Jump to content
PerfectlyImperfect2015

Neg strat for ocean of blasphemy

Recommended Posts

Extra T (preparing ourself for Jesus is super not topical). Probably your best strat, this is clearly not predictable and not anywhere close to topic education.

 

They defend government policy so PTX. Then say that existence is a prior to vtl (not hard to prove) and make fun of Berube (written by a debate coach, for debaters, and is about AI, not Jesus). Also, totally BS, people are dehumanized everyday and there's no extinction. Also, no warrants.

 

Nietzsche would work.

 

You could also run Wilderson because they defend a policy and I may or may not have cut some dumb card for situations like this, so if the op is an afro pass debater let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note to everyone suggesting high theory...if they're asking for help with a neg strat to an aff like this, it's probably a fair bet they wouldn't already know Deleuze/Baudrillard et al enough to make a cogent neg strat out of it (assuming that otherwise they would have already known the links). It might be better to suggest more grounded neg strats.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note to everyone suggesting high theory...if they're asking for help with a neg strat to an aff like this, it's probably a fair bet they wouldn't already know Deleuze/Baudrillard et al enough to make a cogent neg strat out of it (assuming that otherwise they would have already known the links). It might be better to suggest more grounded neg strats.

Right like one off afropess /s

 

{edit: not talking about your post which only asked if they were one as well as giving non-k advice, I'm talking about others :P

Edited by Arturo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this one of Squirreloid's affs? It's definitely been posted on cross-x before, a long while ago I think. Like, over the summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be running the Rosa Parks K. It's free on Evazon, I think. 

That is the worst argument of all time. Worse than time cube. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it say?

Martyring good, and therefore if the aff is really committed to their movement/theory argument/aff the judge should martyr them by voting them down which produces better solvency or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 OK this aff : DECOLINIZATION ( Relgion was the biggest justification for so many atorcities ) 

 also on Walter Peytons Neg Wiki: lenny brahin-luisa cusick they have this religon pik that might work 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a counter-advocacy which affirms there was a historical Jesus? Then run case turns and other turns.

Engage with the substance of an argument rather than running a completely unrelated K?? Now that's blasphemy!!

 

I also like the idea of a pro-blasphemy case turn; there's tons of current evidence on that after the Charlie Hebdo shooting.

 

Another idea, if you don't have to worry about offending Christian judges: counter-advocacy that the true heresy is the idea of Jesus as messiah, quoting Jewish commentary on the issue.

Edited by Edgehopper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Engage with the substance of an argument rather than running a completely unrelated K?? Now that's blasphemy!!

I also like the idea of a pro-blasphemy case turn; there's tons of current evidence on that after the Charlie Hebdo shooting.

Another idea, if you don't have to worry about offending Christian judges: counter-advocacy that the true heresy is the idea of Jesus as messiah, quoting Jewish commentary on the issue.

The problem is, with cases like this it's not so much engaging with the aff as it is following them down the theological rabbit hole, onto their own territory. I doubt most judges are familiar with the ins and outs of the history of Christianity to anywhere near the same extent that they know what a T violation or a fairly common K is. Furthermore, that seems like a lot ore effort than one random aff really deserves, because you're going to be hitting at least 5 other teams at this tournament that aren't running this aff, so cutting a huge case neg rather than a link or whatever functionally trades off with prepping out for the rest of the pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Engage with the substance of an argument rather than running a completely unrelated K?? Now that's blasphemy!!

 

I also like the idea of a pro-blasphemy case turn; there's tons of current evidence on that after the Charlie Hebdo shooting.

 

Another idea, if you don't have to worry about offending Christian judges: counter-advocacy that the true heresy is the idea of Jesus as messiah, quoting Jewish commentary on the issue.

I was thinking of full-on link turns (real blasphemy is negating the historicity of Jesus) rather than impact turns (blasphemy good).   Read Josephus, maybe, if you don't want to read Scripture.  Obviously the perm is invalid- you can't affirm and negate the historicity of Jesus.  

 

Judges probably wouldn't expect that... the aff probably wouldn't either.  Then again, this is your school's aff...

Edited by LionDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking of full-on link turns (real blasphemy is negating the historicity of Jesus) rather than impact turns (blasphemy good).   Read Josephus, maybe, if you don't want to read Scripture.  Obviously the perm is invalid- you can't affirm and negate the historicity of Jesus.  

 

Judges probably wouldn't expect that... the aff probably wouldn't either.  Then again, this is your school's aff...

Former school's Aff--I switched to Joslin. I wrote the other crazy Marshall Aff--the Critical Ocean Privatization Aff. This one is entirely Squirreloid's fault :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, with cases like this it's not so much engaging with the aff as it is following them down the theological rabbit hole, onto their own territory. I doubt most judges are familiar with the ins and outs of the history of Christianity to anywhere near the same extent that they know what a T violation or a fairly common K is. Furthermore, that seems like a lot ore effort than one random aff really deserves, because you're going to be hitting at least 5 other teams at this tournament that aren't running this aff, so cutting a huge case neg rather than a link or whatever functionally trades off with prepping out for the rest of the pool.

Engaging the aff is often misinterpreted as spending reading a completely new case specific strategy that you don't fully understand. The problem is they understand the aff, and you don't. Unless you actually know more than them about the aff, a strategic option is almost always to redirect the debate away from the aff. So many people when debating us this year get bogged down in the tech of our aff and then realize too late they haven't put together a coherent strategy. The best teams I've debated while I'm aff are just teams that are like, screw this, we're reading this strategy or we're impact turning. Everyone is scared when they don't understand something and instead of redirecting everything they spend too much time trying to understand it. 

 

One exception -- Centennial KP destroyed us when we were aff by running an amazing multiplank counterplan and then just demolishing us. They are good at debate.

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...