Jump to content
swagondeck

Going 1 Off

Recommended Posts

what should the 1nc look like for doing this?

 

Obviously link, impact, alt, root cause, framing...

but what specifically?

 

Thanks.

 

 

also, does anyone have any good cards/answers "1ac impacts kill all life"? the card i currently read is

 

You should be very skeptical of this claim. Evolution means nature can adapt to any conditions.

Keekok Lee, Visiting Chair in Philosophy at Lancaster University, 1999[The Natural and the Artefactual p. 88-90]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Role of the Ballot is fun, but it really depends on the kritik.

 

Going one of Kritik is realllyyy funnn.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You should be very skeptical of this claim. Evolution means nature can adapt to any conditions.

Keekok Lee, Visiting Chair in Philosophy at Lancaster University, 1999[The Natural and the Artefactual p. 88-90]

[J]ust as the clouds of carbon dioxide threaten to heat the atmosphere and perhaps starve us--we are figuring out a new method of dominating the earth, a method more thorough, and therefore more promising, than burning coal and oil and natural gas. It's not certain that genetic engineering and macromanagement of the world's resources will provide a new cornucopia, but it certainly seems probable. ... why, then, does it sound so awful? Because, of course, it represents the second end of nature. We have pretty much, by accident, altered the atmosphere so badly that nature as we know it is over. But this won't be by accident--this will be on purpose. I don't mean that we shall end nature if something goes wrong--if, say, a strain of bacteria programmed to eat cellulose gets loose and eats every tree and weed in sight .... It is the simple act of creating new forms of life that changes the world, that puts us forever in the deity business. We will never again be a created being; instead we will be creators.-" McKibben's lament about the first and second ends of nature obscures numerous points. While McKibben clearly recognizes that any action on the part of humans has impact upon nature~, he is not so clear about where the line should be drawn between those impacts which could be said to constitute the end of nature and those which constitute the end of nature. He characterizes the first end of nature, represented by global warming or stratospheric ozone depletion, in two conflicting ways. On p. 58----cited earlier--he says: "By changing the weather, we make every spot on earth man-made and artificial." But on p. 166, he writes: "We have pretty much, by accident, altered the atmosphere so badly that nature as we know it is over." His first characterization is definitely wrong. Precisely, because the alteration has not been designed, it would be incorrect to imply that it involves the demise of nature% when it involves the demise of natureo (as the impact is global and causally pervasive). Although he is more correct in his second characterization, all the same, he is not clear as to what could be meant by 'accidental.' And when that clarification has been made, it is not obvious that such a demise is really 'accidental.' Something, A, is said accidentally to have happened when the following condi­tions jointly obtain: (i) the agent did not deliberately intend A to happen and (ii) either A was caused by another event which was not initiated by the agent but by some other agent--the precious vase the agent was carrying was knocked out of her hands by a charging Alsatian, or A was caused by something which was entirely beyond the agent's control so that s/he could not be said to have acted, rather it was something which simply happened--all of a sudden, she suffered momentarily from a black-out or an epileptic fit, and as a result the vase fell from her grasp, shattering to pieces. But the first end of nature as identified by McKibben cannot be said to be accidental in the senses worked out above. It may be true that the agents involved do not deliberately intend to produce the greenhouse effect or the ozone hole. The effects satisfy condition (i) above but not (ii) in either form. They are anthropogenically, though not deliberately, produced. They are the accumulation of the unintended consequences of innumerable but separable individual acts of fossil burning, growing paddy rearing cattle, etc. No one, in designing or using a car or keeping cows, deliberately and directly intends to cause global warming. Nor is each act of consuming fossil fuel, using a car or growing a few hectares of paddy on its own, sufficient in causal terms to produce the end of nature. However, that end may be said to be obliquely or indirectly intended, but it would be misleading to say that the outcome is a purely accidental one, given the knowledge we now have about its provenance and its cause. This obliquely intended outcome is then no different from that posed by DDT pollution. There, too, no one deliberately intended to cause failure in the reproduction of certain birds, to poison the water table, etc. But these effects, nevertheless, also occurred cumulatively. Given knowledge of such outcomes today, humans may collectively be held responsible for them, even though it is true that the model of individual responsibility is not applicable in these contexts. If McKibben's first end of nature as nature~ cannot be identified in terms of what counts as accidental, could he, instead, rely on the criterion of pervasiveness as clarified earlier on? But pervasiveness may turn out to be only necessary, not necessary and sufficient, to cause the end of nature. He is correct in saying that anthropogenic changes to the weather and the atmosphere can bring in their wake profound disturbances to nature. But nature~, in its history, has endured many profound changes in its weather which has nothing to do with human agency: ice ages have come and gone, bringing with them severe changes to flora and fauna in geological history. This leads to the view that as far as organisms and their ecosystems are concerned, the severe changes they have to endure are no different in quality whether the disruption is anthropogenically caused or not--both forms may be sudden and abrupt like volcanic eruptions, asteroids crashing into Earth's surface, clear-cutting an ancient forest on the one hand, or gradual and cumulative, like evolutionary changes or the emergence of global warming today on the other. Eventually, after a period of time--sometimes quite short, but often long or very long--organisms, some old and others new, would establish new niches and new ecosystems. Anthropogenic disturbances then amount to the loss of pristine nature. The lament then is not so much about the end of nature tout court but the end of nature. This is a genuine lament but it is not quite what McKibben has portrayed. Nature, in the context of global warming or ozone depletion, though no longer absolutely pristine, survives and, moreover, survives independently of us humans as long as the processes of natural evolution remain intact in spite of the anthropogenically induced changes to the weather and the atmosphere. Nature, as we have seen, copes, no differently, when the changes to the weather and the atmosphere are not anthropogenically induced. The claim that nature can survive independently of us even in such a context may be supported by empirical evidence--for instance, the eruption of Mount Saint Helens in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Oregon, in 1980, devastated the ecosystems which lay in its path but since then, slowly but surely, new ones have begun to establish themselves. Furthermore, life on Earth in its long history well before the appearance of Homo sapiens had suffered five major extinctions; each time nature,~ had recovered, although recovery times varied from 100 to 20 million years."-3 It can also be supported by the following thought experiment--imagine the removal of the human species immediately after it had induced the meteorological changes. It is likely that nature will continue to evolve in the absence of human.

