Jump to content

Recommended Posts

lol no chance. We read that aff in one debate all year. 

 

Did it not work out well or were there other reasons for not keeping up with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did it not work out well or were there other reasons for not keeping up with it?

From what I hear caddos response in the 1nr was five minutes of say yes

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I hear caddos response in the 1nr was five minutes of say yes

 

Lols that was my plan too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Say yes isn't responsive when you don't defend the plan. 2. We broke that aff new at Heritage Hall because I assumed that Caddo had done a lot of good work against the death aff. The aff was originally written by Josh and Nick for MBA, and it didn't get broken. I hadn't really looked at the 1AC until the morning of day two at Heritage, and I don't particularly like the aff. I think fatal strats as an aff has potential, but it can be done better than it was originally written. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As expected, I mostly agree with Squirreloid, except that I can't legitimately include the TPP+IP Aff because I wrote it :) But I will include his Autodefensas Aff as my favorite critical Aff of the year.

 

How did you guys defend against the massive wall of OpenEvidence TPP Bad that was freely available? It seems fairly strong, to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you guys defend against the massive wall of OpenEvidence TPP Bad that was freely available? It seems fairly strong, to say the least.

 

Because its mostly wrong? Empirically speaking that is.

 

Because most people didn't bother to even grab what was on openev.  Very little on-case was read against us, afaik.  (Not that we weren't prepped for it).

 

Because our major advantage, Intellectual Property Protection, wasn't on openev, and so there was no case neg for it readily available.  (And our end of antibiotics scenario is very real, very scary, and becoming a serious issue already.  MRSA is a terrible problem.  I imagine this scenario alone carried many rounds).

 

There's several other reasons it was pretty strong, but those are probably the major ones that came into play.

 

Also: Our answers to common DAs and CPs were pretty devastating.  For example: Politics is link turned (Most Republicans like TPP, doing TPP gives Obama cred with Republicans and enhances cooperation.  Most of the opponents are Democrats, who aren't relevant to the PTX DA story because they aren't going to oppose whatever the uniqueness is).

 

Also, the openev evidence is all old.  Most of our evidence for which time is an issue is from no longer ago than September.  A lot of our key evidence is from December.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because its mostly wrong? Empirically speaking that is.

 

Because most people didn't bother to even grab what was on openev.  Very little on-case was read against us, afaik.  (Not that we weren't prepped for it).

 

Because our major advantage, Intellectual Property Protection, wasn't on openev, and so there was no case neg for it readily available.  (And our end of antibiotics scenario is very real, very scary, and becoming a serious issue already.  MRSA is a terrible problem.  I imagine this scenario alone carried many rounds).

 

There's several other reasons it was pretty strong, but those are probably the major ones that came into play.

 

Also: Our answers to common DAs and CPs were pretty devastating.  For example: Politics is link turned (Most Republicans like TPP, doing TPP gives Obama cred with Republicans and enhances cooperation.  Most of the opponents are Democrats, who aren't relevant to the PTX DA story because they aren't going to oppose whatever the uniqueness is).

 

Also, the openev evidence is all old.  Most of our evidence for which time is an issue is from no longer ago than September.  A lot of our key evidence is from December.

 

That's very impressive work you've done on that case. Most schools just take the OpenEvidence Aff and just leave it be (leading to some ridiculous tags-- for example, a 2015 brink for warming on the Grids case--it's 2014 already, guys).

 

Did you have that Aff all year, with the same advantages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very impressive work you've done on that case. Most schools just take the OpenEvidence Aff and just leave it be (leading to some ridiculous tags-- for example, a 2015 brink for warming on the Grids case--it's 2014 already, guys).

 

Did you have that Aff all year, with the same advantages?

 

We started with Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement, also homecut rather than an openev version.  Our other outside coach, Edgehopper on Cross-X, wrote both Affs.  TBA actually got passed exactly as we wanted in our 1st Plan in December, so we needed a new one.  I wrote the Autodefensa Aff that's in my evidence dump, Edgehopper wrote TPP (he's a patent lawyer, hence our IP Protection advantage), and we let the debaters choose what they wanted. 

