Jump to content
Nodulux

Security Links to this Year's Topic?

Recommended Posts

I am currently trying to put together some Security K links for this year's topic. However, I'm having a bit of trouble. Does anybody have any leads? I'd be much obliged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently trying to put together some Security K links for this year's topic. However, I'm having a bit of trouble. Does anybody have any leads? I'd be much obliged.

So other than wait for camp files to come out, head over to duhbait and check out ARGogate's 1nc vs Topicality and you can see that generic Ahmed card that's pretty good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut Advantage links, it'll be easier than "decreasing surveillance increases security" links. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut Advantage links, it'll be easier than "decreasing surveillance increases security" links. 

 

Come to think of it, wouldn't it just be easy to read turns on the aff since I'm sure most scholars believe surveillance is good for heg/security? Maybe this isn't a strategic kritik on this topic *hint hint* 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CMaybe this isn't a strategic kritik on this topic *hint hint*

Exactly what I would have said. However, I happened to be assigned to the Security K group here at camp, and I really don't have much of a choice.

 

The security K links to advantages and impacts. You'll be hard pressed to find affirmative links.

Cut Advantage links, it'll be easier than "decreasing surveillance increases security" links.

Incidentally, I posted this because my lab leader didn't seem to think that advantage links were a thing that existed. He said, "any good coach would tell their team to just kick their advantages. The neg has to prove the aff is bad in a vacuum, not just by its effects". Yes, that's legitimately what he said. He also said, "discourse links are very weak, you should never go for them". He's really scary though, so I'm just trying to keep quiet :P

 

EDIT: words, what do they mean?

Edited by Nodulux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly what I would have said. However, I happened to be assigned to the Security K group here at camp, and I really don't have much of a choice.

 

 

 

Incidentally, I posted this because my lab leader didn't seem to think that advantage links were a thing that existed. He said, "any good coach would tell their team to just kick their advantages. The neg has to prove the aff is bad in a vacuum, not just by its effects". Yes, that's legitimately what he said. He also said, "discourse links are very weak, you should never go for them". He's really scary though, so I'm just trying to keep quiet :P

 

EDIT: words, what do they mean?

JDI is putting out  a security file, you can look at that for examples whenever they release it if you're at a longer camp. (or I'll just upload it whenever we get it for the tourney)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, wouldn't it just be easy to read turns on the aff since I'm sure most scholars believe surveillance is good for heg/security? Maybe this isn't a strategic kritik on this topic *hint hint*

 

Well to counter your point, there are always gonna be those far right affs like "we need to decrease military surveillance becuz Khalizad"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to counter your point, there are always gonna be those far right affs like "we need to decrease military surveillance becuz Khalizad"

and lots of affs are gonna read Heg and Econ as advantages so the whole negative state action doesn't matter in the context of discourse because they represent a state action that balances out surveillance in order to gain desirable outcomes and prevent x war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and lots of affs are gonna read Heg and Econ as advantages so the whole negative state action doesn't matter in the context of discourse because they represent a state action that balances out surveillance in order to gain desirable outcomes and prevent x war.

 

agreed. just like the kritik you read against me in our vdebate (sneaky bump for 2nr)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JDI is putting out  a security file, you can look at that for examples whenever they release it if you're at a longer camp. (or I'll just upload it whenever we get it for the tourney)

You see, I happen to be on the JDI Security K team, so... yeah. If you are too, you should say hi, I'm Silence of the Lambs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed. just like the kritik you read against me in our vdebate (sneaky bump for 2nr)

I'll try and finish when I get back from camp lol.

You see, I happen to be on the JDI Security K team, so... yeah. If you are too, you should say hi, I'm Silence of the Lambs

I'm cutting NSA Aff + Neg

EDIT: I'm in charge cutting K answers, can you sneak me the links and alt methodology? 

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly what I would have said. However, I happened to be assigned to the Security K group here at camp, and I really don't have much of a choice.

 

 

 

Incidentally, I posted this because my lab leader didn't seem to think that advantage links were a thing that existed. He said, "any good coach would tell their team to just kick their advantages. The neg has to prove the aff is bad in a vacuum, not just by its effects". Yes, that's legitimately what he said. He also said, "discourse links are very weak, you should never go for them". He's really scary though, so I'm just trying to keep quiet :P

 

EDIT: words, what do they mean?

Advantages aren't conditional, and if they defend them, you read aff condo.

