Jump to content
TheOdyssey

Best Camp Affs

Recommended Posts

T is about the plantext in a vacuum. There's no such thing as non-topical advantages.

I disagree, just because you add the words economic engagement to a non topical affirmative that does security engagement does not mean it's economic engagement. For example: The United States federal government should increase economic engagement by aerial bombing Venezuela. How is that topical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, just because you add the words economic engagement to a non topical affirmative that does security engagement does not mean it's economic engagement. For example: The United States federal government should increase economic engagement by aerial bombing Venezuela. How is that topical?

You're selling Venezuela US bombs. (Joke)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, just because you add the words economic engagement to a non topical affirmative that does security engagement does not mean it's economic engagement. For example: The United States federal government should increase economic engagement by aerial bombing Venezuela. How is that topical?

Ariel bombing with money. You missed the part after the plan text: We reserve the right to clarify. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, just because you add the words economic engagement to a non topical affirmative that does security engagement does not mean it's economic engagement. For example: The United States federal government should increase economic engagement by aerial bombing Venezuela. How is that topical?

It isn't... I'm saying you test the affirmative at the level of plan action. Means that the USfg would air bomb Venezuela. That isn't topical... Sticking in "economic engagement" is just as asinine as saying you have extra topical advantages.

 

edit - but srsly the plan text says "by 'doing x'". So you test "by doing X" to see if its topical. This isnt complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a second. I just realized this. No one has disproven non-topical advantages. I agree non-topical advantages don't exist. It would have to come down to whether or not some part of the plan text is extra/FX topical and the advantage proves the abuse of limits. Other than that, you can't name one advantage that is untopical on this rez...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a second. I just realized this. No one has disproven non-topical advantages. I agree non-topical advantages don't exist. It would have to come down to whether or not some part of the plan text is extra/FX topical and the advantage proves the abuse of limits. Other than that, you can't name one advantage that is untopical on this rez...

 

What advantages were untopical on the last resolution? I heard stuff as diverse as solving for rape with COIN via C-17's at Nat's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have looked/written at only a few affs in detail (also have only looked over umich camp files.), so my thoughts:

 

Mexican renewables is alright. Don't like the 1AC advantages in the umich camp file, but the cards exist for a pretty solid aff. That said, the i/ls to each of these advantages aren't too great, and PICs definitely solve (there are so many ways to solve relations, probably warming, and economic decline, which are the three best advantages to renewables... winning specificity of i/ls is possible, but probably not true). Good aff, but too open to PICs to be strategic... that said, not entirely sure what the net benefit of those PICs would be (especially if you're reading a relations/heg advantage, which is actually a good adv... the offense would have to be specific to renewables investment - a politics disad linking to other engagement CPs -, and that evidence probably isn't very strong)... it's passable.

 

The NAIF aff put out by umich is terrible, but has a lot of room for improvement. Given the advantages are what - overpop and econ? -, it was basically a joke before the season. But NAIF has some great, specific i/ls to relations (immigration), and NAIF authors actually write about how these i/ls are impact turns to the immigration disad (immigration kills relations with Mexico... specifically illegal immigration, but w/e). Easy access to relations (heg, soi, etc.) advantage, econ advantage, poverty advantage, biodiversity advantage, and probably some ways to access warming/specific Mexican industries. Problems with this aff are links to politics (new-world-order, amero-type investment is unpopular with Republicans, and supernafta is probably not popular with Dems either), and opportunity for PIC ground (NAIF invests in a lot of stuff, not all of which is key to solve advantages).

 

Not too familiar with Cuba oil drilling. From what I can gather, the no links to politics ev (secretary of treasury is agent) are pretty good. To solve for most advantages, though, you need to win that American companies are going to drill off the coast of Cuba, and there's some good evidence that American companies (well, the oil industry in general) wouldn't do so (not because of the embargo, but because some Russian companies tried drilling, found nothing, and the region is thought to be unprofitable now).

 

Embargo generic is open to a lot of pics. Otherwise decent advantages.

 

Border infrastructure's not great (ran it with relations and econ, i/ls to both advs are bad).

