Jump to content

kanmalachoa

Member
  • Content Count

    185
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kanmalachoa

  1. Sure. william.j.raymerATgmailDOTcom
  2. Hey folks, I'm back in Madison and can judge some debates in Wisconsin if need be. Work means I might have trouble getting too far afield on Fridays, depending.
  3. The literary world, on the other hand, thinks very highly of her novels.
  4. I'm not sure why I'm responding to this, but it's the captive audience that's significant, not the worship. Ian and I have both made that pretty clear.
  5. Sure we are. There's absolutely no distinction between the New Zealand example I gave and the de-develop by other means CP. Perhaps I was confusing when I said non-competitive. What I meant was that the counterplan was not mutually exclusive, and that the net-benefit was non-intrinsic to the plan. I suppose the counterplan competes by net-benefits, but it's hardly competition in the normal sense of the term, since the aff isn't being competed with. That's interesting, because I don't understand what theoretical distinction we can draw between the two examples I gave and the two you gave. I'll also contest that they're equally illegitimate in the 1NC (this argument, btw, was above and unanswered). Counterplanning out of a potential impact turn 1NC gives the aff a hell of a lot more strategic ground (any) than counterplanning out of an actual impact turn in the 2NC. If the counterplan appears in the 1NC, the aff can simply link turn instead, and gain the time tradeoff of however long it took to read the CP. If it's worth that risk to the neg to keep the aff from impact turning, fine. In the 2NC, the aff has no offensive responses, because link turning leaves them with a double turn. Sorry. It doesn't prove ANYTHING about the aff plan. All it proves is that there's an alternate way to access the impact turns, which will be true of ANY impact turn the aff could ever run. In fact, countcrackula's post demonstrates that it's often true of link turns. You in effect deny the aff most, if not any, access to offense on the disad. In addition, this argument's circular: you take for granted that you are allowed to counterplan out of these impact turns, which is what you're trying to prove. You ignore both my third and fourth points here. Had you not ignored my third point, we would have each been saved a lot of (virtual) breath, since it articulates the argument I made in this post about there being no distinction between New Zealand and CTBT. By ignoring my fourth argument, you're granting me substantial defense against your "right" to counterplan out of impact turns. De-dev's not even all that mean and nasty. You don't NEED, as a neg, to counterplan out of it, do you? Give me mean and nasty answers. Really, as long as I have this defense, the education argument will outweigh anything else. I never said there was something wrong with it; my argument was defensive. It's still valid, though: there's no impact to the most logical responses, nor is there a way to determine what those responses are. I think the most logical response to spark is to debate it on-face, because it's probably not true, and even if it is, most judges will give you the benefit of the doubt. You avoid an uphill theory battle (even if you think 2NC CP's are the most legit thing in the world, they're far from conventional neg moves), meaning that the judge is looking for ways to vote for you rather than against you. Whether or not what I just said is completely accurate is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the "most logical response" is a completely arbitrary label. That's a cute game, but it doesn't respond to the argument it follows. That argument was important, so I'll reiterate it: there needs to be an offensive reason debate is better with 2NC counterplans, and thus far, there isn't. COUNTCRACKULA That'll include both of my examples and both of Tomak's, so this debate is all above. This is the first decent offense I've seen all thread, but I don't think it's accurate. 1. It limits out generic DAs with nuclear war scenarios. If your standard for a relevant issue is one that policy-makers consider, even your average politics DA (one of the more likely to be germane to the life of a policy-maker) certainly doesn't qualify. 2. The solar power argument is closer to something a policy-maker MIGHT be considering. Back in the day, when we cared about a balanced budget, policy-makers made decisions about where to give funding, knowing that they would trade off with other areas. 3. Your argument amounts to giving the negative the power to debate in the ideal status quo--one in which solar power has all the funding it needs, one in which all anti-terrorism programs are working in tip-top condition, etc. The reason there are restrictions on the concept we call "negative fiat" is so that the negative doesn't get away with that. 4. Your argument also limits out the kritik debate. If you're not going to allow that the kritik debate is good, start a thread in the kritik forum and we can debate it there. By running an off-case argument, the neg assumes the resposibility for taking the debate away from the case. If the aff is making non-intrinsic answers, it's the neg's fault. Also, this isn't responsive to the scenario of counterplanning out of an impact turn or----this is a new way these counterplans can be abusive----counterplanning out of an impact to a link-turned DA. This is mostly answered above; your definition of "useless" also seems arbitrary. Like a politics DA? Plus, your solar power example is going to require impact and internal link research, which gives valuable education on the effectiveness/lack thereof of a given program to stopping climate change, in addition to the importance/lack thereof of climate change in the first place (assuming climate change is your impact).
