Jump to content
kylerbuckner

Things we won't miss from this topic

Recommended Posts

space elevators & crappy DA ground 

I'm sure GBN will still find some way to run space elevators next year

 

USFG SHOULD CURTAIL NSA SURVEILLANCE FROM NASA'S SPACE ELEVATOR

 

Edit: stuff I won't miss

 

OSW (DIE IN HELL)

 

Business Confidence DA (wtf is this shit)

 

Military Veto CP (pls no)

Edited by Smitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure GBN will still find some way to run space elevators next year

 

USFG SHOULD CURTAIL NSA SURVEILLANCE FROM NASA'S SPACE ELEVATOR

 

Edit: stuff I won't miss

 

OSW (DIE IN HELL)

 

Business Confidence DA (wtf is this shit)

 

Military Veto CP (pls no)

Lol and they'll have their previous round wins as Inherency ("Last year when D. Heidt voted for us on Aff 26 times - the judge voted to build space elevators")

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locally, most affs here are:

  • aquaculture
  • aquaculture
  • aquaculture

I was kinda getting sick of hearing that everyone was going to starve because we don't have enough tuna.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locally, most affs here are:

  • aquaculture
  • aquaculture
  • aquaculture

I was kinda getting sick of hearing that everyone was going to starve because we don't have enough tuna.

Over here it's 

 

Aquaculture

OSW

 

and some teams that randomly pull affs from Open Evidence every other round for a "competitive edge" 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Business Confidence DA (wtf is this shit)

 

Business Confidence makes more sense than Spending.  Arguably, the poor job growth in the US economy right now is due to a lack of business confidence - companies aren't making long-term investments in infrastructure and jobs because they aren't confident those investments will be profitable.  Now, the idea that a single government program is enough to pull the trigger on a significant failure in business confidence? Completely divorced from reality - unless plan is to double the minimum wage or something equally ridiculous.  

 

(It doesn't help that 99% of high school debaters know pretty much nothing about economics, and so the Spending story is always terribly wrong.  Starting with the usual uniqueness cards actually being evidence for why the government should spend more money.  Government spending when the economy is weak boosts the economy - it's when the economy is strong that government spending has negative consequences.  Macro-economics 101 - if you understand aggregate supply and demand curves, this is obvious).

 

Really, the take-home message here is making good economic arguments is hard, and requires as much specialized knowledge as your favorite esoteric K.  But if you really grok econ, you can destroy teams who don't understand it.  And the link or internal link stories are equally bogus either way 95% of the time.

 

Not going to miss: 

 

Hearing Anthropocentrism every 2-3 rounds.  Especially since I have yet to hear an alternative which is (1) not itself anthropocentric and (2) explains how we could make choices or hold values in a non-anthropocentric way. As far as I can tell, the alternative is literally unimaginable.

 

The Whales case.  Quick summary: Whales are sentient creatures deserving of our respect, but we should let native populations kill them, because the natives project the illusion of choice on them based on which side of the hunter's canoe they go to as they pass by.  I'm pretty sure the correct answer to this case involves 4 minutes of case parody based on Nahuatl (Aztec) culture.  Humans are sentient creatures deserving our respect, but we should let Nahuatl sacrifice them to appease the gods so the sun doesn't go black.  And captives choose to be sacrificed by not fighting hard enough to drive off the war parties.  I'd be terribly tempted to sign my ballot during the 1NC.

 

Iran nuclear negotiations PTX story.  Last year was cool with a nice hyper-specific internal link story, but the longer this drags out, the more unlikely the doomsday scenario seems.

