Jump to content
OwenK

would you read these in round?

Recommended Posts

I'm late to see a movie, so all I looked at was the facts bad card. I'll check out the other stuff when I have more time.

The facts bad card is pretty awful. It's telling us that facts are uninteresting / useless unless imbued with implication by context. The entire point of a debate round is to imbue facts with implication by contextualizing them with other facts. If you want something that says what I think you want that card to say, you might find this more helpful, if deployed correctly...

Shapiro.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White privilege K. Unoriginal take on inequality in debate. Link of omission with no clear answer to the perm. No explanation of the alternative or why the ballot is key. None of the cards have cites??

Bullying K. I guess if your opponents are bullies? Then it's more efficient to read theory. The bystander cards could be useful against a Rutgers NDT Finals type performance.

Rosa Parks. Just no.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkuang said:

White privilege K. Unoriginal take on inequality in debate. Link of omission with no clear answer to the perm. No explanation of the alternative or why the ballot is key. None of the cards have cites??

Bullying K. I guess if your opponents are bullies? Then it's more efficient to read theory. The bystander cards could be useful against a Rutgers NDT Finals type performance.

Rosa Parks. Just no.

😂👍

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jmc_va said:

I'm late to see a movie, so all I looked at was the facts bad card. I'll check out the other stuff when I have more time.

The facts bad card is pretty awful. It's telling us that facts are uninteresting / useless unless imbued with implication by context. The entire point of a debate round is to imbue facts with implication by contextualizing them with other facts. If you want something that says what I think you want that card to say, you might find this more helpful, if deployed correctly...

Shapiro.docx

its not terrible its just saying facts that stand alone (cards) are bad because they have no context

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OwenK said:

its not terrible its just saying facts that stand alone (cards) are bad because they have no context

cards have context though - other cards. that's why you read other cards - to give context.

that aside this card says something different than what you think. it's literally just saying that trivial statistical data (like how many people in a room) is useless without a story, which even before you get to other cards, is usually implicit in a single card. most cards tell a small story of their own described in the tag.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've run rosa parks before. It works with the right judge but remember judge adaptation is key. Bullying K and White Privlege K are meh. Facts bad is as bad as it asserts facts are.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

facts bad-no real warrants and doesn't contextualize to debate because it's mainly about "fun facts" like the example it gives of 5 presidents eating fish for breakfast-those aren't the type of facts that people talk about in debate

white privilege-no real link to the aff and it's not a reason the aff should lose even if your conversation is important so it probably loses against the perm. This is just an overcomplicated structural unfairness argument that doesn't really add anything valuable.

bullying k-no link to the aff except that they want to win, which you also do, so it's a nonstarter. What your link cards describe is not really what happens in most debates. This mainly seems like trying to portray yourself as a victim to get judge sympathy when there's no real violation. There's also not really an internal link to your impacts even if you win a link, because the round probably doesn't spill over and this is more of a procedural argument. Your tokenization of actual violence is pretty egregious in this argument, when you have all caps tags saying "BULLYING LEADS TO THE VICTIMS HAVING LOW SELF-ESTEERM, DEPRESSION, MALADJUSTMENT, SUICIDAL IDEATION, OR RETALIATION. THINK COLUMBINE!" because there is obviously no internal link to school shootings from them saying they deserve to win, and your claim that there is probably quite messed up. I would have a very low threshold on voting against you and giving you horrible speaks for a short aff theory argument against this. Just don't throw around suicide. Your alt and ballot arguments about bystanders are basically just poorly reasoned guilt-tripping. Also, literally 0 of your evidence talks about debate.