  6. We'll start here, because the specifics of the New Zealand example aren't really important. What is important is that a good neg who decides to run this type of argumentation would have ample time to come up with a CP to solve the impact in a better way. (I'm focusing on your "money won't solve muslim violence" argument, because I think the others are less valid concerns). Perhaps the Iranian government comes out in favor of plan. Or, Osama Bin Ladin makes some remarks to the effect of "just kidding!" I'm not going to put in the time to come up with the ideal counterplan (I AM busy this summer), the one that would give the muslim community enough of an nudge to only disagree with american foreign policy as much as they do now, but I hope you'll agree that a creative negative would and could. 1. I'm not sure why that's a good interpretation. Debate would be a less good activity if debaters didn't learn all that new stuff every year. Learning to move the pieces is part of the equation, but there's no reason it should be all of the equation. 2. Late development of an issue makes for a bad chess game, with fewer strategic choices. Not to push the chess metaphor too far, but to abbreviate the opening of a chess game is to leave out the most important strategic decision a chess player makes. Likewise, a 2NC counterplan rushes the debate, resulting in the debaters being able to make fewer "moves." The CP requires a little explaining, but most of that will be fleshed out in cross-ex. Really, it's a device to make turns go away, which means that the focus of the 2NR will be the DA. Please refer above to why the perm doesn't solve the problem. I'll be the first to admit these counterplans are uncompetitive. That doesn't reduce their strategic usefulness for the neg. Again, I don't know why the word "constructive" means "new advocacies are fine." The term constructive was applied to these speeches long before the idea of "off-case arguments" became part of debate. Thus, saying that a rule of debate is that constructive means new positions seems somewhat ludicrous. There is no offensive reason why a world in which 2NCs can run new advocacies is better than a world in which the stock positions of the debate are established in the first two constructives. That's not an option in this case. The aff can't shift its attack to something else (the something else would have to be the link) because they've already articulated impact turns (which the neg presumably conceded). We've already talked about contesting it. This will become a yes-no debate, but I'll at least put out there that I think a negative, particularly if they roll out a few points of offense in the time they save by not answering impact turns, should have a relatively easy time closing doors for the 2AR. The neg has at least 4 minutes to spend on a theory debate that they are probably on the right side of (if you disagree that the neg is on the right side of the theory debate, that's fine. I'm not interested in getting into an IFiat good/bad debate here). TOMAK: No, my argument is that counterplanning out of impact turns is almost always illegitimate, but that the time tradeoff for the aff of just deciding to link turn instead of impact turn in the 2AC makes them better in the 1NC. See previous posts for why this counterplan is uncompetitive and a perm is non-responsive. Review the beginning of this thread. I'm not sure you understand fully the scenario we're discussing. If you think you do, I apologize, and I'll explain further. Again, we're talking about tailoring the counterplan to spike out of turns in a non-competitive way. That's uniquely different than tweaks in wording. RE: the dedev and spark examples You are almost certainly better off defending your 1NC impact. First, spark and dedev require enough 2AC development that you have more than enough time in the block to answer them. Second, it's probably a better debate for you to defend the assumptions you make in the 1NC instead of simply throwing them away. Third, you picked particularly squirrelly impact turns, but the fact is that this type of counterplan can be used on ANY impact turn, and can be worded in a way that makes it extremely difficult to answer. Fourth, your argument about mean and gnarly answers seems much more applicable to an argument like dedev than a contrived and unpredictable counterplan. The difference between responding to the 1AC and responding to the 2AC is that spark in the 1AC is unpredictable, whereas by running a nuclear war impact in the 1NC, you assume the risk that the aff will respond with spark. There's a level of predictability that allows you to prepare (with relative ease) a defense to spark. EDIT: To bring focus away from the New Zealand-style counterplan and back to the broader issue of whether 2NC counterplans are good, there needs to be an offensive reason that debate is better with 2NC counterplans. The only one offered thus far is that tomak thinks they're the most reasonable answer to spark and dedev. Even if that's true, the impact to being able to make the "most reasonable" answer instead of simply defending 1NC assumptions is minimal at best. There's at least a risk that 2NC counterplans are bad for education, since there's no offense there, either. That means that odds are, debate is a better place without them.
