Jump to content
theclanofryan

Spark/wipeout Aff

Recommended Posts

Thinking about running a spark/wipeout aff for this upcoming year. Though i might post an outline of the aff and see what you guys think/what you would run against it to prepare against that.

so the idea is that we increase the amount of nuclear silos in the United states. If you are wondering, I believe this to be arguably t because of the anatomy of a nuclear missile; there are 2 components, the missile and the warhead. The missile acts as the transportation, and the warhead is the goods that are moved around. Then breaking the NPT (nuclear proliferation treaty) causes war with russia which then leads to extinction. Then we go on read wipeout. If you arent familiar with this argument it reads that humans will destroy earth, and in their efforts to survive, expand to new frontiers in space. The only way to stop humans reign of destruction is to exterminate them. I have fixated some solid answers to things like security, ext-bad, and some basic t(although i acknowledged that will be problematic) but what else do you think we should be add or be prepped for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would run the dick out of T. Don't run silos, run missiles. And even that is security infrastructure. No offense, but this aff is super untopical. You might be able to worm your way out of it. But In my honest opinion, I would scrap this because I have never ever ever seen kill all humans run seriously or well. It is an argument that begs a lot of questions and basically asks the judge to kill themselves, which I don't think a lot of judges will. But if you really want to go for it, watch out for anthropocentrism good, and a lot of basic arguments.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just take a topical aff and read DA links/Impacts as your first contention and wipeout/anthro as your second

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just take a topical aff and read DA links/Impacts as your first contention and wipeout/anthro as your second

 

this

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're reading a speceisism impact (I hate the term anthropocentrism; it's so...speceisist) that says that killing humans is good, then you'll want to somehow avoid nuclear war.

 

Think of it this way. Do cockroaches live through nuclear war? If you answer yes, look it up. If you answer no, you're not getting my point.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're reading a speceisism impact (I hate the term anthropocentrism; it's so...speceisist) that says that killing humans is good, then you'll want to somehow avoid nuclear war.

 

Think of it this way. Do cockroaches live through nuclear war? If you answer yes, look it up. If you answer no, you're not getting my point.

 

I'm betting that he would read aliens stuff for wipeout. Or read that deleuze card (the first one in Murray's DnG file shell) and then defense on animals surviving, how humans kill animals and such, and then maybe args about life in outer space that humanity would kill, which would mean an inclusion of both.

 

The aliens plus deleuze would be easy. It would be:

-Plan

-DA's to plan

-Recycled anthro k from the space topic

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry something i should clarify, we are going more in the direction of the wipeout that reads that humans are going to destroy the world and then move on to new frontiers in space in their conquest for survival. We argue that because they are going to destroy the world anyways, we must eradicate humanity now so that they cannot move into space and we can stop their reignof destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the UTNIF file from last year, it will probably be a good starting ground like their Death of the Natural section

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would run the dick out of T. Don't run silos, run missiles. And even that is security infrastructure.

 

I'm new to debate, but wouldn't silos be more topical than missiles? Or could you explain why silos would be bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry james, could you articulate? i see where you are going, i just cant think of any CPs that people could make up that cause GNW and extinction with other net benefits. Also, with that t explanation do you think that t really wont be winnable? we were given the idea by one of the best collage debaters in the nation in the last year who was in the top team at berkeley and he thought it was valid. The problem with running something like hsr and then reading neg arguments to that is that other teams on the negative can pull out answers to the das and case turns that we read saying that HSR causes war, so its much harder to win. What do yall think will be better in the end, the more questionably topical aff or the easier to counter one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry james, could you articulate? i see where you are going, i just cant think of any CPs that people could make up that cause GNW and extinction with other net benefits.

 

 

Global mass suicides. Protects the other life on Earth by not destroying it through nuclear war. I mean, there's a utopian fiat issue, but in terms of the most preferable policy option in that context, it's a winner.

 

Some sort of hippie CP or K abolishing technology and living in tune with nature. Saves the most life by not killing off humanity.

 

Any CP that leads to GNW and doesn't link to the K they read. So any plan that they can link a DA to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this is a bad idea, but...

 

RE: Topicality Strength vs. Substance Strength

 

It depends. I was lazy and functionally prepping alone, but smart, so reading a questionably topical and probably abusive affirmative worked pretty well for me when I did policy. I had to spend much more time on T than was average, since it was the only argument that I was really at risk of losing on. A larger squad would gain fewer benefits from squirreliness (in fact, it might be in your best interest to read a mainstream argument that they'll have blocks for, if you're REALLY prepared, so that they don't break out random miscellaneous Ks). It also depends on the level of judge intervention that you'll have to deal with in Topicality debates, which is something I didn't consider and I suffered for.

 

The tradeoff I did was also unique because some of the subtle cheating I did was essentially so strong I was immune to everything but the PTX DA, and case always outweighed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OR, you could just read some generic deontology aff (human rights, dehum, and whatever the fuck you want) and in the 2AC, you could just read all your wipeout shit.

 

Needs More Consult Japan is pretty right about this. This gives teams unlimited CPs with weird Net benefits to solve the aff. Instead in the 2AC you can just impact turn the fuck out of their DAs, because teams, even if they're K teams, will read a disad and some util shit. If they don't they're probably engaging the case poorly and will lose anyway.

 

This lets you spike out of all those CPs they might read. If they read 2NC CPs, your theory args are pretty compelling. them solving your impact turns in the 2nc with a new cp is bad.

a. They should be prepped for their shit to get impact turned

b. that still screws the 1ar out of all the 2ac offense.

c. the 2nc has unlimited CP options to solve the impact turns, hence why it wasn't the 1ac.

d. the neg already has 13 minutes to answer the 4 I put on the impact turns. that's three times the 2ac, it's pretty unfair for them to skew 2ac time

e. that kills 2ac and 1ar strat-- reasons above

f. education is lost because the anthro/whatever you're reading debate is mooted by that cp.

 

insert perfcon shit here because 1nc was death bad and CP is death good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OR, you could just read some generic deontology aff (human rights, dehum, and whatever the fuck you want) and in the 2AC, you could just read all your wipeout shit.

 

Needs More Consult Japan is pretty right about this. This gives teams unlimited CPs with weird Net benefits to solve the aff. Instead in the 2AC you can just impact turn the fuck out of their DAs, because teams, even if they're K teams, will read a disad and some util shit. If they don't they're probably engaging the case poorly and will lose anyway.

 

This lets you spike out of all those CPs they might read. If they read 2NC CPs, your theory args are pretty compelling. them solving your impact turns in the 2nc with a new cp is bad.

a. They should be prepped for their shit to get impact turned

b. that still screws the 1ar out of all the 2ac offense.

c. the 2nc has unlimited CP options to solve the impact turns, hence why it wasn't the 1ac.

d. the neg already has 13 minutes to answer the 4 I put on the impact turns. that's three times the 2ac, it's pretty unfair for them to skew 2ac time

e. that kills 2ac and 1ar strat-- reasons above

f. education is lost because the anthro/whatever you're reading debate is mooted by that cp.

 

insert perfcon shit here because 1nc was death bad and CP is death good.

 

8 minutes of wipeout in the 2ac is hardly "strategy." it's more like "premature defeat."

 

also good luck answering 13 minutes of answers to wipeout in the 1ar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes of wipeout in the 2ac is hardly "strategy." it's more like "premature defeat."

 

also good luck answering 13 minutes of answers to wipeout in the 1ar

 

I agree. it's much better to answer anything with specific args, just saying if you are gong to, it's a better 2ac strat than 1ac...

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...