Jump to content

Ilike2DB8

Member
  • Content Count

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Ilike2DB8

  1. Has CLS declined sharply in popularity recently? It seems like it would be really popular on this topic but i haven't heard much discussion of it. For that matter, outside of the debate community; have any CLS authors written anything useful since the 80's and 90's? Ewww, and shalagg doesn't count.
  2. you have to be able to really break down a violation and so on to avoid becoming repetative for 8 minutes, it also has to be a crush and a total lack of anykind of coherent 2AC responses because otherwise the 1AR loves you way more than they should after the block and/or your partner's 1nr has to be fast and devestating to spread the 1AR out at all. i'm a big proponent of the 'strike fear into the heart of the 1AR' school of negative debating.
  3. if your allocation of tiime sucks. T is a time suck. t shells are short, shortness can lead to time trade offs. 2AC time trade offs can be capitalized on by the block to make the 1AR living hell. 2AC's dont waste time poking around on T violations you know they won't go for...make your answers short and sweet. I'll point out that other than major arguement catagories like 'counter interpretations and so on' the 1AR has more leeway to make new arguements on T than almost any other arguement because if the 1Nc shell is short and intends to get a time trade off, but they DO decide to go for it in the block, they will inevitablly have to make extrapolations and elaborations which the first oppertunity for offensive response to by the aff will be the 1AR. i'm not advocating undercoverage, but when overcoverage is the goal, don't play into their hand either. by the way saying t is a timesuck is not an offensive arguement. any more than saying t is a potato is an arguement.
  4. neg files only really need to be whatever K's you feel like running, in general its good to have blocks on the aff for these, and any k that your aff links to in particular. For instance if you run a race-related case, block out for variations of CRT, heteronormativity, intersectionality etc.. trends in K's vary almost year to year. For some reason i'm led to believe foucault and chaloupka are in, feminism and cls are out right now, i could be way off base in that assertion because i haven't judged much recently. common k's to block out for anyway cls/laws fad, K's of formalism/positivism (basically block out for various forms of 'law bad' arguements feminism various k's of humanism... statism foucault specific biopower that will take care of a significant portion of critical rounds; but if you feel like blocking them out; block out normativity baudrillard zizek CRT chaloupka "critical files you should also have" rights good/bad util good/bad deontology good/bad pragmatism good/bad marxism good/bad dedev good/bad malthus good/bad (mostly bad) realism good/bad hmmm i'm leaving out some but this is sort of a minimalist view of K files -- have the main k's against your case blocked out (if you run border patrol, have your responses to shapiro/heidegger borders bad arguements ready) and then have some files where you can piece together responses to more feel free to expand this list, i'd say these are the most common k's this year. my preferred lazy way to do it is to basically have general blocks for the mainstream versions of certain K's and then just well organized files where you can piece together blocks on the spot to respond to the particular way a neg spins a k. if you have a meticulous attitude towards these args you could prep out for a lot of k's, obviously that would be preferred but its a lot of work and unneccesary if you can think and afford to spare a few seconds of prep time.
  5. Ilike2DB8

    Realism

    Realism's application to this years's topic The application of various critiques of realism to cases on this years topic is essentially very much the same as it is on almost every domestic topic. There are some cases where it makes more sense than others. And a lot of the strengths in terms of articulating a link will stem from the specific ways that the aff case is constructed in the 1AC more than the actual policies themselves. An oversimplified example of this would be if the case is verdugo and advantage 1 is 'U.S. credibility and Perception arguements, maybe a pinch of hedge good/softpower even, realism is a much stronger arguement than in the next example. A verdugo aff with no mention of 'international perceptions' but instead just a long individual rights good advantage. One would obviously be a more compelling story than the other, though i think a couple of people have already said that a link story might still exist. Judges who are less critical will have a hard time seeing a link to a lot of these affs. Gimmick- You're right that democracy promotion is realist in some ways because the underlying motivation is power politics. To add something to the debate about democracy promotion; the american national style in world politics is notoriously, almost stereotypically defined by the political need for moral superiority. (you know this) The aspects of democracy promotion that resemble kantian liberalism, as well as the entire idea of democracy promotion are both realist ideas. Democracy promotion is entirely self serving while trying to claim to be stemming from ideas of equality, morality, and cooparation and world peace, Its the same kind of realism that created the domino theory and the great game. While framing that picture rhetorically as : "Humanitarian and morally motivated." There are tons of reasons realism is present in democracy promotion, or even human rights promotion by the U.S. Liberalism is the 'raison d'etre' but realism is still the underlying motivation. Funny episode of southpark called 'i'm a little bit country' about the iraq war, its not completely on point but its close to being relevant. I wouldn't run realism much this year and instead would focus on alternative strategies unless the link story is just glaring at you in a round. In the case of hegemony, well you could run realism bad against most hedge good authors but that wouldnt require it to be in 'kritik form' a. link b.etc. but rather just as a part of your hedge bad impact turns. Providing your other turn authors are fairly consistent with your critical ones, saying 'turn with hedge bad' is about as vauge as saying 'turn it with something'
  6. barfing at the thought of losing politics links....if i cant run politics then i quit debate. DAMMMMN YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU's (for making sense)
  7. Ilike2DB8