  7. Good argument. Another round winner. You clearly just haven't been paying attention. Go back and read my other posts. That's an argument for me. Fewer speeches=less response to response. This'll be below. That's funny, because so far, the best you've been able to come up with is "that's silly." Remember an analytic DA won't cut it, because its impacts have to compete with a carded DA that now has no responsive turns on it. Also, rememer I don't think this argument is really sweet. I think it's illegitimate in the same way the world peace CP is. Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that you were involved in debate. I take back everything. I hope you expect better warrants from the kids you judge... That justifies the "no one hurts anyone else ever again" counterplan. I'm applying the argumentation you've already made in the thread. You've said that substantive abuse stories are aff whining (I'm not paraphrasing when I use the term substantive abuse story), that denying key aff responses is simply strategic, and that the counterplans I've outlined above are merely annoying and inconvenient. That all seems to justify basically any (ab)use of neg fiat. Not to mention, the scenario I outlined doesn't even require extra abuse of neg fiat, assuming international fiat is ok (and that's a pretty easy debate for the neg). TOMAK Why are we doing that? Since when are impact turns a "whole new world of an impact debate?" Your argument is that the aff should predict in the 1AC what DAs the neg will run with what impact scenarios. How does a non-competitive counterplan test opportunity costs? There's no reason an aff should have the cards to support these mean and gnarly answers. Plus, when the neg can word the counterplan to spike out of any mean and gnarly answers they want, the aff runs into some pretty deep shit.
  8. Those edgy PICs...watch out. Next thing you know, you'll find yourself voting for kritiks.
  9. kanmalachoa

    Irony?

    I've been told that there are irony files/cites sitting on some website somewhere. Anyone know where this website is, or have some of their own author recommendations?
