Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

84 Excellent

About Twist_of_Fate

  • Rank
    Space for Rent!
  • Birthday 02/10/1989

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Name
    Shane Hill
  • School
    What are school?
  • Location
  • Interests
    Writing, debating, and video games
  1. Abuse because you lose politics because our case probably isn't big enough to screw with whatever your politics scenario is/abuse because our case is constructed in a way/with evidence where you can't run a CP that everyone is saying can be run on everything? That's a pretty shoddy abuse story, Tommy. I think an abuse story with a different violation may work better, though. I mean, the entire thing is a pipe dream because I think finding the literature to support running the case in this way is going to be impossible. But I don't think it's particularly abusive to write your way out of a generic argument, especially because the case isn't set up to entirely exclude the 50 states CP or state as actor CP, but the Aff would at this point be on the winning side of the solvency debate. I suppose another way this could be handled is to find a social service that a state or small group of states DOESN'T have and implementing it in those states.
  2. Twist_of_Fate


    Depends entirely on what the warrants were in the RVI shell. For example, some RVIs stipulate that the Affirmative has to WIN topicality to be upped on the argument.
  3. Granted, I haven't done research to see if this is feasible, but I found something that may be able to take out part of your strat. Have the USFG increase a very specific social service in a single state. To block the 50 states CP, just find a unique social service and talk about why it's unique to that state and couldn't be implemented elsewhere. I'm sure if you can find a federally based social service, this takes out the states being able to do it or at least gives the Aff better solvency. Write a state specific politics disadvantage to block a CP that has the state's government do the plan. This doesn't explicitly take out politics, but it makes it a bit easier to argue against. You'd still link to capitalism, though.
  4. Uh, how does this really function as a K? I mean, I guess you could define persons living in poverty as spiritual poverty, but that definition isn't going to be mutually exclusive. Even if I grant that physical poverty is preferable over spiritual poverty...so what?
  5. I will concede that social services, such as the ones you mentioned, are involved with marriage, so yeah, FX. EDIT: Although I would then contend that there's a difference between increasing social services and increasing the number of people receiving them.
  6. The issue with linking in this situation is you can obviously only run this on Affirmatives that are trying to claim that they "help" these impoverished people. I think it's entirely possible to have an affirmative with diverse advantages that don't include actually trying to help these people out of poverty.
  7. I don't know the rate, but keep in mind that structural unemployment should be about 4-5% and that this number is HEALTHY for the economy.
  8. Twist_of_Fate

    Africa Aff

    I think there are ways to do something like this. For example, targeting impoverished immigrants. I think a grammatical interpretation of the resolution pretty handily shuts out this case, though.
  9. I think if you're having to resort to K of T lit as a go to in a case where it's not exactly uniquely warranted, there's a bit of a problem. Maybe this is just down to my personal preferences as a former debater and now judge, but the warrants of most K of T lit and the author qualifications behind them aren't necessarily uniquely better than the analysis the negative is making. In this specific case, I don't think the lit plays well together. This isn't a typical exclusion story because the negative is arguing that marriage flat out isn't a social service, not that they don't want homosexuals to have access to marriage. Granted, the aff does have a fair shot at making a claim to being topical and winning the T debate on the flow, but as a judge, I'd rather it's left at that. I LOVE T debates where there is clash on the standards and the voters because I find that, more often than not and especially in my area of debate, the analysis on the T flow is just downright awful. I'm in the process of writing a topicality theory file for my former high school and a couple of other teams just because I'm tired of shitty answers to T going unchecked. But, I think you'd be better off just trying to engage them on the T flow and trying to frame topicality in a different way without jumping to a K of T. Especially because not only is there solid analysis against the K of T literature, but there's also quite a bit of lit that counters what the K of T lit posits.
  10. So the negative keeps the DA in until the 2NR and then concedes the no link. They preserve the time tradeoff and cockblock you from getting the DA as an advantage.
  11. On your 1NC Strategy: I think the cards and advocates for the fed gov being key will come out of the woodwork this summer or early on in the season. I realize you're concerned because they haven't already, but I'm sure teams will be ready to go on this. I think teams will be wise to try to find advantages that the States CP can't capture in the same way. Once again, don't have specifics here, but I'm sure it exists. More specifically: On the CP, there's theory to be had, and I know that this CP has been around for forever, so I'm sure lots of teams has adequate backfiles. I will concede that this CP is a LOT more viable this year. On the Politics DA, you're going to need to be set up for uniqueness and link debates. Sure, there are LOTS of different viable DAs, but the link scenarios for politics disads are fairly predictable to where you're going to need to be able to answer the theory and carded responses (more than likely turns) going down on this part of the flow. The internal links and impacts will also be suspect. On the K, this has already been addressed. The Aff challenge isn't going to be writing a K proof Affirmative because the team that runs this strat isn't going to go "oh shit." They'll run it anyway. Why? Well, I'll jump to that in a bit when I say how this strategy, as a judge, looks to me. This K will be addressed on the link and impact levels. Affirmatives will also go after the alternative and a framework. A lot of this will be theory, but some may be carded. