Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by robllawrence

  1. Me. Ok, so I've never directed a movie. It would probably be a disaster. On the other hand, I can make one promise that sets me apart from the jackasses that have done it so far. No JAR JAR. NO cutesy fart humor or dumb cuddly characters to provide merchandising fodder. And if it ever comes down to it, Han will shoot first. That is all.

    • Upvote 3

  2. Just trying to come up with a good squirrel case, seems to me that lighthouses are or at least were transportation infrastructure. I'm sure, even with GPS, up close to the shore the lighthouses are still beneficial. Being as I live in Oklahoma and not, say, Maine, I don't know much about them, but I could see a coastal lighthouse restoration plan that claims shipping safety, maybe oil spills, and tourism as advantages.

  3. At Cascia, I was the only judge in the final round, BK vs Owasso. I'm not going to say who I think is the overall better team, only to say that in that particular round (which was incredibly close, and honest judges could have disagreed) in that round, I believe BK won. Based on all the teams I've seen so far, the final few rounds at districts should be good viewing.

  4. It may be extra topical to mandate this in a plan (actually, it would most definitely be extra topical), but if one could find a warrant for public works on something like overhauling the interstate or bullet trains, you could have one of the better and more feasible internal links to the economy.


    Why would you think that is extra topical? Aff is going to spend a ton of money building and repairing highways. Advantage one, we put people to work. Sounds OK to me.

  5. The assumption in this thread that topical CPs can't be theoretically justified is kind of hilarious but kind of sad. Most people think they're legitimate.


    The resolution is the starting point. You pick a plan within that, and then you give up your right to the other arguments within the resolution. Otherwise the negative could respond to SPS plans by saying that space militarization was bad. If space militarization is bad, that might disprove the resolution, but not the plan. Similarly, topical CPs might affirm the resolution, but they negate the plan. Negating the plan is all that is necessary to win the debate, otherwise we shouldn't discuss plans at all and should only discuss the resolution as a whole.


    I don't think most of the people in this thread "assume" T CPs are bad, but it IS a theory argument that someone running an aff as CP will likely hear and for which they should prepare.

  6. Many years ago, there was a topic very similar to the current space topic. I ran my aff as a CP against a specific case quite often effectively. The case I ran was astronomy education (teach kids about space as a form of exploration.) There were a few teams running some form of low sodium lights (replace highway and city lights with lights that cause less "sky glow" so you can see the stars.) My inherency said the reason they couldn't get their advantages of environmental ethic was the lack of knowledge about what we were seeing. People see the sky, so what. When they see the sky and know what's going on up there, they appreciate it and THAT gives them the environmentalism awareness. So, I ran education as a CP/solvency press.


    Here are some issues you need to consider. 1) a topical or possibly topical CP might link to disadvantages. That means not only do you have to make sure the DAs you run don't link, but also, the AFF has the ability to run DAs on your CP from their own neg files. 2) Theory. In our case, everyone ran T on us when we were aff, so it wasn't hard to convince judges we weren't topical. So, that's an option, just find a violation you don't meet. You CAN find one that neither team meets and cross apply it. However, remember that if they win the standards debate on T, they've also proven the CP topical as well. So, I recommend finding something specific to your case as a violation...let them try to defend the T of a case that isn't their own, and thus, don't have frontlines to. You could also defend T counterplans legit. The idea that CPs have to be non topical generally comes from Hypothesis testing paradigms (everything topical is aff ground, everything non topical is neg ground) but that could get them into trouble elsewhere. I mean, if they have the right to claim ANY topical case as aff ground, doesn't that mean they have to defend all topical ground? (Look up counterwarrants, parametrics, whole res for more info there.)

  7. should i start vick this weekend just because this is a quintessential "teams that have been relying on this guy aren't in the playoffs so naturally he's gonna explode"?




    Sounds like a fantastic plan.


    I gotta say, it sucks that this is going on Christmas weekend. I think I've used up all my "checking fantasy football at dinner" coupons.

  8. As much as I'd like to talk smack, I completely admit to some seriously good luck. I got Aaron Rodgers as the 7th pick. Anyone think he'd last 7 picks now in retrospect? Also, I'm knocking on wood, but my only injury problems so far has been Austin Miles and Felix Jones...and I had picked up Demarco Murray so that didn't hurt too bad.


    This has been pretty fun.


    Murray - broken bone, Ingram - turf toe, Mcgahee - knee. AND fml.

  9. As much as I'd like to talk smack, I completely admit to some seriously good luck. I got Aaron Rodgers as the 7th pick. Anyone think he'd last 7 picks now in retrospect? Also, I'm knocking on wood, but my only injury problems so far has been Austin Miles and Felix Jones...and I had picked up Demarco Murray so that didn't hurt too bad.


    This has been pretty fun.

  10. Yeah, I just made the distinction because I have heard time travel CPs. But yes, dramatic expansion of possible positions.


    With regard to LD, that actually makes more sense. In a value resolution, you expect a value to have equal weight regardless of timeframe. In my college example the res was technically value. I think it was "that the welfare system exacerbates the problems of the urban poor." It is designed for whole res, timeframe irrelevant debate. Neh argued the counterwarrant that welfare prepared the US for WW2.


    By the way, as an example of whole res debate, our aff was stigma. We didn't argue one program, like afdc or food stamps bad. We argued welfare on the whole stigmatized the poor.

  11. Using the theoretical justification I described it would always be a critic of the resolution, not a topical option. To run it aff, you either have to accept non topical K affs, or argue that the resolution is not necessarily present tense...that fiat is just asking the hypothetical question generally should the US explore space. Be ready for T-increase.


    In other words, we should explore space, here is an example of when that would have been a good idea. Incidentally, this opens you up to counterwarrants and every possible disad, because they can say oh yeah, well here are 50 examples of when it would be a bad idea. They don't have to link to your case, just some topical case.

  12. Well, they aren't usually arguing time travel. Generally speaking, CFs were run on the negative as a way of refuting the resolution, so they were in a hypothesis testing paradigm. They got their start, at least from my memory of them, in CEDA (Value/quasi-policy topics circa 1995.) The way they worked was, as the negative you could argue any warrant that refuted the resolution as "disproving the resolution" (look into counterwarrants and whole res for more on this.) Counterfactuals were a way of saying if we HAD done this, then the resolution would be irrelevant/untrue. So, an example on space might be to say if we had joined with the Soviets instead of competing, we'd have space colonies by now and your ISS aff would be irrelevant. And they usually do it in a somewhat kritiky kind of way like that, (competition vs cooperation etc) because they can argue root cause of your harms. (We have a space debris problem because we outsourced space ex to private companies in the 60s. Corporations don't care about the environment. If we had done it ourselves, your space debris problem would be moot.)


    They also argue that anything NOT the resolution is neg ground, so they CAN say as a counter resolution "The US should HAVE..." In other words, the reason the resolution is untrue is that we should have done X in the past instead.


    Answers are on paradigm (policy best, timeframe equivalence is fair ground, parametrics, bidirectionality negates hypotesting, etc.) This argument really does assume a different type of resolution than the ones used in HS debate.

  • Create New...