 

This is the card youre looking for.

 

 

Sorry i didn't read the post carefully I thought you were asking for the card to go with the cites.

Edited by THEUbermensch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Role of the Ballot is fun, but it really depends on the kritik.

 

Going one of Kritik is realllyyy funnn.

You mean really deadly and hard.

 

Have you ever tried to give a 2NC after one of those 2ACs where it's basically 20 cards of offense? Yeah, it's rough. 

 

If you want to go 1-off without ANY case, you have to be willing to defend your criticism from eight minutes of permuting, turning, and excluding, without dropping any arguments. I don't consider this to be a very strategic option as it seems to make the block a much more defensive entity and the 1AR becomes less impossible. Many people still go this route at the highest levels of debate, you'll see, as more and more preparation and skill makes this a more and more viable option. It does make for extremely legit debates that actually challenge the validity of ideas.

 

1 off with case is much easier to actually do in a round. When you don't "spot the aff their advantages", as many people say, they can't just win one piece of offense on the K or one perm, they also have to win some piece of case and not let any advantage be impact turned. This may seem like small fries, but reading two minutes of case at the bottom of the 1NC can take a nice chunk of the 2AC to deal with, which translates to an exponentially difficult 1AR.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

also, does anyone have any good cards/answers "1ac impacts kill all life"? the card i currently read is

 

You should be very skeptical of this claim. Evolution means nature can adapt to any conditions.

Keekok Lee, Visiting Chair in Philosophy at Lancaster University, 1999[The Natural and the Artefactual p. 88-90]

 

What scenario

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, does anyone have any good cards/answers "1ac impacts kill all life"? the card i currently read is

 

You should be very skeptical of this claim. Evolution means nature can adapt to any conditions.

