Jump to content
MattYee

My worst round ever

Recommended Posts

At a recent invitational, I hit a team that I respect very much and ended up conceding the round. It was my first ever concession. Im not proud of it. Im never doing it again. However, I must give credit where credit is due: their aff is hella good. Theyre running an ableism policy aff with kritical advantages. How do I compete with this? I didnt have any case and the only off that linked was DnG so thats what i ran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you HAVE to run generic DA's and win on them as well as at least TALK about their case... if the aff was that complicated it couldnt have had U and L for every advantage. NEVER GIVE UP

Share this post


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

At a recent invitational, I hit a team that I respect very much and ended up conceding the round. It was my first ever concession. Im not proud of it. Im never doing it again. However, I must give credit where credit is due: their aff is hella good. Theyre running an ableism policy aff with kritical advantages. How do I compete with this? I didnt have any case and the only off that linked was DnG so thats what i ran.

was the aff public charge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could've gone for DnG instead of conceding?

 

Generally, most policy affs will link to generic CPs and DAs like Horsetrading or Canada, and you can always read those if you don't have case specifics. If they're reading a soft left aff, which it sounds like they are, you can also pair these with some framing stuff on case that's like Util good. There are also lots of Ks that link to most policy affs, so you can read something like Settler Colonialism or the Cap K and probably get a link. If none of these things link, then the aff probably isn't topical, and you can read (and hopefully go for) some flavor of T.

 

It sounds like the aff that they're reading is probably public charge, which you can read T-LPR, T-Substantial, Parole, Canada, Horsetrading, Base, or any other number of things against.

Share this post


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

You could've gone for DnG instead of conceding?

 

Generally, most policy affs will link to generic CPs and DAs like Horsetrading or Canada, and you can always read those if you don't have case specifics. If they're reading a soft left aff, which it sounds like they are, you can also pair these with some framing stuff on case that's like Util good. There are also lots of Ks that link to most policy affs, so you can read something like Settler Colonialism or the Cap K and probably get a link. If none of these things link, then the aff probably isn't topical, and you can read (and hopefully go for) some flavor of T.

 

It sounds like the aff that they're reading is probably public charge, which you can read T-LPR, T-Substantial, Parole, Canada, Horsetrading, Base, or any other number of things against.

The aff called for the removal of either all or a part of USC Sec. 1182 (inadmissibility) specifically barring those who are a danger to themselves and/or others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 9:17 AM, AlistairTheKDebater said:

was the aff public charge?

nope. removal of USC sec. 1182 either in whole or in part, cant remember off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being soft left isn't that abnormal, you should definitely be prepared to see more of that. T, PIC's, Politics DA's, generic DA's, and pretty much every kritik will still link. On case you could have just run generic solvency takeouts and it would have been fine. No reason to concede in that round at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generics are always your friend. I went to a small school in debate, and by the end of senior year most of our 2nrs were extremely similar combinations of psychoanalysis, charity cannibalism, and a number of technocracy critiques on case that we were quite good at contextualizing. That said, the solution to your problem will inevitably involve a degree of research. If you're going to run with D&G, for example, you should have very generic links which impact something like microfascism (focus on the molar violence trades off with focus on molecular violence) as well as 1 or 2 links to each common sort of aff - links to security discourse, links to international law, links to intersectionality, etc. The point is that you need to do research, and you need to be efficient about it so that your research covers the most ground in the least time.

Share this post


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

nope. removal of USC sec. 1182 either in whole or in part, cant remember off the top of my head.

this is interesting

i was considering adding this as a plank to an aff i already have

Share this post


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

nope. removal of USC sec. 1182 either in whole or in part, cant remember off the top of my head.

bro that aff isnt T... T sub?

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...