If they kick every single advantage, they have conceded that plan is bad because of your links, which is a reason to vote neg.

If they kick all of the advantages they have not proven the affirmative is good and you vote neg on presumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advantages aren't conditional, and if they defend them, you read aff condo.

If they kick every single advantage, they have conceded that plan is bad because of your links, which is a reason to vote neg.

If they kick all of the advantages they have not proven the affirmative is good and you vote neg on presumption.

If you ran an aff with 2 advantages, Econ and Warming, and they read tons of defense to warming throughout the round, and in the 2ar you kicked out of warming by saying "concede no warming, onto Econ" then went for that advantage, how is this bad?

 

Also (for clarification I guess) what do u mean aff condo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: I'm in charge cutting K answers, can you sneak me the links and alt methodology?

I would, but I don't have access to the main file...

Advantages aren't conditional, and if they defend them, you read aff condo.

If they kick every single advantage, they have conceded that plan is bad because of your links, which is a reason to vote neg.

If they kick all of the advantages they have not proven the affirmative is good and you vote neg on presumption.

My lab leader seemed quite confident that kicking advantages was a thing. I mean, I kind of agree with deb8lover that there is nothing preventing you from just conceding one of the case arguments.

 

I know that kicking all their advantages is effectively conceding. We are cutting advantage links, but we want some direct links as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ran an aff with 2 advantages, Econ and Warming, and they read tons of defense to warming throughout the round, and in the 2ar you kicked out of warming by saying "concede no warming, onto Econ" then went for that advantage, how is this bad?

 

Also (for clarification I guess) what do u mean aff condo?

 

 

I would, but I don't have access to the main file...

My lab leader seemed quite confident that kicking advantages was a thing. I mean, I kind of agree with deb8lover that there is nothing preventing you from just conceding one of the case arguments.

 

I know that kicking all their advantages is effectively conceding. We are cutting advantage links, but we want some direct links as well.

If you're going for the security K and they concede your defence then you win because they have conceded the threats were constructed in the 1AC, hence the internal link to all of your impacts.

That is how yoou kick out of advantages, but that doesn't get you out oof the offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going for the security K and they concede your defence then you win because they have conceded the threats were constructed in the 1AC, hence the internal link to all of your impacts.

 

True, didn't think of it from that perspective.

 

What did you mean by aff condo before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would, but I don't have access to the main file...

My lab leader seemed quite confident that kicking advantages was a thing. I mean, I kind of agree with deb8lover that there is nothing preventing you from just conceding one of the case arguments.

 

I know that kicking all their advantages is effectively conceding. We are cutting advantage links, but we want some direct links as well.

Dang. If you find out the alt/some links stories pm me, plz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, didn't think of it from that perspective.

 

What did you mean by aff condo before?

If they just kick an advantage and avoid everything you did, you make arguments that you'd make on neg condo, except for the aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they just kick an advantage and avoid everything you did, you make arguments that you'd make on neg condo, except for the aff

ok

In my example above, if I said concede warming not real, kick the adv but if they had said warming good, I can't just kick the advantage (I still link to the offense). BUT, if they attack my internal link and I concede "my plan does nothing for warming" then do I get out of the offense and defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going for the security K and they concede your defence then you win because they have conceded the threats were constructed in the 1AC, hence the internal link to all of your impacts.

That is how yoou kick out of advantages, but that doesn't get you out oof the offense.

 

and this is why discourse links are good. ("well we're gonna concede the defense you read on the advantages trololol" - "well get rekt scrub 1AC is a speech act discourse")  Also your lab leader probably didn't coach the NPTE/(almost all) NPDA winning team's 4 years straight so I'd take rickroll's advice on this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and this is why discourse links are good. ("well we're gonna concede the defense you read on the advantages trololol" - "well get rekt scrub 1AC is a speech act discourse")  Also your lab leader probably didn't coach the NPTE/(almost all) NPDA winning team's 4 years straight so I'd take rickroll's advice on this one. 

Haha, I wouldn't say that, all I would say is simply that a lot of lab leaders are very conservative and wouldn't vote on the security K regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a related note, I will be releasing a cheap Security K on Duhbait soon with only evidence from 2015 and 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a related note, I will be releasing a cheap Security K on Duhbait soon with only evidence from 2015 and 2014.

 

No one is falling for it this time 

  • Upvote 1

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...