Jump to content
MattYee

Drop the team args?

Recommended Posts

This past weekend, the opposing team ran a "drop the team" argument and refered to it as the "K to the DA" and the "K to the CP", could someone help me out with this? They didnt read a proper K, and nobody runs this kind of arg on the side of the state i normally compete on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could you attach the doc or a wiki link if its available? maybe they said DA was racist or something and that's a d-rule or voter? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chsdebater5 said:

could you attach the doc or a wiki link if its available? maybe they said DA was racist or something and that's a d-rule or voter? 

They didnt flash

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the context of the drop the team arg? It was probably a kritik of your impact framing, but I don't see how that would be a drop the team arg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HyperRhizome said:

What was the context of the drop the team arg? It was probably a kritik of your impact framing, but I don't see how that would be a drop the team arg. 

We ran a VA reform CP against the U Visas aff and they said that prioritizing veterans is "problematic" and that we should be dropped because of it. The pretense behind the cp was that the aff is like a crack whore who wants to adopt six kids. Need to help our own etc. Etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MattYee said:

We ran a VA reform CP against the U Visas aff and they said that prioritizing veterans is "problematic" and that we should be dropped because of it. The pretense behind the cp was that the aff is like a crack whore who wants to adopt six kids. Need to help our own etc. Etc.

i can understand prioritizing vets but saying that the aff which wants to help victims of criminal activity is a crackwhore and victims should be sacrificed for an arbitrary tradeoff with vets does seem a bit problematic. i dont have full context tho so idk. it doesn't seem like a reason for dropping the team unless you said/did something suuper problematic but i could understand a drop the argument arg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, chsdebater5 said:

i can understand prioritizing vets but saying that the aff which wants to help victims of criminal activity is a crackwhore and victims should be sacrificed for an arbitrary tradeoff with vets does seem a bit problematic. i dont have full context tho so idk. it doesn't seem like a reason for dropping the team unless you said/did something suuper problematic but i could understand a drop the argument arg

that's at least a reason to say drop the arg

you could argue that the neg should not use authors with such bad opinions 

and U visas in particular is for domestic violence victims, so the K would be saying that putting this as a zero sum game is unethical

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AlistairTheKDebater said:

that's at least a reason to say drop the arg

you could argue that the neg should not use authors with such bad opinions 

and U visas in particular is for domestic violence victims, so the K would be saying that putting this as a zero sum game is unethical

btw disads against U visas should only be ones that turn case, like Trump base or Nativist backlash

CPs should be like HIRA or Canada, or some actor cp

Good Ks would be Cybernetics and Impreceptible Movements, and i guess afropess with it's ethics args

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the cp was like "US MILITARY VETS VETS VETS fuck the victims we should be worrying ab VETS" i could see them critiquing that mindset with a reject the team arg

Edited by chsdebater5
y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MattYee said:

We ran a VA reform CP against the U Visas aff and they said that prioritizing veterans is "problematic" and that we should be dropped because of it. The pretense behind the cp was that the aff is like a crack whore who wants to adopt six kids. Need to help our own etc. Etc.

Just drop the CP and say "drop the arg, not the team". It doesn't seem problematic enough to down yall. Prolly don't use that comparison though, the language is mildly problematic. Just say that the US can't support immigrants. Also, I don't see how the CP is mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AlistairTheKDebater said:

btw disads against U visas should only be ones that turn case, like Trump base or Nativist backlash

CPs should be like HIRA or Canada, or some actor cp

Good Ks would be Cybernetics and Impreceptible Movements, and i guess afropess with it's ethics args

I mean not really - you just have to win framing flow if you go for a DA with existential impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 9:24 PM, MattYee said:

We ran a VA reform CP against the U Visas aff and they said that prioritizing veterans is "problematic" and that we should be dropped because of it. The pretense behind the cp was that the aff is like a crack whore who wants to adopt six kids. Need to help our own etc. Etc.

You probably shouldn't characterize the aff as a "crack whore" because that's a pretty problematic analogy. It might not always be a reason to reject the team, but it's definitely a reason to reject the argument, and if you characterized the aff in this same way throughout the debate there's maybe a convincing voter that's just like "punish them so they'll stop using this language, not voting them down for it means they have no reason to change." Also, please don't use analogies like this in debate, because it can be hurtful to people in the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, XrossEcramination said:

You probably shouldn't characterize the aff as a "crack whore" because that's a pretty problematic analogy. It might not always be a reason to reject the team, but it's definitely a reason to reject the argument, and if you characterized the aff in this same way throughout the debate there's maybe a convincing voter that's just like "punish them so they'll stop using this language, not voting them down for it means they have no reason to change." Also, please don't use analogies like this in debate, because it can be hurtful to people in the community.

why did this get 4 downvotes

that's is honestly a really horrible analogy to use, so yeah maybe don't use that card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 11:35 PM, ronniesportman said:

I mean not really - you just have to win framing flow if you go for a DA with existential impact. 

yeah but it's better to argue the plan would end up making immigrants less safe, because that would turn case

gives a strong nb to the canada cp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlistairTheKDebater said:

yeah but it's better to argue the plan would end up making immigrants less safe, because that would turn case

gives a strong nb to the canada cp

I mean if your just reading turns case - its no better than an alt cause on case. The existential threat gives you offense that is tougher for the aff to mitigate. If anything it gives a stronger nb to the Canada Cp and justifies sufficiency framing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ronniesportman said:

I mean if your just reading turns case - its no better than an alt cause on case. The existential threat gives you offense that is tougher for the aff to mitigate. If anything it gives a stronger nb to the Canada Cp and justifies sufficiency framing

you have to take out their framing from the 1ac, i usually prefer to take offense off the affs own framing, and then maybe propse different framing to put them in a tough spot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 8:47 AM, MattYee said:

This past weekend, the opposing team ran a "drop the team" argument and refered to it as the "K to the DA" and the "K to the CP", could someone help me out with this? They didnt read a proper K, and nobody runs this kind of arg on the side of the state i normally compete on.

bro how does the veterans CP compete?

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

×