    Realism

    I dont even like being 'connected' to any academy. if you look at my post above i think you can infer my position on who is and who isn't 'part of the academy' i think 'academy' is a ridiculous idea. i would say people actually affected by IR policies have more of a right to consider themselves part of the 'academy' than most scholars and students. I saw no peniswaving. Consult Dr. Freud on that one, you're daydreaming. Honestly Borky, i meant no disrespect to anyone here, gimmick is a jerk, and not making sense, so i just thought she deserved a taste of her own medicine.That and I was soooo amused by the statement that waltz is realism in the academy because its sort of true and untrue at the same time and the irony slays me in like 8 ways. As for treating like idiots, well i wasn't trying to say that you're an idiot or anybody else; but you are sure acting like one now. accusing people of peniswaving and so on seems above you, i think the word for whats going on here is projection. Oh and also sophmoric ps. Scu i think you're confused because he was talking to me, the gradschool peniswaving thing might have been directed at somebody else i dont know.
  8. Ilike2DB8

    Realism

    were you typing with invisable characters that i'm just not seeing or what? i'm not trying to be a dick here but how exactly did i misinterpret what you said? realism...nowadays....nowa....new..noooow..neo....neorealism..... ohhhhhh i get it; you're a freaking genius! neorealism IS realism nowadays! Here i am still thinking that god i feel dumb! maybe you can give me some advice on how to go about getting banned. substantial contribution: Waltz's work came later than Carr, Morganthau etc, obviously the changes that took place in international politics from 1930-1952 or so warranted a little bit of an adaptation of the traditional realpolitik ideologies. The reason i wouldn't consider his "realist nowadays" is because it completely moots the distinction between his work and Morganthau and Carr and others and basically nullifies the coined term neorealism...although maybe realism 2.0 would be a more catchy title anyway. i really do get the point you were making, i just think you deserve somebody out there that tries to piss you off for no reason. karma.
  9. i think we have an ideological difference of opionion about what constitutes a federal governement action. the resolution does only mandate USFG. true, but a supreme court action, or an executive order, or an internal memo, or an action of the dept of treasury, or whatever is a USFG action. The term "united states federal government" applies to each of those individual actors. There is absolutely no real world basis for a "USFG" action that is not one specific entity acting. Whether its congress or the executive or judicial branches, the USFG is made up by all of them collectively, and any action by any individual branch is a USFG action. Thats just from a non-debate perspective. it makes for better ground too.
  10. Ilike2DB8

    Realism

    For anybody who wants a refresher on IR theory or wants a study guide for their basic INR classes this is a clever little cheat sheet.. http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm you'll note that waltz is discussed by everyone in "the academy" as a neorealist not realist. "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." Mizzark Twiz-iz-ain (i keep asking for directions, trying to find this academy but i keep getting lost or sidetracked, perhaps its a chimera...)
  11. i think some people are misunderstanding the test case fiat arguement... nothing to do with the sc fiat being bad or multiactor fiat or anything like that at all. test case fiat is only needed when there isn't an existing case in the status quo...there are thousands of existing cases, its never really neccessary to fiat a test case, if it is; you're better off not using the courts to enact the plan/cp.
  12. thats a real insight into our intelligence communtiy; president: hey go peform immoral operations in 100 countries to get us the criteria for war, heck kill millions of indiginous people while you're at it. intel community: sir, yes sir, we've got nothing better to do SIR! tlf- thanks for posting this, i'ma use it in one of my papers i'm writing, is that teh whole article and cite and stuff? just wanna make sure! see i knew you weren't the pedantic bastard you pretend to be, you do have something to contribute!!!! bravo!
  13. haha depends on what country the corperations are operating in, look at delmonte in guatamala. neocolonialist multinationals are THE DEVIL mkaaaay
  14. Ilike2DB8

