Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/16/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    I just saw this, I'm ready whenever for questions & the 1NC
  2. 1 point
    AT - “Extra T” 1. It gives them more ground – every new plan plank we add is a new disad link or counterplan for the negative. They should be thanking us. 2. It’s inevitable – parts of plan, like enforcement and funding, will always be outside the resolution. Don’t punish us for something we can’t avoid. 3. Severance is enough – just don’t consider any advantages from parts of the plan that are extra-topical. That remedies any ground they might have lost. 4. Exclusionary counterplans – if we get advantages from extra planks, the neg can always sever out that plank and get a net benefit, which will prevent affs from being too abusive. AT - “Effects T” 1. There’s no bright-line – how many steps is too many? There’s no clear standard. 2. Every case requires steps – the plan has to be drafted, passed through Congress, signed by the president, enforced, each of which could be considered a separate step. That makes effects T inevitable. 3. The resolution doesn’t prevent it – there’s no reason the resolution wouldn’t include effectually topical cases – they’re making up rules. Ad hoc theory is bad for debate because it rewards the neg for complaining instead of going out and researching the case, which destroys the educational value of debate. 4. It gives them more ground – every new step by the plan is a new link for the neg and makes our solvency more difficult. That gives them more ground
  3. 1 point
    For soft left, it depends on what you’re reading on framing. But I think the judge community consensus is that the average framing contention is silly. This includes cards with tags like “reject big impacts” and “prefer probability— multiple internal links bad” etc. Also, I’ve never ever seen a good debate where the judge didn’t use utilitarianism to make a decision. I think the best way to run a soft left aff is to leverage your central reps/ideas and use them to critique DAs. For example MBA BHs bioparanoia aff (check wiki, TOC), or a desecuritization aff to critique a China DA, or a islamophobia aff to critique a terror DA etc. This type of affirmative is the best of all kinds imo because not only can you better answer the DA, but also you can use these ideas to make your aff unique and generarte solvency deficits, or even DAs versus Counterplans, and obviously you’ll be able to cream bad K teams with the whole “the aff does something good, it’s a good idea, link turn” type rebuttal. Hopefully the Aff is topical though. For K affs, I think you need to be counter defining words of the resolution in the 2AC and really just win a high level of defense: Let them read their DAs, CPs whatever too. I don’t think there’s much of a difference between the good kind of soft left aff and this kind of K aff, except obviously topicality. So really unless you care about the K and genuinely want it to be the point of discussion then read it, but otherwise if you just want to win, then I’m not sure that’s the best reason to read a K aff because at that point you’re just avoiding clash on purpose and that’ll never help you get better. You said you were a novice but won’t run a hard right aff because it links to everything. That’s a bad reason to not run it because you’re only gonna be in your second year of debate so having debates with tons of clash can only help you become better, which in turn will lead to more wins. I will say though, I am from a primarily policy school so maybe im biased. Anyway, hope this helps, and I’ll see you at Michigan this summer
  4. 1 point
    Would folks be willing to put in the time in posting cards/blocks/etc for a 'community wide' zizek/cap k. I think that will help produce the best possible file and that way everyone can have true access. I can post the cards and blocks in a file w/ a TOC every few weeks w/ updates. Also this will help cut down on the amount of 'Zizek help' threads because we can move them and merge them in with this one. --------------------------- NEG Revolution 1NC Shell AFF Perm: Strategic Demands - Zizek '7
  5. 1 point
    in regards to the other teams heg advantage: "the reason i voted negative is because i didn't buy the aff's hydrogeny advantage... what is hydrogeny anyway? Well... never-the-less, neg wins because the aff didn't make it clear to me what hydrogeny was" and if that wasn't bad enough- one time we ran nietzche with a judge from a catholic school, and we used the christian morals bad shit: *entire ballot is blank* *i have one speaker point, my partner has ZERO.* and at the bottom of the ballot it read, "this was a complete waste of my time."
  6. 1 point
    This wasn't actually on the ballot, but it was part of an oral critique after the round. We were neg. The Judge: "I voted aff because I didn't really buy the kritik and I thought you put all your eggs in that basket." Me: But I kicked out of the kritik in the 2NR... The Judge: "Well... you talked about it..."
  7. 1 point
    "Split the block." "Don't run speed K."
  8. -1 points
    how is this funny?...unless you are making fun of yourself for being a dumbass and running a speed k and then double covering it in the block...go back to novice douche
  9. -1 points
  10. -1 points
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
  • Create New...