Keekok Lee, Visiting Chair in Philosophy at Lancaster University, 1999[The Natural and the Artefactual p. 88-90]

 

What scenario

i already have the card, i just didnt want to post it. I guess a nuke war scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

also, does anyone have any good cards/answers "1ac impacts kill all life"? the card i currently read is

 

You should be very skeptical of this claim. Evolution means nature can adapt to any conditions.

Keekok Lee, Visiting Chair in Philosophy at Lancaster University, 1999[The Natural and the Artefactual p. 88-90]

 

What scenario is the card answering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I would go 1 off, I would read my kritik then on case I would read links as turns on the advantages and defense on the impacts. This could be leveraged on every level, if you go for a critique that criticizes the notions of the impacts of the 1ac (like a biopower k or something) you could say something along the lines of, "Look judge we proved that their impacts won't cause extinction, through their rally cry for survival they re-intrench the same bull shit they claim to solve." And if you have links in the 1nc you can save time in the 2nc/1nr of reading new links to the case and can spend your time answering their turns/perms/solvency deficits/etc. I only did this once though, against one of the best teams on my circuit, my partner and I beat them with thirties for both of us. Needless to say it is sooo stressful to go for a strategy like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean really deadly and hard.

 

Have you ever tried to give a 2NC after one of those 2ACs where it's basically 20 cards of offense? Yeah, it's rough. 

 

If you want to go 1-off without ANY case, you have to be willing to defend your criticism from eight minutes of permuting, turning, and excluding, without dropping any arguments. I don't consider this to be a very strategic option as it seems to make the block a much more defensive entity and the 1AR becomes less impossible. Many people still go this route at the highest levels of debate, you'll see, as more and more preparation and skill makes this a more and more viable option. It does make for extremely legit debates that actually challenge the validity of ideas.

 

1 off with case is much easier to actually do in a round. When you don't "spot the aff their advantages", as many people say, they can't just win one piece of offense on the K or one perm, they also have to win some piece of case and not let any advantage be impact turned. This may seem like small fries, but reading two minutes of case at the bottom of the 1NC can take a nice chunk of the 2AC to deal with, which translates to an exponentially difficult 1AR.

That's why a lot of teams that read 1 off have answers to common 2AC args embedded in the 1NC. 

 

For example, If you are reading a biopolitics criticism and the 2AC included: A democracy turn, biopolitics inevitable, VTL inev/fluid, perm - db, extinction OW ( I know that would be a pretty shit 2AC if the neg went one off, but this is just an example) A smart negative team will already have already read a really good alternative card that answers "bio-politics inevitable" To maximize time efficiency. They will also indite democracy/impact turn democracy. Have some slayer bare-life impact cards (maybe the classic dillon 99) to answer the VTL arguments, as well as, read some anti util framing arguments to answer ext. OW. All of this could(/should) fit in 8 full minutes of biopolitics. Theoretically that means - come the 2NC - the only new argument the negative has to answer is the perm debate. Obviously it's never going to be that easy, but if you are doing it right the block should be a slaughter fest.

 

edit - going one off should be reserved for your best criticism. The more you know about your criticism the easier it gets. Understanding of literature + Extensive arsenal of weapons + confidence + time management = 1 off victory

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 but reading two minutes of case at the bottom of the 1NC can take a nice chunk of the 2AC to deal with, which translates to an exponentially difficult 1AR.

if you want to make the 1ar exponentially harder...dont go 1 off. YOUR WELCOME.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what should the 1nc look like for doing this?

 

Obviously link, impact, alt, root cause, framing...

but what specifically?

 

Thanks.

 

 

also, does anyone have any good cards/answers "1ac impacts kill all life"? the card i currently read is

 

You should be very skeptical of this claim. Evolution means nature can adapt to any conditions.

