Neg strat for ocean of blasphemy

[PerfectlyImperfect2015 3]

I attached the 1ac but i need help with a neg strat

1ac b.docx

[Theparanoiacmachine 1676]

Nietzsche (most effective) 

 

DnG

 

OOO

 

(anything about transcendent-signifiers being bad) 

Edited February 8, 2015 by Theparanoiacmachine

[SnarkosaurusRex 2831]

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.

[philiburgers 262]

1 Off Afropessimism 

[Raybadursh 108]

1 Off Afropessimism 

This. Quare would also work really well.

[KimJongUn 664]

Camus

Queer theory (pick the right alt and it solves the aff)

[RyeZOAM 444]

Baudrillard?

[SnarkosaurusRex 2831]

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.

[DisplayName 377]

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

Edited February 9, 2015 by Arturo

[ItAintRalphTho 105]

ASPEC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(i hate myself.)

Edited February 9, 2015 by ItAintRalphTho

[DisplayName 377]

ASPEC

Oh shit, I just checked and they did not SPEC their A. That's good, was gonna have to depend on OSPEC

[MarekIntan 96]

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

[dancon25 1264]

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.

[MarekIntan 96]

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.

 

Yeah. Here it is: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lo8woot30mwx9e7/Beast%20of%20Blasphemy%201AC%20ROUGH%20(~2650%20words).doc 

[Theparanoiacmachine 1676]

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.

lol

[DisplayName 377]

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. 

[BobbyTables 298]

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

What does it say?

[DisplayName 377]

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. 

[JaredCroitoru 197]

 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 

[OceanDebater 76]

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

Edited February 10, 2015 by LionDebater

[Edgehopper 397]

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 February 10, 2015 by Edgehopper

[SnarkosaurusRex 2831]

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.

[OceanDebater 76]

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 February 10, 2015 by LionDebater

[Edgehopper 397]

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

[DisplayName 377]

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.