Resolution actually means.

 

 

All that being said, I don't think that this particular T shell is the best (although, kudos for making a unique argument that isn't completely BS). However, using K standards is certainly possible in certain situations that have good literature on it; I just recently finished a violation that says that including other planets in the definition of "space," but not the Earth, is geocentric; it sets a double standard and only makes sense if we think of the universe from the viewpoint of Earth, and doing that is anthropocentric. The alt is to adopt a cosmocentric or "universal" standpoint and define "space" to be completely outside the atmospheres of all celestial bodies.

 

Also, on the alternative energy topic, there was an argument that calling nuclear energy "alternative" was bad, even if the technology itself was good. I don't know how common it was because I only saw this in a lecture, and didn't actually debate that topic, but it indicates that using K standards is not new, although I believe that there is a lot of room for using them more often.

 

Also, on a separate note, thanks to the OP for posting this stuff; my season's not quite over (NFL's), so this stuff might be useful. I appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The second problem is that can't really simulate extinction from T, that doesn't make sense.

 

Extinction from T: I disagree with the claim that extinction doesn't make sense on a T flow

 

I had a topicality card on the military topic that said debates about BMD are key to check extinction from misinformation.

 

I'm still quite proud of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does pre-fiat mean? I saw it in the T file.

You look to the procedural arguments (such as T or theory) before you even begin to weigh the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You look to the procedural arguments (such as T or theory) before you even begin to weigh the case.

So what is the difference between pre-fiat and a priori?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the difference between pre-fiat and a priori?

 

The terms have distinct meanings, but in debate they usually apply to the same arguments. Pre-fiat means that the impacts of the argument occur regardless of whether the plan passes, and a priori means that the argument must be evaluated before all others (except for other a priori arguments). They are so closely related in debate because the "all other arguments" that an a priori issue comes before are usually post-fiat, leaving only pre-fiat issues.

 

Generally, you hear pre-fiat being applied to K's, and a priori being applied to T.

  • Upvote 1

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...