Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/05/19 in Posts

  1. 1 point
    Which is exactly why I said whether or not the difference exists depends on how you spin. Imo, the distinction doesn't exist in most debates, but there are those that believe T-USfg doesnt make a totalizing claim about the state being good, just necessary for clash, where framework debates tend to come down more to the state goood/bad debate. Just explaining the thinking behind those that claim there is a difference.
  2. 1 point
    Wrong. Framework isn't 'excluding the discussion of the aff,' otherwise 'topical version of the aff' wouldn't be an argument used in framework. At its core, framework is "T+" -- it's a T-USFG violation paired with a methodology/solvency debate. Depending on the aff, people usually pair this with other T violations, such as T-curtail or T-domestic surveillance. This is why you see the familiar 'resolved = legislative action' paired with both T standards (limits and ground) and with cards like 'Law key to address anti-blackness.' If it lacks the latter part it's really just T-USFG. None of this is an exclusion of the discussion of the aff. Unless a team is making poor choices, the whole point is that you can talk about racism, sexism, etc. within the context of legislative action (usually contextualize to the resolution).
  3. 1 point
    Obviously you need to do this. But having framework can drastically help your chances of winning. Plus, if a team is going to be kritikal, they need to be prepped for framework.
  4. 1 point
    the name you put in the speech doc
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    Sounds exactly like ID ptx
  7. 1 point
    Look, intrinsic or not, politics DAs are amazing even if they arent intrinsic to the plan. Politics benefit the activity as a whole because they reward the team that does the work and keeps up with current events. People should know the immediate ramifications of passing a plan and if it has non-intrinsic ramifications...so what? This is like having the US pass an open immigration plan September 12th...probably a bad idea even if the plan itself would have seemed amazing on the 10th. Additionally, politics are uber-educational and since YES the aff plan would probably effect politics, then politics leave a lot more specific room for affirmative strategy that could adequately answer the scenerio or have to do with case (i.e. democrats love/hate our specific aff). I agree, this intrinsicness is not an awful argument, [at the same time, I completely understand why it holds very little water]. (*This post has been modified to better describe my viewpoint)
  8. 1 point
    Politics is a disad to NORMAL MEANS which every aff should defend. If you don't want to cut uniqueness updates, critique the business like a normal person.
  9. -1 points
    i beg to differ. sorry, you meant assistant coaching staff, right? what's immediate about building bipartisanship or spending political capital? ...so it's not a reason to reject a plan, just a cute little observation. you give no reasoning as to how politics is educational; you just say that affs can find link cards going both ways. woohoo. that's not educational. how can you be sympathetic towards judges that ignore ANY argument? that's completely antithetical of what their function is supposed to be. more specifically, i think perming politics disads is entirely legitimate. you just have to be able to defend it. it's not all that difficult and there are several ways to pull it off. just set it up in the 1ac. i also think politics disads are satan's spawn.
  10. -1 points
    "war" it's a war machine fueled by the united states murdering over a thousand innocent civilians
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
  • Create New...