Jump to content
EyeOfSauron

Critique my aff

Recommended Posts

I'm a novice and I'm looking to break this new aff I wrote for an important tournament.

Check it out and poke holes in it please, but tell me how to fix the problems, don't just be mean.

 

Thanks

FRT Aff Lay.docx

Edited by ixela2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone scan this to make sure theres no viruses?

Yes, I obviously put a virus on my aff. You know, when the neg gets annoying, just hit em with a good ol virus.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm i think the order should be changed alittle , - inherency , your advantage's,  plan text  then the solvency

 

I think you got it a bit wrong 

 

The PATRICIANS order is the following: Inherency, Plantext, Advantages, General Solvency (You DO have a solvency contention don't you?) 

 

It follows a logical order for trying to "tell a story" to the judge. It does the following: -

 

1. What we are about to propose isn't happening now

2. Propose the plan 

3. Explain the specific benefits of the proposal 

4. Explain that the proposal will work

 

What you proposed does the following: 

 

1. What we propose isn't happening now 

2. Explain the benefits of the proposal (but what exactly is it???) 

3. Propose the plan (Ohhhh... now I know what it is, but I wish I'd heard it sooner) 

4. Explain why it will work 

 

Any other order is objectively wrong using highly falsifiable analysis of aesthetic choice that I totally didn't invent just to help my argument in this instance.  

 

Edited by BernieSanders
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you got it a bit wrong 

 

The PATRICIANS order is the following: Inherency, Plantext, Advantages, General Solvency (You DO have a solvency contention don't you?) 

 

It follows a logical order for trying to "tell a story" to the judge. It does the following: -

 

1. What we are about to propose isn't happening now

2. Propose the plan 

3. Explain the specific benefits of the proposal 

4. Explain that the proposal will work

 

What you proposed does the following: 

 

1. What we propose isn't happening now 

2. Explain the benefits of the proposal (but what exactly is it???) 

3. Propose the plan (Ohhhh... now I know what it is, but I wish I'd heard it sooner) 

4. Explain why it will work 

 

Any other order is objectively wrong using highly falsifiable analysis of aesthetic choice that I totally didn't invent just to help my argument in this instance.  

 

 

Eh, it depends on how you structure your advantage contentions and solvency.  Advantages handled as harms contention areas logically demand the plan follow them.

 

1. Not happening now

2. Problems with the SQ that demand action

3. Plan to solve problems

4. Solvency for problems

 

I mean, yeah, if your advantages contain advantage-specific solvency, that structure doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, it depends on how you structure your advantage contentions and solvency.  Advantages handled as harms contention areas logically demand the plan follow them.

 

1. Not happening now

2. Problems with the SQ that demand action

3. Plan to solve problems

4. Solvency for problems

 

I mean, yeah, if your advantages contain advantage-specific solvency, that structure doesn't make sense.

 

I honestly cannot think of situations (non-K) where it's strategic to not have advantage-specific solvency cards. I suppose in a situation where a general solvency card also gives the warrants for solving a particular advantage, but I assumed that said cards where just a given in most cases....

Edited by BernieSanders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly cannot think of situations (non-K) where it's strategic to not have advantage-specific solvency cards. I suppose in a situation where a general solvency card also gives the warrants for solving a particular advantage, but I assumed that said cards where just a given in most cases....

 

I've built cases where advantage-specific solvency was in the solvency contention and not the advantages.  Generally it depends on how related the solvency for all the contentions is to each other.  If they all have disparate solvency stories, solvency makes more sense in the advantages.  If the solvency for all the advantages is largely part of a unified story, it makes sense to collect it in Solvency.  And that definitely affects where Plan should go.  But you always have advantage-specific solvency cards, it's just a question of where you place them.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advantage Specfic Solvency its just more pre-empts to CP's but just saying when the 1ac is titled LAY - that might be a different story completely like OP - how lay is the tournament your going to - advantage specfic solvency is bae in CP debate but if its lay enough where its only a DA debate thats a diff story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuff like biopower , if that is the stuff you role with and if they are lay just be ready with like metaphors , and things.  Like microfacism can be explained with the Lego Movie , and things like that . make it applicable to real life , because biopower on its own is more likely upset some lay judges . But explaining the issues with the worst of it 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'd retag the Szentes 8 card because 1. It seems needlessly powertagged and overhyped. 2. I think it would be more beneficial to claim more moderate impacts that aren't so much of a leap

 

Also you don't really solve for alt causes to any of your impacts. Next you don't really internal link too much surveillance to biopower. You just jump from surveying non-criminals to biopower

 

Next your Gaist 15 evidence is a little weak. It just talks about using infrared tech to track movement of people during riots in Baltimore. It doesn't mention facial recodnition tech until it mentions it as a part of a list of multiple surveillance tech. So this card could also actually flow neg as an arg that as long as we have the other forms of surveillance your impacts still happen.

 

The lack of internal link on the Gaist 15 card does get made up for by the Lynch evidence prior to it

 

Also your Natapoff 2014 doesn't actually talk about FRT specifically.

 

All of your Lynch and Volz cards are good as far as I can tell

 

Overall I think you have a good aff, however I do question your use of specifically FRT when you have a lack of evidence regarding specifically FRT and how only FRT is causing the problems. Also I could see this debate going South very quickly if a team hits you with DAs that have specific links and have good case answers and good evidence analysis. However, if you are set on running this aff I would reccomend cutting some more internal link cards specific to FRT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice idea. I just think it should be reordered, and the impacts internal links should work a little bit better, but it's a good start. I see oncase being a bit difficult to answer with this aff though, make sure to have some good frontlines.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×