Rosa Parks-another quite bad argument. Pretty damning when the first card says "vote him down so we can legitimately solve them by spurning action." There's a lot of amazing women in debate and you probably shouldn't ignore them by assuming everyone you debate is a dude. It's also pretty violent to use the language of martyrdom here, since the first line of the shell is instructing the judge to kill your opponents. The Wedgwood card doesn't say anything relevant to debate it's jut an example. Low risk version-again, don't assume you're debating a dude. This is also the exact same argument with more words. They're both "high risk" because you will lose the theory debate. Saying the judge should martyr them to "provide a point of community and mutual indignation" and calling the judge an "overlord" is particularly dissuasive because you're telling the judge to act as an oppressor and become hated to spur action, and nobody wants to assume that role. You also have exactly 0 solvency, since all your evidence is in the context of actual martyrdom, not losing a debate round, and losing a debate round is a much smaller thing that probably won't really have any effect unless you're in a late elim which, based on the quality of these arguments, I'm guessing you won't be. The bataille card is probably the high point of this file, but it's a totally different argument. Also, calling it "Rosa Parks" then having no discussion of that is quite tokenizing. In general, this argument has no warrants, no clear articulation of the ballot, no evidence in the context of what you're talking about, no evidence specific to debate, no real link, an unrealistic role of the judge, and some blatant sexism issues. 

 

Don't read these arguments. They are bad, and you should (and will) lose.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

facts bad-no real warrants and doesn't contextualize to debate because it's mainly about "fun facts" like the example it gives of 5 presidents eating fish for breakfast-those aren't the type of facts that people talk about in debate

white privilege-no real link to the aff and it's not a reason the aff should lose even if your conversation is important so it probably loses against the perm. This is just an overcomplicated structural unfairness argument that doesn't really add anything valuable.

bullying k-no link to the aff except that they want to win, which you also do, so it's a nonstarter. What your link cards describe is not really what happens in most debates. This mainly seems like trying to portray yourself as a victim to get judge sympathy when there's no real violation. There's also not really an internal link to your impacts even if you win a link, because the round probably doesn't spill over and this is more of a procedural argument. Your tokenization of actual violence is pretty egregious in this argument, when you have all caps tags saying "BULLYING LEADS TO THE VICTIMS HAVING LOW SELF-ESTEERM, DEPRESSION, MALADJUSTMENT, SUICIDAL IDEATION, OR RETALIATION. THINK COLUMBINE!" because there is obviously no internal link to school shootings from them saying they deserve to win, and your claim that there is probably quite messed up. I would have a very low threshold on voting against you and giving you horrible speaks for a short aff theory argument against this. Just don't throw around suicide. Your alt and ballot arguments about bystanders are basically just poorly reasoned guilt-tripping. Also, literally 0 of your evidence talks about debate.

Rosa Parks-another quite bad argument. Pretty damning when the first card says "vote him down so we can legitimately solve them by spurning action." There's a lot of amazing women in debate and you probably shouldn't ignore them by assuming everyone you debate is a dude. It's also pretty violent to use the language of martyrdom here, since the first line of the shell is instructing the judge to kill your opponents. The Wedgwood card doesn't say anything relevant to debate it's jut an example. Low risk version-again, don't assume you're debating a dude. This is also the exact same argument with more words. They're both "high risk" because you will lose the theory debate. Saying the judge should martyr them to "provide a point of community and mutual indignation" and calling the judge an "overlord" is particularly dissuasive because you're telling the judge to act as an oppressor and become hated to spur action, and nobody wants to assume that role. You also have exactly 0 solvency, since all your evidence is in the context of actual martyrdom, not losing a debate round, and losing a debate round is a much smaller thing that probably won't really have any effect unless you're in a late elim which, based on the quality of these arguments, I'm guessing you won't be. The bataille card is probably the high point of this file, but it's a totally different argument. Also, calling it "Rosa Parks" then having no discussion of that is quite tokenizing. In general, this argument has no warrants, no clear articulation of the ballot, no evidence in the context of what you're talking about, no evidence specific to debate, no real link, an unrealistic role of the judge, and some blatant sexism issues. 

 

Don't read these arguments. They are bad, and you should (and will) lose.

i just wanted to see how people would react... 😂 i dont plan on reading these in round... unless I need a thro. 

Edited by OwenK
needs changing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 4:49 PM, OwenK said:

its not terrible its just saying facts that stand alone (cards) are bad because they have no context

the whole point of debate is to give context to facts and use them to develop an argument. The card is also super power tagged. Also, most people dont read flat statistics as their card; tags usually have connection to a broader point, like econ decline = war, etc.I don't see how this could ever be used in a debate round lmao. 

 

2 hours ago, OwenK said:

i just wanted to see how people would react... 😂 i dont plan on reading these in round... unless I need a thro. 

If you wanna throw a round, just read the squirrel case. Works every time.

  • Upvote 1

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

×