 

States CPs with terrible solvency deficits.  Plan saves coral reefs?  States CP!  Pop quiz: How many states have coral reefs?  Now, how many US territories have coral reefs?  (Admittedly not quite as bad as the Japan CP for an OCS oil case with advantages US economy and US oil dependence, which I also heard).  And yes, I know there'll be States CPs next year, but the solvency deficits won't be so glaringly awful most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

¿Que?[/size]

The federal government doesn't have a monopoly on surveillance don't ya know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The federal government doesn't have a monopoly on surveillance don't ya know

Whereas I agree with you. I just don't see how a States CP is ever going to actually be germane enough to the actual plan the aff runs to be successful. Like, the stock affs are going to be various NSA reforms and governmental program removals. I don't see where states will play a role in that. It'd have to be a super specific strat for State's CPs to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas I agree with you. I just don't see how a States CP is ever going to actually be germane enough to the actual plan the aff runs to be successful. Like, the stock affs are going to be various NSA reforms and governmental program removals. I don't see where states will play a role in that. It'd have to be a super specific strat for State's CPs to work.

Because the plans are supposed to actually do something, and a lot of the time I would assume (know) that states play a more critical role in implementation than does the federal government.  And, states can be just as effective, because while state laws cannot override federal ones, there is a massive amount of area in which states have the ability to control the amount and type of surveillance being used as long as it is not in conflict with federal laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the plans are supposed to actually do something, and a lot of the time I would assume (know) that states play a more critical role in implementation than does the federal government.  And, states can be just as effective, because while state laws cannot override federal ones, there is a massive amount of area in which states have the ability to control the amount and type of surveillance being used as long as it is not in conflict with federal laws.

 

And most federal surveillance isn't mandated by law anywhere.  A lot of it is frankly extra-legal.  There's a lot of scope for states to regulate it or support local businesses which refuse to cooperate.

 

The NSA doesn't get to ignore state laws just because it gets a directive from the president to do something.  (Technically, the NSA isn't legally allowed to conduct operations on US soil at all - not that that's stopped them).

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And most federal surveillance isn't mandated by law anywhere.  A lot of it is frankly extra-legal.  There's a lot of scope for states to regulate it or support local businesses which refuse to cooperate.

 

The NSA doesn't get to ignore state laws just because it gets a directive from the president to do something.  (Technically, the NSA isn't legally allowed to conduct operations on US soil at all - not that that's stopped them).

Yeah, like the War Powers topic from last year in college, I could see circumvention being the go to argument on solvency debates for a lot of these affs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And most federal surveillance isn't mandated by law anywhere.  A lot of it is frankly extra-legal.  There's a lot of scope for states to regulate it or support local businesses which refuse to cooperate.

 

The NSA doesn't get to ignore state laws just because it gets a directive from the president to do something.  (Technically, the NSA isn't legally allowed to conduct operations on US soil at all - not that that's stopped them).

NSA gains its justifications from the Patriot Act (hint hint); it's part in parcel with the broader narrative of the "War on Terror"

 

Another thing - the resolution says curtail, and I don't think that curtail necessarily means an absolute reduction; it's means something more like, reduce, but not entirely, ya feel?

 

This is a meaningful distinction as it means affirmatives that remove laws or programs aren't topical as they're not curtailing anything but are rather removing certain things; this is up to debate of course (competing interpretations 5ever)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NSA gains its justifications from the Patriot Act (hint hint); it's part in parcel with the broader narrative of the "War on Terror"

 

Another thing - the resolution says curtail, and I don't think that curtail necessarily means an absolute reduction; it's means something more like, reduce, but not entirely, ya feel?

 

This is a meaningful distinction as it means affirmatives that remove laws or programs aren't topical as they're not curtailing anything but are rather removing certain things; this is up to debate of course (competing interpretations 5ever)

That interpretation would be interesting except for the fact that the removal of any agency would never constitute a total elimination of domestic surveillance.  Also, I seriously doubt your interpretation has any textual basis

 

Plan: The United States federal government should abolish the NSA, and TSA. Would that be topical?

Topical, yes.  Smart, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ocean clean up (which we somehow hit four or five times this year against the same team), States CP, vague solvency advocates for agent CPs (when do those really go away though), teams insisting you don't explore when you claim development (then ignoring it after clarification), all warming advantages, this weird topical Ocean Exploration Advisory Board CP ran by Barstow I think, OMEGA biofuels, the incredibly sketchy, falsified evidence case OPEC (not OTEC). All renewable energy cases, personally I hated them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extra-topical things are still topical.