  10. someone took you seriously...I was talking to them. "Most of the time, this argument is run badly" is not terribly persuasive. When you justify this argument, you justify it being run by a good team that will run it to its full potential. No there's are a couple arguments you're missing. The education argument: getting rid of speeches cuts out an hour of the debate, which, if nothing else, is a gigantic waste of time. I've also outlined an unanswered fairness claim that shows how non-competitive CP planks can be used to moot any impact turns the aff generates. That leaves the aff with no way to generate impact offense against a disad, period. If you want to look at my example, go ahead. Impact debates are good for fairness and education: if you want warrants, just ask. Most affs DO prefer to generate offense. The world of the 2NC counterplan grants the neg a 10 second answer to moot all offense to a DA in the world where the aff impact turns in the 2AC. The neg already gets to do this by picking which generics to run. They do not get to do this by waving a magic wand to eliminate aff offense. Why is this a better interpretation than "debate is a game that should be educational?" That's just all not true. You aren't undercovering the turn, because you just fiated away the turn. Good answers aren't a better strategy than the CP in a world where the CP is legitimate, because the CP takes WAY less time. The 1AR can't beat the CP, because the neg can pick their mechanism for fiating away the impact turn to be something that the neg will never have in their box. Using my heg example, the mechanism for appeasing the muslims could be (since you clearly don't care about multi-actor fiat) that every Muslim decides to like the United States. Or that New Zealand decides to give the muslim world several trillion dollars and sign the check "George Bush." Sorry, I forgot to bring my New Zealand spending DA. That's all above. They don't have to be competitive, your world allows the neg to fiat solvency, and they can be written to be responsive to the original turn very easily. This isn't spreading your opponent out of the round, it's picking an abusive position that moots all aff offense. Weren't you complaining about warrants above? Why does the word "constructive" mean "any new advocacy, regardless of how impossible it makes the debate for the affirmative?" 1. A bad debate is undesirable. You concede that by calling it bad. 2. This bad debate would almost always be won by the neg; that's above. That's not true. In a world where the aff advocates multiple conditional plans in the 1AC, then pick one to go for in the 2AR, the neg will almost always lose becase they have to adequately cover 20 plan texts in the block. They undercover one, the 1AR goes for it, and suddenly the 2NR is way behind. Essariel was setting up defense against dispo good. But if something is a magic wand and impossible to answer...odds are it makes debates bad.
  11. Perm's also the only way to check against add-on net benefits, or new net benefit claims.
  12. I'm worried about McCain vs. anybody, to be honest.
  13. Alienating people has never been a good way to make them like you. This raises a few questions for me: -What about the effectiveness of a kinder gentler approach like I encountered on the subway? Songs and an invitation? -Is there a self-perpetuating aspect of the speechifying you describe? Do those people genuinely want to be listened to, when that would eliminate the source of their self-righteous anger and feeling of superiority?
  14. QFA. I hadn't had time to get back to this thread, but Ian summed up the distinctions well. That's a ridiculous argument. A rejection of christian music and preaching is neither an advocacy of agnosticism or atheism. That said, I'm not even advocating a rejection of christian music and preaching, just in this very specific forum. Ian articulated the aspects that make this forum uniquely bad above. That's not at all what I want. I was very clear above: proselytizing in churches and on streets is fine; proselytizing on a closed subway car is not. Likewise my views are not oppressing their views. First, I'm neither atheist nor agnostic; I'm christian, but that's largely irrelevant here. What is relevant is that I would have the same problem with an atheist, buddhist, muslim, or jew loudly plugging their beliefs on the subway. The Bible does not say "Go ye forth and play musically uninteresting songs on closed subway cars." Even the most conservative interpretation of the Bible would be more than satisfied by a little old fashioned bible thumping on street corners. Heck, if you really want some high profile christianity, you could even donate some extra cash to Rick Santorum this fall: he'll need it.
  15. I know that. My point is that there are neg arguments that put the aff at a radical disadvantage.
  16. You should a) Check the thread to make sure it doesn't specifically prohibit this kind of idiocy. Warrant what you say.
  17. http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=963079 Any news?
  18. Since when is an impact turn the same thing as a new world of advocacy? I hate it when affs use "theory" to protect themselves. World Peace CP every round FTW. Where are those World Peace bad cards now, aff?
  19. Do you have a reason that's true (ideally one that is responsive to the rest of this thread) or are you just going to plug evidence?
