Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm relatively new to Policy Debate, and at a tournament last weekend there was this person who went Maverick and ran a thing called "whiteout" or an extinction impact turn.

 

Their AC was a plan that baited the Negative to run a disad with an extinction impact, but then instead of refuting the disad they'd impact turn it, claiming that "extinction was good because life is suffering."

Also, their NC was composed of a japan disad of the affirmative plan that yielded an extinction impact 100 or so years in the future, followed by a counterplan that would cause extinction "almost immediately." They then ran the same "extinction good because life is suffering" evidence and claimed that they outweighed on timeframe.

 

Although this sounds odd, both the AC tactic of turning extinction and the extinction timeframe argument did well in several rounds and left my partner and I very confused.

Does anybody have cards or evidence they could share regarding "extinction good" or an extinction impact turn?

I also heard there's some specific philosopher associated with this idea.

 

Thanks

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the philosopher you're referring to is either Arthur Schopenhauer and Thomas Ligotti. There's a good Schopenhauer answers file on openev: https://openev.debatecoaches.org/2013/ that will get you started.

 

Generically, you can argue that life is not suffering, fear of death is good, and people should get to choose if they die or not. However, both of their strategies seem really weird, even for death good debaters, so you can take advantage of that. Against the aff, since they're trying to bait you just... don't take the bait. Run T, a DA with a non-extinction impact, or just read a Death K back to them. Against the neg, the CP is non-competitive and doesn't seem to have a net benefit, so just perm + "death isn't good" should be persuasive enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they read wipeout bellah- the way you should respond to this is just read "extinction/death bad" cards in response and then just line by line the cards themselves, indicting the warrants along the way

 

also use the answers file above to block them out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im new to debating Ks but could this turn into a K?

wipeout is generally run with util framework, when you run a k it might be framed differently so it may turn ks depending on the K. Also Ks might not generally have a extinction level impact although running wipeout would be great against DAs. Another thing if you want to run wipeout in 2ac you have to make sure that your 1ac does not have any extinction impacts or any impacts where the neg can read a card and it becomes extinction level.

 

For the question asked by Andrew just run psychoanalysis or just try to out left them. Definitely read T.

Edited by Morganfreeman

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...