    Plan Plan

    whoa whoa whoa, everyone here has a big penis, there's no need to try to out piss one another, ankur you and tshu like plan plan, i like plan plan, (not as a strat, just as a possible framework) but hey, we all have big jimmies so lets just sit around and be cool. no need for bickering, lets get this forum back to the 'helpful' stature it should have. lets try to make a differnce, change the world, and contribute something positive...chillllllll seriously though, thinktank, you sound like you are misunderstanding something and ankur you are sounding elitist....tshu you sound grumpy, ankur you sound grumpy too as a matter of fact ankur-you were able to reintroduce me to debate theory after having left the game for a couple of years with one post in a 'topical counterplans legit' forum (in which your post brought flashbacks to years of highschool debate, ddi, the transition into college debate, coaching and judging etc...") and you cant set aside you guys' ego for a second and just try'n outdebate this mo fo? c'mon i mean i know he's being a prick (thinktank: you are) but c'mon. rise above it; you're much older and more mature. yo think tank- your posts make more sense than 99% of the people's on this website so hold your head high and just say to yourself 'hey, my experience at this point in my debate career has me thinking my way, theirs has them thinking their own way" whatever, agree to disagree, or debate, dont get caught up in a silly pissing game when you could be cutting cards, its not worth it man!! Tshu---- you're a fucking genius man, we all listen to your posts, i look forward to hearing your opinion every damn day so just keep it positve as well! dont let people get you worked up just because they disagree with you, highschool debaters are fickle and believe what helps them win, i never ran plan plan in highschool, few do, they're taught not to, understand the culture, as i'm sure you do. its not nearly an intellectual culture as it is a 'winning culture'....camps, coaches, and lame judges contribute to this but hey, changing it doesn't depend on changing this one kid's mind. you and ankur have good ideas, put them out there where they belong and dont belittle them by getting into machobitchesque peeing competitions!
  15. Ilike2DB8

    Plan Plan

    Never trust the P-0 P-0?
  16. aha, i figured it out; you let those people ragging on plan plan in that other forum get you all worked up didn't you? come on, you know i'm with you and ankur on that one right?
  17. I can usually follow your logic tshu, but this one's escaping me. Not sure whether you're just frustrated about 'timeskew' arguements that are just whiney in nature, if you misunderstood me, or if ur just having a shitty day and thought you'd take it out on my post...or what ...but timeskew args are totally unrelated to whether or not the other team's theoretical limits allow for a fair division of ground which is what 'strategy skew' often refers to...timeskew is often made by debaters who mean strategy skew in their warrants but their blocks say otherwise. Severence is bad (for many reasons but primarily) because it is "bad for the other team's strategy"; severence nullifies their strategy. Its not a matter of what 'our preferred strategy was', but what 'strategy we should have had under a fair division of ground that your limits nullified or encroached upon." To conflate strategy "skews" (yah that word sounds yucky to me too) with "timeskews" (bad time allocation), i'm afraid is comparing apples to oranges. or maybe apples to wildabeasts. I don't think what i said indicated that you have some magical right to have your opponent cooperate, just that the general goal of setting theoretical limits should be to fairly divide ground between both sides. arguements that encroached on that fair ground division would be 'skewing' and in the context that i said it 'being bad for aff strategy' indicates to me that you divide the ground to unfairly favor the neg in that case.
  18. nah, its not a matter of proving you have to be 'good for debate' but if you're slightly bad for aff strategy but very very good in terms of adding value to the debate (education, real worldliness, policy making, heck some kind of 'we increase x ground') those 'offensive' arguements should be weighed against the over all damage done by the limits you set and be judged accordingly. please show me where i said that an arguement had to be 'good for debate' to be legitimate and i'll erase it immediately. i'm not saying from a theory level legitimacy depends on offensive arguements, like i said 'our limits are fair and not abusive for x reasons' can be a terminally defensive arguement, if you win that arguement, you win the theory debate as well. But to say that there is no difference between that arguement, and an offensive 'our limits are good for ground/debate/whatever' is as silly as saying that there is no difference between a really good piece of evidence that says Bush will not take credit for the plan in a politics disad and a link turn: see below if i had a card that was specific to the aff plan that said something like this with warrants bush will not take credit for the plan Ilike2DB8 2005 (Journal of I just made this up right now) There is NO way, I mean NO way Bush will take credit for the affirmative plan. Look at this thing; i mean, maybe somebody else would have taken credit, but not Bush. There are about 50 common sense reasons that it would be absurd to even speculate about Bush capitalizing on this plan. His political capital would be flatter than a pancake being steamrolled over by a john deer ridden by Rush Limbaugh, its no joke. Anybody with some kind of arguement to the contrary is either a stand up comedian or just a bad liar, either way, bush is certainly not claiming this policy as any kind of victory for him. this would be a really good terminal link take-out. good defense to go along with your link turn offense. but by no means offense. just because an arguement will definately cause the other team to lose an arguement does not mean its offense. although there are quotes like 'the best offense is a good defense' and so on, that doesn't really apply to the nomaclature of 'offense or defense.' in my view, the distinction is, that an offensive arguement in terms of theory is an arguement that shows a comparative advantage to your interpretation. the advantage can operate externally of the other teams arguements, like "our position increases critical thinking, which is good for xyz" that arguement is weight to be weighed against their offense "you are bad for debate." A defensive arguement is one that does not say that you are good, just disputes their reasons why you are bad or provides some kind of 'x checks us being bad' arguement. like i said; its the difference between a really good link take out and a link turn.
  19. he makes a good point, seldom do extremely cut down k shells that teams running lotsa off case use to save time in the 1nc have coherent links, impacts, and alternatives, even if they do at least rhetorically in the card, they highlight around the warrants most likely. there is something to be said for a team who makes the arguement that the 1AR will make new answers against their warrant when they provide them.
  20. Ilike2DB8