No. Part if it is, but it they are on whole not topical. If any part of an aff is not topical it is, by definition, not topical. There is no such thing as partially topical, because going beyond the topic or only utilizing part of the topic is the same thing (as the end result) as being untopical.

 

Yes you can argue minutia like "extra-t inevitable" (it's not, T doesn't determine the effects an action has, just the implementation of the action, also one fx topical step solves that offense) or bs like that, but it doesn't change that the aff being described above is on face untopical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuff I won't miss

Oceans t (Tell me again why the EEZ is not the ocean)?

 

LOST (Because signing a treaty is clearly ocean exploration)

 

Being forced to run nuclear desal (My partner's parents wouldn't let us run anything else)

 

Arguing about whether or not nuclear desal is the same thing as SMR's (IT'S NOT OKAY? GO USE GOOGLE OR SOMETHING)

 

NO-TEC (Apart from my school, it was literally the ONLY AFF)

 

Terrible generic cap links (Cap links to everything, you should have something specific)

 

And finally, the NASA tradeoff (NOAA TRADES OFF BUT WE'RE NOT THE NOAA!!!!!)

 

Oh yeah, debating against other novices who clearly don't know what their own k aff is but try to run it cause none of the other novices can answer it is another thing to mention.

Edited by rnakg1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuff I won't miss

Oceans t (Tell me again why the EEZ is not the ocean)?

 

LOST (Because signing a treaty is clearly ocean exploration)

 

Being forced to run nuclear desal (My partner's parents wouldn't let us run anything else)

wut. Also, solar nanofiltration=best desal. 

 

Arguing about whether or not nuclear desal is the same thing as SMR's (IT'S NOT OKAY? GO USE GOOGLE OR SOMETHING)

also, wut

 

NO-TEC (Apart from my school, it was literally the ONLY AFF)

 

Terrible generic cap links (Cap links to everything, you should have something specific)

 

And finally, the NASA tradeoff (NOAA TRADES OFF BUT WE'RE NOT THE NOAA!!!!!)

 

Oh yeah, debating against other novices who clearly don't know what their own k aff is but try to run it cause none of the other novices can answer it is another thing to mention.

Funny story: my *novice* friend ran a Schopenhauer K Aff and lost to a team that Read FW and Chow... I found out after the round that a) the other team told them that Chow was Cede the Political and was treated like that during the entire of the round. and B) he lost to a framework that had no interp. He said that he thought "USFG=3 branches" was an interp.  :blush: 

Edited by kylerbuckner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stuff I won't miss

Oceans t (Tell me again why the EEZ is not the ocean)?

 

LOST (Because signing a treaty is clearly ocean exploration)

 

Being forced to run nuclear desal (My partner's parents wouldn't let us run anything else)

wut. Also, solar nanofiltration=best desal. 

 

Arguing about whether or not nuclear desal is the same thing as SMR's (IT'S NOT OKAY? GO USE GOOGLE OR SOMETHING)

also, wut

 

NO-TEC (Apart from my school, it was literally the ONLY AFF)

 

Terrible generic cap links (Cap links to everything, you should have something specific)

 

And finally, the NASA tradeoff (NOAA TRADES OFF BUT WE'RE NOT THE NOAA!!!!!)

 

Oh yeah, debating against other novices who clearly don't know what their own k aff is but try to run it cause none of the other novices can answer it is another thing to mention.

Funny story: my *novice* friend ran a Schopenhauer K Aff and lost to a team that Read FW and Chow... I found out after the round that a) the other team told them that Chow was Cede the Political and was treated like that during the entire of the round. and B) he lost to a framework that had no interp. He said that he thought "USFG=3 branches" was an interp.  :blush: 

 

That sounds more like the team read T against your friend and not FW

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...