 

As I've pointed out elsewhere, our debaters really want to do policy-focused debate, so it wasn't really a surprise when they chose the pure policy case over the kritikal policy case.  But I felt like they deserved the option and the chance to talk about K argumentation in more depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like Bronx Law's salsa aff. I also really enjoy Cedar Ridge PR's Assata aff, both affs are excellent, unique, and individual!

Assata was a really awesome aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

saw in person: every aff that wasnt ours kinda sucked (ethical embargo)

saw on wiki: it's between ce byrd fatal strategies and cedar ridge assata.

I love how you automatically think every aff you hit sucked besides your own. Loving the modesty.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like Bronx Law's salsa aff. I also really enjoy Cedar Ridge PR's Assata aff, both affs are excellent, unique, and individual!

I wouldn't call the Assata aff unique however

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best affirmative was lifting the Cuban Embargo. A good affirmative isn't just about accessing many impacts or large impacts but rather the quality and legitimacy of the evidence. I didn't run this aff, but I think it was objectively the best policy aff this year.

 

The best way I can prove this point is by comparing it to the Cuban sugarcane ethanol aff mentioned at the beginning of this thread. I cut this aff so that our novices would have a policy aff to read (Our varsity only reads K affs) and it held up fine because literally nothing links to it except Ks but if ever anyone puts in the time to examine it under scrutiny or build a decent case neg to it it collapses like a house of cards. For example I hit a Hooch team at Woodward who doesn't read sugarcane ethanol but rather reads an ethanol contention in their lift the embargo aff; after 1AC cx they had no hope of going for the advantage because of embarrassingly blatant problems.

 

The true test of a good aff is if the aff can square off with a team that has a case neg that weeks worth of research has gone toward and still win handily. There is a reason why the most common aff on the topic is STILL advocated by the top policy teams in the country. It's a good aff.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best affirmative was lifting the Cuban Embargo. A good affirmative isn't just about accessing many impacts or large impacts but rather the quality and legitimacy of the evidence. I didn't run this aff, but I think it was objectively the best policy aff this year.

 

The best way I can prove this point is by comparing it to the Cuban sugarcane ethanol aff mentioned at the beginning of this thread. I cut this aff so that our novices would have a policy aff to read (Our varsity only reads K affs) and it held up fine because literally nothing links to it except Ks but if ever anyone puts in the time to examine it under scrutiny or build a decent case neg to it it collapses like a house of cards. For example I hit a Hooch team at Woodward who doesn't read sugarcane ethanol but rather reads an ethanol contention in their lift the embargo aff; after 1AC cx they had no hope of going for the advantage because of embarrassingly blatant problems.

 

The true test of a good aff is if the aff can square off with a team that has a case neg that weeks worth of research has gone toward and still win handily. There is a reason why the most common aff on the topic is STILL advocated by the top policy teams in the country. It's a good aff.

 

 

Alot of the ev for sugar ethanol is really good, you just have to know where to find it. The Hooch team probably just sucked at running their version of the sugar ethanol aff, but it can be great depending on HOW it is run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how you automatically think every aff you hit sucked besides your own. Loving the modesty.

 

well they all pretty much did. they were either canned off openev or they were crappy homecut ones. and i know you just salty because i think your gitmo aff sucked

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well they all pretty much did. they were either canned off openev or they were crappy homecut ones. and i know you just salty because i think your gitmo aff sucked

Wrong Lindale team. And their gitmo aff might have sucked, but they also beat you and Cody had a PFD partner who had never done policy. Safe to say your aff must have been godly because your neg strat wasn't. 

Edited by aram
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how you automatically think every aff you hit sucked besides your own. Loving the modesty.

Especially when approximately 10 camps put out his aff. 

 

"oh trust me, it's different."

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong Lindale team. And their gitmo aff might have sucked, but they also beat you and Cody had a PFD partner who had never done policy. Safe to say your aff must have been godly because your neg strat wasn't. 

Alec you know for a fact that his Baudrillard Disaster porn disad and gift turn strat was the best stat Lindale has seen all year :Bow

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NAFTA renegotiate - Super/Hegna-BVSW

 

Why bother when you can just do TPP, which is better in pretty much every way imaginable?

 

(Also, strangely enough, because NAFTA was mostly conducted as three bilateral negotiations: US-Mex, US-Can, Mex-Can), renegotiation would be weaker against xT than TPP is (which is a multilateral negotiation).)

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...