    Plan Plan

    true- yikes it is strikingly similar to plan plan just instead of 2 plans there are none.
  21. Ilike2DB8

    Plan Plan

    i think i have a pretty good understanding of the plan plan framework and i don't think that its a good negative strategy (reasons aside from judge bias against it) do you (ankur and tsu) agree or disagree with this ultimate conclusion?- just curioius
  22. here is a distinction; neg runs conditional counterplan: aff reads conditionality bad: neg makes arguements A and B in response. A. Perms check abuse. (says conditonality isn't unfair because of perms being recipricol reciprocity good standard yada yada yada, still is defensive because it says 'conditionality not bad', not "conditonality IS good") B. Multiple worlds of challenge increase education and critical thinking and lead to better policy making by examing an issue more in depth. (says conditonality IS good, not just that its not bad) i understand from a theory level that if its not bad then its not a voting issue and so defensive arguements can be terminal arguements for a theory debate, and that its problematic to evaluate theory from a risk analysis perspective like you might a disad, but there is a clear 'offensive and defensive' distinction for the purposes in my original question.
  23. To echo the general sentiment no matter what a team runs even if they're the fastest team at the tournament and you are the slowest, you can muster 3-5 arguements on each of their offcase arguements. In a hypothetical situation where the neg runs 8 off and case (3 t's, two disads (net benefits to the counterplan), counterplan, kritik that links to the counterplan, and a superflous disad that links to both the counterplan and the plan, then a solvency press on case with 5-6 cards) you might be feeling spread out if you're significantly pokey and slow in general and they're spreading like their advertizing micromachines. take a breath, take a global view of the debate, calm yourself and don't let them get you worried or disorganized, you're slower than them, that doesn't make them smarter or you a worse debater. you just have to prioritize and pick your battles sometimes. don't get flustered it will only make you waste your valuable time, which is not what you want to be doing in this situation. even though they ran 8 off they really only have 4 2NR options; T, the counterplan, the status quo (any combination of disads or case or whtnot), the kritik. those are the worlds of the 2nr. you can see this from the second the 1nc ends. sometimes sooner. gear your 2ac to defeat each of these worlds and you preserve your chances of winning...most good teams will consolidate their options in the block depending on how you answer them in the 2AC so your only real job in the 2AC is to cover your bases, and not let their spread force you to inadaquetely answer one of their possible strategies. few rounds are won in the 2AC, many are lost. you can decrease the effectiveness of the spread in several ways; in this case the presence of contradictory arguements (arguements that link to eachother like the counterplan and the non-net benefit disad, the kritik, and the solvency arguements) you can see that the only net benefits of the counterplan are the two disad net benefits they read plus any external net benefits that are on your counterplan flow. any team running this strategy is going to have to defend either conditionality or dispositionality. if a team that spreads you out says that their coutnerplan is dispositional then you have an automatic oppertunity to nullify the effectiveness of the 1nc spread. just straight turn the counterplan, stick them with it, it will make answering the kritik, which links to the counterplan, the case arguements, assuming they apply to the counterplan equally, and the disad that is not a net benefit to the counterplan completely irrelevent to the debate. if you can stick them with their counterplan then you have not only made up for time you would have spent on these positions, but they've done themselves a disservice by spreading out the 1nc. it is likely that their disad net benefits and counterplan solvency were cut down to their skeletal minimum, and you have less of an uphill battle to fight. they'll be thinking to themselves; "wish we would have loaded up the counterplan and net benefit shells in the 1nc...we didn't expect them to just stick us with it" in that case you've made their 2NR options more limited...but if the counterplan is not dispo you dont have that luxury and must try to answer each possible strategy effectively. start with T... answer each topicality violation thouroughly, that means we meets counter interpretation offensive limits