Jump to content
GayAsInHappy

Education Topic Debate

Recommended Posts

sure I'm down if no one else offers (the reason being idk how reliable my access to my computer will be over these next few days). So if no one else is down to debate by tomorrow, choose your side and we' go from there

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@graccesbeafuea

Thanks for the reply! I think I'ma debate Trashdebator since you said you don't know about your computer access. :)

@TrashDebator
Alright! I'll debate you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@graccesbeafuea

Thanks for the reply! I think I'ma debate Trashdebator since you said you don't know about your computer access. :)

@TrashDebator

Alright! I'll debate you!

Alright, just post the 1AC and I'll CX by the end of the day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey trashdebator I'm having this weird problem. For some reason it won't let me drag my file into the chat. How do you sumbit the file/ is there any other way :o



Edit: Oh i just saw your message on my other post. Thank you!

Edited by GayAsInHappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aight here's CX:
 

So how exactly does the plan solve for your impacts?

 

What are your impacts?

 

What exactly are "crip communities"?

 

So who executes this discrimination and exclusion exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aight here's CX:

 

So how exactly does the plan solve for your impacts?

 

 Crip communities are allowed positions of power to administer education of students w/ dis/abilities.

 

What are your impacts?

 

Eugenics, propagation of ableism through the educational system.

 

What exactly are "crip communities"?

Communities who dwell in dis/abilities and want to fight the notion of dis/ability as something to be cured. Its a social group isn't defined by a static notion of identty, because dis/abilities is constantly in a state of becoming.

 

So who executes this discrimination and exclusion exactly?

Ableist people who hold positions of power within USFG educational instutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The citations in the 1AC need to be fixed - you need citations for all authors and the date in the portion of the cite you read, not # card you've read from that same author - ie Mitchell et al 1 should be Mitchell (actual date) and a list of all other contributing authors in the actual citation and their qualifications. This isn't going to affect the round, but it may affect future ones. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the abuses stemming off the t shell still true, even though you got to read 4 off case against aff?
 

Are the abuses in round or potential abuses?

What is the stasis arguement you made?
 

The Pollack card only talks about how the U.S. should structure Iraq gov, what's the internal link to Iraqi war?

Is your antiono card only contextualised to role playing?

 

Can you explain the double bind?

 

How does saying the gov should do x lead to a negation of all life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the abuses stemming off the t shell still true, even though you got to read 4 off case against aff?

 

Completely, if you look at all the neg arguments you can clearly see two things, the lack of case which I would've swapped out for the states CP if there had been case. Then completely generic arguments, generic links, solvency and a fiat db. Literally all of the negs arguments at fiat level are completely generic.

 

Are the abuses in round or potential abuses?

 

Well this comes to actual abuse for 2 reasons really 1. Because you've already skewed my negative strategy by making me point out your aff doesn't fit the resolution and 2. Because we had no preparation or ability to combat a case with "crip communities" executing the plan, and no this isn't me being lazy due to my lack of prep this is me saying that there is literally no way I could have predicted your aff or in my wildest dreams seen your aff. Because of this you have driven me to generic and rid this round of any education I could have gained.

 

What is the stasis arguement you made?

 

The point of my stasis argument is that my interp is key to the resolutional stasis of the USFG being the actor and without it you disrupt that stasis which is bad due to my voters.

 

The Pollack card only talks about how the U.S. should structure Iraq gov, what's the internal link to Iraqi war?

 

It's not specifically an Iraqi war it's a war in the Middle East first of all. Then like it's just basics that the US has been invested in modeling the Iraqi government to be like the US. We tried to influence federalism specifically but if we can't even execute federalism correctly then our efforts collapse as well as the country would escalate due to instability.

 

Is your antiono card only contextualised to role playing?

Yes it is.

 

Can you explain the double bind?

 

Basically it's that either your harms will happen and you can't solve them so neg is voted up for presumption or you've constructed your impacts to alarm the judge into voting aff which then the judge should vote neg on principle.

 

How does saying the gov should do x lead to a negation of all life?

 

It's a concept Nietzsche developed called ressentiment. Basically that we become so entranced with our roles that we start to believe that we are our roles which then leads to ressentiment.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, here's it below

 

I'll listen to most arguments that aren't Time Cube or the alphabet of Spec. If you can pull those off on the line by line however, I'll try my best to evaluate them. I love debaters who can see the big picture, leverage arguments on different flows well and it'll do wonders in front of me.

 

This year, I read mostly Plan based Aff's and specific DA's or K's on the neg. Below are some of my more complete thoughts on specific argument types.

 

tl;dr: Specific links are the best. Tech>Truth in most cases (Anything outrageous like giving China 5 trillion dollars for Nukes will result in Judge Intervention). Do as much on the LBL as possible. Control Framework and you will probably win the debate.

 

Performance Affs: I'm cool with whatever. I prefer if your Aff talks about the resolution in some way (that's up to you to determine), but if you don't, you must have a good reason why or I'm heavily neg leaning on Framework. I like Aff's that leverage specific turns on Topicality in the 2AC rather than generic impact turns, so having that with a K Aff is definitely a must have in front of me.

 

Case: I love Impact Turns and specific internal link turns. I feel that many times, 2NR's will go for Artificially competitive counteprlans instead of leveraging specific turns on the Aff. Using a strategic Impact Turn will go a long way towards winning my ballot.