Keekok Lee, Visiting Chair in Philosophy at Lancaster University, 1999[The Natural and the Artefactual p. 88-90]

Just say lasting evolution takes hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just say lasting evolution takes hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years.

sorry, i should have made this more clear. My question was if anyone has anything to RESPOND to the 2ac arg thats like "1ac impacts kill all life" for anthro. I read the Lee card in response to it, but i was wondering if anyone has anything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, i should have made this more clear. My question was if anyone has anything to RESPOND to the 2ac arg thats like "1ac impacts kill all life" for anthro. I read the Lee card in response to it, but i was wondering if anyone has anything else. 

Firstly, for anthro, if your kritik is at the discourse level, then it comes before their impacts.

 

Edit: Why the downvote :( I didn't know you already knew that.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, for anthro, if your kritik is at the discourse level, then it comes before their impacts.

i am aware of this. But i wouldn't run an anthro discourse K on a big policy 1ac. 

When we hit these type of teams, we read the global suicide alt, not the thought experiment but literally "let the aff impacts happen". 

A common 2ac arg here is "our impacts fuck everything".

I'm looking for answers. normally we just read that Lee card. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post from the 3NR is directed towards structuring a 2AC response to a one off, with the example of cap, but it should give you a good idea. http://the3nr.com/2011/11/08/answering-some-reader-qs/

 

 


-3 or more link arguments
-some sort of hoop like epistemology/ontology for you to jump through
-an arbitrary framework
-a value to life impact (and or an “ethics†impact)
-an extinction impact-probably a laundry list card about the environment/resource wars etc
-a root cause/turns the case impact
-a “rev coming†uniqueness card
-a dumb alternative that alleges to collapse global capitalism

 

The structuring of a pure one off should include all of the case debate within the K flow. For instance, if you're going with a pure security K, you should be indicting all of the basis for their advantages with as specific cards as you can. This is ideally done in the link part of the debate in order to trick them. For instance, say that the aff has global warming and economy as their advantages, with terminal impacts of biosphere collapse and nuclear war. The security K should call into question the underlying assumptions from both, saying possibly that environmental rhetoric is a tool used by the democrats to get back into power at the expense of the less affluent who can't afford to live a "green" lifestyle or such. On the other link, you could argue that the justifications for economic intervention are flawed in that the economy is self correcting and that any "solutions" create a net worse situation. My point here is that the K acts as a massive case turn in and of itself.

 

This leads into my second point. You're asking for a good card that answers an aff's claims of extinction, but that totally depends upon the kritik that you're running. For instance, if it's Schopenhauer, you obviously don't need a card that says nothing can totally wipe out humanity because that would be dumb. On an anthropocentrism kritik, you may want to argue, as your card does, that human life is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as we are just an instantiation of life/existence, and there's no reason that we should privilege ourselves over other forms of life/existence. On a security K, it would probably be something like how the representations of an insecure nation are founded on nationalistic tendencies that ultimately lead to things like the Cold War. Here, you really want to get as specific as possible with your particular K.

 

If you're comfortable with justifying it, you can insert into the 1NC shell (though it's not really a shell anymore since it's one off) a floating PIK argument to nullify the aff's offense even more. This is especially useful with a representations K, but it could work for others as well. I suggest doing this in the 1NC (if you're comfortable with the theory) because it makes the 2AC harder to do, which is where you really want to catch them off guard. Other people in this thread are arguing that it's the 1AR that you want to pressure, but if you're able to trip up the aff in the 2AC, that's even better for you because there's absolutely no way for the 1AR to recover.

 

As a last note, in a one off K, you may want to undertag (not underhighlight) your cards such that you're able to blow them up in the block. I remember one of Chaos' (or whatever his name is now) posts saying that he would tag cards as "X is wrong" but not give an explanation within the tag as to whether it's morally, factually, or utilitarian wrong.

 

TL;DR

 

Try to be as specific as possible, with everything trying to build into one big clusterf*ck against the aff. Indict their specific warrants on multiple levels whenever possible, be they epistemological, ontological, or on the impact level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am aware of this. But i wouldn't run an anthro discourse K on a big policy 1ac. 