debate and other offensive t arguements, you should have premade blocks for t and so it should be easy for you to pull them out for your 2ac. if you dont, write them with your coaches for all the most commonly run t shells you hear. then from there you have more flexability in what you do; be smart; if they read a 3 minute long K and 4 35 second long disad shells; which do you think are the bullshit distractors? prolly the disads. if a team is notoriously critical or notoriously policy oriented that can give you an idea. use context clues to decide which positions look like they are serious about and which they are not. a good rule of thumb is to put your case right after topicality. you can preserve a chance of impact comparison in the 2AR if your case still solves at the end of the 2AC. A lot of teams put case on the bottom, its a mistake. they get to it with 15 seconds left and the timer beeps before they can get to the 3rd card in a 6 card frontline. its sad at that point, let alone any turns, if there are conceded kritik links or solvency take outs your case, you're only preloaded offense is hurting badly. win your case and you have an offensive arguement against either a status quo, or a kritik 2nr. depending on solvency defecits and specifics sometimes against counterplans. so thus far first answer T, (if its dispo the cp), then case, from here on out theres no real importance. you want to adaquetely answer the K and the counterplan options; my advice, make your arguement on the cp short and sweet, 4 mandantory answers on the cp 1. theory (dispo, pics, whatever) 2. solvency comparison between the plan and cp...specific reasons or cards why the cp cant solve your harms. 3. some independently offensive turn; in the case of courts; read some rosenberg or spann or something. something offensive. 4. if its conditional make a perm. if dispo, refer to above...weigh your options. and rather than perming, make multiple offensive args, since you dont have to answer the status quo defending positions, then you can load up more turns and disads to the counterplan. the net benefits to the cp This is where you want to generate offense as well, it will help you on the CP and even if they want to kick the cp and the net benefits, it will marginalize the block's ability to spread you out on one position or another. when you're getting spread out, consolidate your blocks to offense and critically damaging arguements like theory. link turn/impact turn whatever floats your boat. the k critical teams love to spread out slow teams in the 1nc and then consolidate down to the K in the block. it can be an effective strategy, see this coming in the 2Ac and dont undercover the K. once again offense is your friend; turns and permutations. make sure you make both. kritiks are hard to beat with only 3-4 arguements so you might want to weight your time on this a bit heavier. epecially since on other options like the counterplan you can still win the round if you are winning a turn on one of the net benefits...you have to see the k as an independent threat because it falls into its own catagory of 2nr option. this might seem overwhelming and i apologize because its not phrased very well, i was in a hurry typing this up, but i guess the basic point is look at the round from a global 'judge-like' perspective. see how the arguements interact, offense is your friend, turn frequently when spread out, and use dispo coutnerplans to your advantage, also see that winning your case is essential to winning in many cases. prioritize and respond accordingly. dont dwell on an arguement because you have 'really sweet answers to it' but not to another, cover everything in such a way that the block doesn't seal the ballot for the judge due to 2AC drops, and once you see what they're going for, the 1AR and 2AR will not be as spread out. like i said; few 2AC's win debate rounds, but many lose them; your job in hopeless looking situations is to preserve hope and pray you can capitalize on block errors in the 1AR or crappy 2nrs in the 2AR. that can be enough to win most rounds.
  24. hey ankur--- what would be considered specification beyond resolutional demands? on the wmd topic would disarm cases that specified the method of dismantlement be 'outside resolutional demands' because seems like taking a stance on that issue would only increase neg ground. trying to think of examples on this topic but enforcement for a decrease in govt. authority is pretty much just legal recourse.
  25. if irony could kill you would have just committed genocide. anyone who is honestly curious about RVI's look at the 8 or so threads from the last month. that being said, if you're right i quit debate.
×
×
  • Create New...