 

Kritiks: I'm most familiar with Derrida, Mbembe, Anthro authors, and Model Minority authors, but I'm well read in a lot of post modern theory - Heidegger, Schmitt, Foucault, Baudrillard, etc. I also know other K's like Cap and Security very well. Don't assume I know what you're talking about though, long tag lines and buzz words won't do much without sufficient explanation. Please don't have the 2NC be 7 minutes of overview and just say "on my O/V" when you're answering the Line by Line. LBL debates are where many K debates are won or lost. Specific contextualizations of link scenarios will do wonders in front of me, if you read a K as part of a 6-Off strat, having a generic link and then contextualizing it in the block is cool, but if you're going 1-off, then you should have specific links to isolate in the 1NC. I'm not well convinced of criticisms of the Status Quo rather than of the aff, so please have a link that I can specifically weigh when isolating specific impact scenarios. Framework is also crucial when telling me how to evaluate links. 

 

Disads: I love specific disads that get into the nitty gritty of the Aff, I read them about 60% of the time this year. Like K's, if you read a generic topic disad, please isolate specific link scenarios. 

 

Counterplans: Specific Counterplans that aren't artificially competitive will go a long weigh towards mitigating the Aff in front of me. I dislike Consult CP's and Delay CP's, but if argued well, I will vote on them. Specific Agent CP's are sweet if you have solvency advocates related to the Aff. 2NC amendments are usually bad unless in response to 2AC Add-Ons. Note - I am really convinced of "need solvency advocate" theory so please have one unless it's part of the 1AC.

 

Topicality: I love T shells that are argued well. A struggle I often see is weighing fairness v education impacts, doing so will make the decision incredibly clearer to me. Against K Affs - I went for FW almost every time on the Neg, I find myself more convinced by Substance questions like SSD args, but Hard FW like Fairness can still get my ballot. I cannot stress controlling the direction of the Aff's solvency when debating FW, because that allows the Aff to leverage key turns that can switch my ballot very quickly.

 

Condo: I am very convinced by Perf-Con args. Mostly neg leaning but anything more than 5 Condo will cause me to lean Aff.

 

Extra Stuff - I love specific, updated cards, but don't let them make arguments for you. I won't evaluate cards on their own if there isn't an external warrant made outside of the ev. The only exception to this is late breaking Impact Turn debates in response to 2AC Add-ons where letting the cards do the talking is crucial due to a time trade-off.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is your antiono card only contextualised to role playing?

Yes it is.

Can you explain the double bind?

Basically it's that either your harms will happen and you can't solve them so neg is voted up for presumption or you've constructed your impacts to alarm the judge into voting aff which then the judge should vote neg on principle.

How does saying the gov should do x lead to a negation of all life?

It's a concept Nietzsche developed called ressentiment. Basically that we become so entranced with our roles that we start to believe that we are our roles which then leads to ressentiment.

what did i say? oh yeah, butchered. if you are going to read this in the future, don't purposefully under-highlight it to be a "troll" we had kmultra for that (at least know the arguement if you're going to do it so you have some credibility). so if you're gonna use it as a time skew at least try to make it less obvious (there are no warrants highlighted, which is bad in it of itself) and understand the arguement a little more. not being mean, just a pet peeve/trying to be constructive. also Kierkegaard developed the first concepts of ressentiment

 

edit: spelling error

Edited by GracchusBabeuf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one question, do you defend USFG action?

The way you've phrased it, it sounds like some dramatic movie trailer.

 

In a world...

 

*clip of debaters spreading*

 

...where the policy-makers and the philosophers are at war...

 

*clip of dramatic person in a suit saying "the order is one off, then case"*

 

...only one hero...

 

*clip of protagonist: "the-first-off-is-frame-work-the-a-sub-point-is-the-interpretation"*

 

...can reclaim debate...

 

*clip of K debater: "the political has ALREADY BEEN CEDED"*

 

...once and for all...

 

*clip of policy protagonist: "I have one question for you..."

 

...and restore order...

 

*policy protagonist: "will you defend the USFG?"*

 

*fade out*

 

"The Cross-X" - Coming Soon to Theaters Near You.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way you've phrased it, it sounds like some dramatic movie trailer.

 

In a world...

 

*clip of debaters spreading*

 

...where the policy-makers and the philosophers are at war...

 

*clip of dramatic person in a suit saying "the order is one off, then case"*

 

...only one hero...

 

*clip of protagonist: "the-first-off-is-frame-work-the-a-sub-point-is-the-interpretation"*

 

...can reclaim debate...

 

*clip of K debater: "the political has ALREADY BEEN CEDED"*

 

...once and for all...

 

*clip of policy protagonist: "I have one question for you..."

 

...and restore order...

 

*policy protagonist: "will you defend the USFG?"*

 

*fade out*

 

"The Cross-X" - Coming Soon to Theaters Near You.

I would pay to see this

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would pay to see this

I would too. Please note, everyone, that casting the K debaters as the villains does not necessarily reflect my opinion. Just making fun of it for the joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, hey snowball the debate you were judging with Kush and it just ended and if it isn't too much trouble could you go and look at it. He had to concede due to school coming up.

Edited by TheTrashDebater

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

×