When we hit these type of teams, we read the global suicide alt, not the thought experiment but literally "let the aff impacts happen". 

A common 2ac arg here is "our impacts fuck everything".

I'm looking for answers. normally we just read that Lee card. 

a few things to answer that argument-

 

1. people said this before, but case defense, the 1NC should also include links to specific impacts on those impacts.

 

2. win an ethics 1st framing/impact ( you'll need this anyway if you read global suicide) (win Util bad/ethics, 1st, I assume you know how to do this)

 

3. Lanza, Benatar, Humans bad- make the debate less on impacts and more on whether humanity is good or bad. Policy Aff teams usually don't have an answer or justification for why humans are good that wouldn't be a larger link to the K. Lanza and Benatar help on the impact debate because it's a huge, huge aff killer because if you can win that death doesn't exist/we turn into energy/rocks matter/etc. you win because then the impact debate becomes irrelevant- the only thing that would matter is ethics, etc. I think this is the best way to read Anthro because it gets you out of most of the offense you're most concerned about.

 

4. link work- you should have links cut to virtually any advantage if you're serious about going 1-off, use those arguments, words in their aff, etc. to win reasons why anthropocentrism recreates their impacts

 

read the evidence, it's silly to think about but will help. Because if they claim that x impact wipes out all life- you need to read their impact evidence because most impact evidence is in the context of human extinction, and not global. At least cut some better cards than the one you use because that one only appears to be impact defense towards environment/warming impacts, and even then I don't think it's good enough to win rounds where the aff has the cards to answer those warrants.]

 

The Lee card doesn't answer Asteroids or other space impacts, which are just as common, and I think better than warming/environment claims to solve for extinction of all life/everything when it comes to answer anthro.

 

finally- check the college caselist, Anthro was read a lot on the energy topic this last year- there might be some better cards/cites to use on both sides

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this lecture is really good, specifically the stuff about using both post and pre-fiat links and the "mini-k's" you can add in the block to pressure the 1ar.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am aware of this. But i wouldn't run an anthro discourse K on a big policy 1ac. 

When we hit these type of teams, we read the global suicide alt, not the thought experiment but literally "let the aff impacts happen". 

A common 2ac arg here is "our impacts fuck everything".

I'm looking for answers. normally we just read that Lee card. 

I don't quite understand why you would do that. it would be just as easy to read an alt that didn't result in those big extinction impacts. If the endpoint of your K is death of not only all humans, but all life on earth, why not just read a shit ton of wipeout scenarios? also i think a better way to answer the argument that the 1AC impacts destroy everything would be with case specific defense. i mean you can read some spark cards saying nuke war doesn't kill everyone, but i would think it would be more strategic to read impacts D and internal link takeouts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most devastating strategy versus 1 off is theory.

1) PIKs bad

2) Other theory which probably talk about the nature of the alternative

3) Mishandled framework

 

Depending on the K itself--impact turns.

 

To answer the perm...one of the better strategies is integrating rhetoric links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am aware of this. But i wouldn't run an anthro discourse K on a big policy 1ac. 

When we hit these type of teams, we read the global suicide alt, not the thought experiment but literally "let the aff impacts happen". 

A common 2ac arg here is "our impacts fuck everything".

I'm looking for answers. normally we just read that Lee card. 

On this, a lot of the anthro kritiks I have read (ie. the open ev ones for example) talk about life beyond earth -- and how if we survive we will screw all that up, which means that even if everything on our planet gets destroyed, we'll be saving all the other life in the galaxy (which is much more than our earth)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most devastating strategy versus 1 off is theory.

1) PIKs bad

2) Other theory which probably talk about the nature of the alternative

3) Mishandled framework

Why do you think this is true... It seems like the fact that the kritik is one off means that the neg has 13 minutes of speech time to figure out how to answer your theory argument (... it is pretty unlikely they will botch the framework flow if they flow it), and theory arguments against the alt don't seem any more potent then they usually would be in a flexible 5 off strategy.  

  • Upvote 4

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...