 

I don't care much for nanotech. Author qualifications are in question for a lot of the (impact) evidence. Doesn't access a lot of generic offense though (Not sure about the aff politics ev, but probably doesn't link very hard to SOI disads, given no relations advantage... not a lot of very good PICs to be run. The neg politics ev isn't great. The aff answers to nanotech bad are good/the aff is written with this assumption in mind). I don't like the aff, but it's probably good.

 

My two-cents given, I don't know a lot about most of the affs. My preference is for renewables b/c I did some of that research and I'm most comfortable with it, but there are some serious strategic disadvantages that teams running that would have to think about. Embargo, from what I've seen, is really good if you're able to answer PICs well. NAIF has the potential to be pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beat this aff in the doubles of the SDI tournament and I'd have to disagree, really heavily. The internal link chain for the advantages I saw were abysmal, and the argument that inviting mexico somehow makes the measure pass is absurd- sure there's solvency advocates, but Hardy said we won the case debate because there were just structural factors that proved even inviting mexico wouldn't change the fact that it won't pass- because the aff only fiats inviting mexico to the table. Really easy way to set up link alone turns case on politics...

Um I was there and this really ISNT how it happened. The structural issues you cite Aaron mentioning were an execution problem, not the content of the debate. Your easy link turns on politics also make no sense -- invitation makes easier for the aff because spin is easier to control and hers great PC internal link defense.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? No one mentioned Cuba Canes'? Dat aff is awesome. Get a piece of dat aff. 

I've seen you mention it elsewhere, what's it about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Braxton1996, on 14 Sept 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:snapback.png

Really? No one mentioned Cuba Canes'? Dat aff is awesome. Get a piece of dat aff. 

I've seen you mention it elsewhere, what's it about?

 

We threw it together at JDI this summer. You should check it out! To give you a brief summary, Cuba Canes' basically argues that there is a lack of U.S hurricane preparedness, and Cuba has the best hurricane preparedness, not only in L.A, but in the world, too. Lots of Terminal Impxs. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they might not have released it on openevidence then, I don't see it anywhere.

Oh it's just mislabeled as "Cuba Sugarcane Affirmative - JDI 2013". Looks cool! Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the people running that Hurricanes Aff... why was it cut in the first place? The 1NC Inherency cards seem to be pretty conclusive that we're doing it in the Status Quo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't Rainsilves like TBHA?

 

TBHA? You mean the Transboundry Hydrocarbon Aff? 

 

 

Ohh, yeah. Mostly I don't like aff's that can 1. Go non-inherent any time (If the US decides to actually vote on the damn THA bill then it could go non-inherent), 2. Deal with oil, 3. The heg debate I don't like on aff, 4. Too much good oncase exists against it. I cut a lot of my camps on on-case, and because of it's popularity a lot of neg is on it. In my district, you can win a lot of rounds by going 7 min of on-case and most judges will hear the constant barrage of "aff bad" and eventually just vote neg because it sounds smarter to them. Ohh the Oregon Lay judges 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTIP aff was discussed earlier in this thread. I have a question:

How do you answer Extra T (plan also includes the EU)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTIP aff was discussed earlier in this thread. I have a question:

How do you answer Extra T (plan also includes the EU)?

 

Don't be Extra-Topical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be Extra-Topical. 

I don't personally believe that the aff is extra-topical if you view the plan text in a vacuum. My question was how to strategically and structurally answer Extra-T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't personally believe that the aff is extra-topical if you view the plan text in a vacuum. My question was how to strategically and structurally answer Extra-T.

 

How does putting the plan in a vacuum change anything? You're fiating an actor that 1. You can't guarantee say's yes and 2. is nowhere in the resolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Invite Mexico to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations with the EU. Really great advantages that are available outside of the camp file.

What about T - USFG? You have to do something with the USFG. Also T - its, yes it is legit, you have to have the USFG Do be the actor.

 

I feel like T would be a major issue on this aff. Basically any T violaton that says you have to do something not just accept an agreement. 

 

Any Impact you try to get from this would be FX topical. 

 

Other than that it seems alright..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...