Jump to content
KarlLikeMarx

Novice Affs on the Oceans Topic

Recommended Posts

Quick question: why do people include this phrase in plan texts: "substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by"

Or "substantially increase its economic engagement with X by"

 

It serves no purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K aff. Breaking down nature/human dichotomy.

Ideas for ev?

Why are you having novices run K affs?

As for ev, go to an anthro file, find a development/natural resources link as a topicality contention, and select the alt of your choosing as a solvency mechanism.  If none of the alts work, look into deep ecology.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question: why do people include this phrase in plan texts: "substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by"

Or "substantially increase its economic engagement with X by"

 

It serves no purpose.

 

Because in the area of the country I coach in (West Texas), you can lose on T apparently if you don't have that in your plan text. I agree that it serves no purpose and I don't write those in my plan texts when I'm debating, but I'd rather not risk the loss here for my kids. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in the area of the country I coach in (West Texas), you can lose on T apparently if you don't have that in your plan text. I agree that it serves no purpose and I don't write those in my plan texts when I'm debating, but I'd rather not risk the loss here for my kids. 

And I thought my circuit was regressive. Is this an argument the debaters make, or the judges intervening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I thought my circuit was regressive. Is this an argument the debaters make, or the judges intervening?

 

Both unfortunately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question: why do people include this phrase in plan texts: "substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by"

Or "substantially increase its economic engagement with X by"

 

It serves no purpose.

 

 

Because in the area of the country I coach in (West Texas), you can lose on T apparently if you don't have that in your plan text. I agree that it serves no purpose and I don't write those in my plan texts when I'm debating, but I'd rather not risk the loss here for my kids. 

 

It's actually kind of important to do as it serves many purposes. Keep in mind that this wouldn't have become a common practice unless people were (legitimately or not) losing rounds for not doing it.

 

1. Specification of Plan Action: At least on this upcoming topic, it serves the purpose of the Aff specifying whether they explore, develop or both. Not including that in the plantext leaves you open to various theoretical violations spawning from "And/Or".

 

2. Effects Topicality: It guards against Effects Topicality, because without the resolution in the plantext, the text reads "The USfg should do X"--which you're left to assume results in the substantial increase of its exploration and/or development of the Earth's oceans. It's a lot easier to claim that's FX-T than the more direct route: "The USfg should substantially increase its exploration of the Earth's oceans by doing X". The difference in action might be zero, but the difference in the WHY of the action is bigger.

 

3. Say the Resolution Please: In many rounds, this is the only time the 1AC actually references or says the resolution. It used to be the case that you'd start the round with a snazzy intro about why you're "proud to defend the resolution-- Resolved: ..." I'd feel weird watching a round where the actual Res wasn't mentioned at all in the 1AC. There are some older stock-issues judges that don't believe one can make a prima facie case without actually saying the resolution, and under both a stock-issues or a hypo-testing paradigm, they're absolutely right. You can't prove a statement true without saying the statement that is to be proven true. 

 

4. Topicality as an 1AC Burden: A very long time ago, under old-school stock-issues paradigms, the Aff had to not only prove Inherency, Significance, Harms and Solvency, but also Topicality as well. This was accomplished by Affirmatives beginning the debate with definitions of each term in the Res, and then their plantext would ostensibly fall under those definitions. Needless to say, this cost a lot of time, so to get around having to define each word, the terms of the Res were just incorporated into the plantext. This meant that the Aff Plan is Topical on face, with no 1AC definitions needed. This satisfied the Burden of Proof of the Topicality stock-issue because the Aff committed to all of the words in the plantext--this shifted the "presumption" if you will on the stock-issue of T. After the change, the Aff is assumed topical unless proven otherwise, rather than before when the Aff had to explicitly indicate in the 1AC how/why they were topical in order to sufficiently meet their Burden of Proof.

 

 

5. Judges Need It: Alright, for those of you who need a more contemporary reason, here it is: Judges need these extra words to finish writing/typing the end of whatever card was before your plan, and also flow the plan mandates verbatim. You don't want to put your judge in a position where they totally missed exactly what your plan does because you mush-mouthed through your super-efficient 7 word plantext.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you having novices run K affs?

As for ev, go to an anthro file, find a development/natural resources link as a topicality contention, and select the alt of your choosing as a solvency mechanism.  If none of the alts work, look into deep ecology.

1. Sorry should have specified. This is for 3rd years. I was just looking around at ideas on this thread.

2. Do you think a T contention is completely necessary? If so, could you explain?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Sorry should have specified. This is for 3rd years. I was just looking around at ideas on this thread.

2. Do you think a T contention is completely necessary? If so, could you explain?

Thanks

If you're running an anthro aff, I highly doubt you'll be defending fiat, so you need to have good framework answers, and if you have links to the topic, it's both a reason you're predictable, topic-specific education, and a reason there's no topical version of the aff.  It wouldn't be an entire contention on its own, so I probably should have called it something else, sorry.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're running an anthro aff, I highly doubt you'll be defending fiat, so you need to have good framework answers, and if you have links to the topic, it's both a reason you're predictable, topic-specific education, and a reason there's no topical version of the aff.  It wouldn't be an entire contention on its own, so I probably should have called it something else, sorry.

Makes sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K aff. Breaking down nature/human dichotomy.

Ideas for ev?

I wrote this

Not for novices

 

PM me if you want some info on it

 

Edit: Also for silly people above, THIS IS NOT ANTHRO, human nature dualism is totally different. Most anthro authors are VERY dualistic.

 

And it doesnt need to be blantantly non-topical, theyre ok lit that makes it somewhat topical.

Edited by KTricksfordays
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=10824

 

They're out!

1. Ratify (Accede) to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea so that resources of the Arctic can be developed by the U.S. 

2. Increase development of offshore aquaculture in U.S. Ocean waters 

3. Increase federal oil and/or gas leasing on the outer continental shelf 

4. Increase offshore renewable energy development (offshore wind, ocean thermal gradients, wave power, or tidal barrages) 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=10824

 

They're out!

1. Ratify (Accede) to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea so that resources of the Arctic can be developed by the U.S. 

2. Increase development of offshore aquaculture in U.S. Ocean waters 

3. Increase federal oil and/or gas leasing on the outer continental shelf 

4. Increase offshore renewable energy development (offshore wind, ocean thermal gradients, wave power, or tidal barrages) 

 

I really like the idea of tidal barrages for a novice aff. Thanks for sharing that! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like MSU's   "Flight-370"   Aff. It's decent for a starter. 

 

I don't know, if I was still debating, I wouldn't be able to resist cutting a K which compares that affirmative to CNN.  Probably with Colbert and Stewart cards.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, if I was still debating, I wouldn't be able to resist cutting a K which compares that affirmative to CNN.  Probably with Colbert and Stewart cards.

I don't know why someone would run that case as opposed to an "explore the area" case, since the search (1) probably wouldn't cover an area as wide, and (2) would most likely stop once the plane is found, thus limiting the advantages (I'm presuming solvency.) The only difference I saw is that soft-power thing which would have dubious back when it actually was an issue, and now that most people don't seem to care anymore is even more tenuous. Besides, couldn't the MH370 just become an advantage if you still wanted SP, since if that tech could find it then they'd find it in the process of the exploration itself. The only real thing the MH370 search would have over it I can think of would that it would be easier to pitch, but fiat obviously makes that moot.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...