Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About debater4523

  • Rank
    Longtime Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  1. Unless they have some pretty compelling and specific evidence for why the only the plan solves, I'd say K's are the best strategies against these affs - the alt solves all of their link turns and as long as you can articulate a residual link, you win because they've already conceded all of their decent offense.
  2. We need to hire judging (best if you have housing and transportation). PM me for details.
  3. Hmm... okay. He's making the same arguments I am.
  4. Look, it's sweet that you have blocks to these arguments. My point is that you are on the WRONG side of most of these debates, and you would still probably lose if the negative had done any reasonable amount of research. What is your strategy against my justification PIC? Do you seriously think you would win the impact turn debate? I didn't say that plan texts have to be offensive, but you should certainly have an offensive justification for every word in the plan text (i.e. if you were comparing the plan text without X phrase). There is NO STRATEGIC BENEFIT to writing your plan text the way you did.
  5. This sounds like a badly thought out critical aff. It's true that I haven't seen your 1AC or even know what this aff does really but I'm thinking Edward Said wouldn't be wild about the USFG imposing an energy policy upon China. Or maybe he thinks treating the East like a child is a good thing. In any case, I would be willing to bet I would win a residual link to this argument in which case you would probably lose because you would have already conceded the thesis of the argument coming out of the 1AC and the alternative would resolve the residual link and any of your offensive "link turns". The point is there is no offensive justification for including that stuff in there. Your arguments about "knowing whats coming" are absurd - it just means that you need to make more blocks because you still link to every other generic argument on the topic. There is no strategic benefit to any of your arguments. Additionally, even if you have outprepared them, you would have literally zero offense against about five different PICs. For example, CP to do the plan without the justification clause with some sort of environmental criticism or representations argument or Kappeler. Your only offensive arguments are perm (meaning you would have to win textual competition is bad) or impact turning the net benefit (a debate in which you are at a structural disadvantage). My point is that those extra phrases in the plan text do nothing for you.
  6. "Under the goal of preventing environmental violence and destruction in the SCS, the USFG will formulate/establish/implement a proactive bi-unilateral foreign and domestic renewable energy policy, increasing conservation and efficiency efforts, without constraining existing efforts, in a no strings attached eastern cultural gift exchange paradigm utilizing NGO, local, provincial government use as appropriate, with infrastructure, construction, maintenance, etc. implied with no enforcement, compliance guaranteed and funding from unclaimed assets." No, you're wrong. There is zero strategic benefit to including things like justifications in the plan text. What that does do is grant links to all sorts of critical arguments. It also makes a PIC of one of those phrases a pretty solid strategy. Specifying that the plan will use "NGO, local, provincial government" means you can PIC out of one of those. It's just completely unnecessary to write all that shit into the text. Phrases like "eastern cultural gift excahnge paradigm" are a hardcore link to an orientalism argument. Including "infrastructure, construction, maintenance, etc." makes a PIC of one of those both textually and functionally competitive. Against any of these arguments it is nearly impossible to generate good offense. When you write a plan text, you are generally trying to dodge links, not grant them. Writing it with as few words as possible is generally a lot more strategic.
  7. That is a fucking terrible plan text. There's a reason people don't put a slew of extra words in their plan. It's called a counterplan.
  8. We need to hire four rounds of judging for the St Marks Tournament. It's preferable if you live in the Dallas area and have housing/transportation to the tournament. PM me for more details.
  9. We need to hire four rounds of judging for the St Marks Tournament. It's preferable if you live in the Dallas area and have housing/transportation to the tournament. PM me for more details.
  10. Is this a new and updated list from the one that was posted earlier? Specifically did USC get returned to its quarters bid status?
  11. I wouldn't bother. Stanford evidence tends to be horrible - quality control is virtually nonexistent.
  12. Yeah... 7 week is an entirely separate group with different lab leaders and debaters. The MNDI kids are there for the first 3 weeks of 7 week and the Classic kids are there for the last four weeks, but they don't share evidence. Typically, the 7 week evidence is pretty good, the classic evidence is okay, and the MNDI stuff is usually shitty.
  13. Can somebody post this? Or dates at least?
  • Create New...