Jump to content
WTFMate?

Are politics DAs even feasbile?

Recommended Posts

With the setup of our government post-shutdown anything that passes the Senate fails in the House and vice-versa.  If it's already "going to pass" either one then it's going to have be really strong (strong enough for the uniqueness to overwhelm the brink).  It just seems like going for politics (and finding one that is actually unique) is just not the smartest idea in these days.  Advice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the DA ground on the topic is garbage and DA's are the most liked in my circuit. I've had strong success with politics where I live. My partner and I like to run unconventional politics (We won natquals running our gun reform politics DA), so it throws most teams off. 

Though, with the current political climate, being neg in a non-K friendly district is hard right now. If they're not reading embargo (or anything that doesn't have easy to find case-specific DA's), then you're SOL and might as well go for A-Spec every round. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the DA ground on the topic is garbage and DA's are the most liked in my circuit. I've had strong success with politics where I live. My partner and I like to run unconventional politics (We won natquals running our gun reform politics DA), so it throws most teams off. 

 

Though, with the current political climate, being neg in a non-K friendly district is hard right now. If they're not reading embargo (or anything that doesn't have easy to find case-specific DA's), then you're SOL and might as well go for A-Spec every round. 

So true.... The only policy arg that I think is big this year are impact turns and politics.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly just realized I've never won a neg round this year on DAs.  Its always been a K or impact turns

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have yet to vote neg on policy args this year, except in novice semis at fullerton (those 6th graders were so kewt)

 

just run a home made k. this is more strategic. please. if i see another 4 off, T, Neolib K, CIR D/A, and BS CP round i might lose my mind.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the DA ground on the topic is garbage and DA's are the most liked in my circuit. I've had strong success with politics where I live. My partner and I like to run unconventional politics (We won natquals running our gun reform politics DA), so it throws most teams off. 

 

Though, with the current political climate, being neg in a non-K friendly district is hard right now. If they're not reading embargo (or anything that doesn't have easy to find case-specific DA's), then you're SOL and might as well go for A-Spec every round. 

I. AGREE. SO. MUCH. I debate (sadly..) in a very lay area with mostly community judges. Being negative is basically impossible for two reasons:

1. 2AR abuse- for some reason, teams around my area think it's very okay to talk about completely new things in the 2AR. I'm not talking about a couple arguments that were in the 2AC and not in the 1AR (that is common). I'm talking about literally re-explaining what the plan does and reading new evidence on link turns to DAs, etc.

2. Disadvantages suck - there is no convincing negative argument except politics for countries like Venezuela and Mexico. This plays into what I said above. Since there aren't any other convincing negative arguments, a soccermom judge is more likely to give leeway to the 2AR to re-explain the case since he/she didn't particularly understand the negative DA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I. AGREE. SO. MUCH. I debate (sadly..) in a very lay area with mostly community judges. Being negative is basically impossible for two reasons:

1. 2AR abuse- for some reason, teams around my area think it's very okay to talk about completely new things in the 2AR. I'm not talking about a couple arguments that were in the 2AC and not in the 1AR (that is common). I'm talking about literally re-explaining what the plan does and reading new evidence on link turns to DAs, etc.

2. Disadvantages suck - there is no convincing negative argument except politics for countries like Venezuela and Mexico. This plays into what I said above. Since there aren't any other convincing negative arguments, a soccermom judge is more likely to give leeway to the 2AR to re-explain the case since he/she didn't particularly understand the negative DA.

i feel your pain bro, but atleast in my area, the lay judges gobble up case arguments, They love inherency, solvency and harms. My strats are usually two off at most (t and da or da and cp) with straight case (advantage takeouts and then stock issues). You still get the screw over and loose a lot of offense but it works really well. In their minds it is like "the aff impacts dont matter if either a) (inherency) another plan in squo already solves, B) (harm/sig) plan is not necessary, c) (solvency) plan cant solve"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you could just run lots and lots of Ks and PIKs - lay judges don't buy theory arguments because they don't understand them.  This works great for me because I live in D.C., so most of the judges are really well read or at least hate capitalism... somewhat (they pretend to, while 'flowing' on their made-in-a-sweatshop-macbook-pros)

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...