  20. This WAS a thread about the viability of the aff, but if it's going to be a debate about the viability of Gitmo, I'll bite... Justify this statement. Do you mean the NYT, who initially supported the war in Iraq but has written countless editorials calling for the closing of Gitmo? Or perhaps you mean the Washington Post, who also initially supported the war in Iraq. Or perhaps you mean the vast majority of world leaders. I beg your pardon? The people who thought we shouldn't have fought in WWII are, by a large margin, dead or at least inactive in politics. They were also isolationists, not "leftests." The link level answer is above. I'm also curious about the impact level. Why does belief that GWB is a dictator make them unreasonable? Show me a credible source indicating that's true. Also, what is the war on terror and how was this information vital to it? Reports from Gitmo have indicated that detainees were tied to a post while rubber bullets were fired at them, and forced to kneel in the sun until they collapsed. We'd better be getting some sweet information. You mean like our soldiers? What does that mean? The only group that seems to be effectively destroying our freedom right now is the Bush administration, by curtailing our rights to due process. The Gitmo detainees aren't those people. Know why? There is a presumption of innocence in this country. Until they are tried, and most of them haven't been, and could wait indefinitely to be, they are not guilty of anything. Also, chances are that most of them can't be tried, because they have been removed from the system of due process. Any information that they confess cannot be used against them, because they had no legal protection. You are assuming that these people are terrorists, when you have nothing but the Bush administration's assertion that that is so (and we all know how credible those assertions have turned out to be). Neither have Gitmo detainees, unless they are tried and convicted... Nope, they're being tied to posts and shot instead. We've come a long way. Don't assume that he's a liberal democrat simply because he disagrees with Gitmo...you asked us not to make the reverse assumption about you. EDIT: Shouldn't this thread, which had nothing to do with DAs and CPs to begin with, be moved to the NDD forum?
  21. That's not what I said. My question was really specific to the fact that we were in a closed subway car, and therefore had no choice but to listen to their music/talking. If one has a "right not to listen," it seems that right was violated. I don't have a problem with proselytizing in a private setting, nor do I have a problem with prozelytizing on a street: one can always walk away. On the subway, however, one is stuck listening for at least a few minutes. Why do you believe that's true? I might not disagree with you; I'm just curious. It's worth noting, however, that it IS illegal to play extremely loud music in one's car at night, and forbidden to play music from speakers on a bus or airplane. 1. That doesn't solve the problem on a practical level, since it just doesn't work that well. But it also puts the responsibility on the individual to AVOID being proselytized to. Why should the responsibility be there? I don't think comparable expressions of free speech (people on the street, for example) claim the same monopoly on attention. 2. Of course I do. I still have to listen to it. Also, if my analysis above is accurate, I should do it in a place where they can cut me off and walk away. I shouldn't pursue the matter if they do, because that would be harassing these poor people who just want to spread some love. Why? Respect is exactly my point. I have no problem with anybody saying what they want. I'm trying to investigate whether one has a right to walk away. Again, if these individuals had been singing on the street, I wouldn't have had the same concerns. Also, spare me the condescension. I think I missed an internal link here somewhere. Could you explain more comprehensively how allowing christians and buddhists to proselytize together in subway cars will uniquely bring us a giant step closer to world peace? I'm interested in how people feel about the first and second questions, in addition to the big free speech issue at hand.
  22. This Easter, I happened to be in New York City. I was sitting on the subway, and a group of young people began to sing christian pop music and play a guitar. After they were finished, one woman said that their singing had been a spontaneous expression of joy, gave a brief testimony of her having established a personal relationship with Christ, and invited the subway car to go to church, especially hers. This incident raised a few questions for me: 1. Artistically. Is it an act of incredible artistic hubris to assume that everyone wants to hear one's music? 2. Religiously. Is random and public preaching an effective or appropriate expression of one's religion? 3. Politically. Does/should freedom of speech imply or necessitate a reciprocal right not to have to listen? Thoughts? EDIT:Finished post after prematurely posting
  23. Read the rest of the thread more carefully... I feel like your analysis is assuming that the aff has infinite good answers to every neg position. That's not true. You're spiking out of their best responses (if you're smart), leaving them with answers you have an easier time beating. Obviously, that kind of maneuvering is inevitable, but the way you do it is arbitrary; other ways aren't. Hmmm. The same could probably be said of the 1AC, too. I think you might also get in trouble with the role of the negative versus the role of the affirmative. I'll have to think about this more.
×
×
  • Create New...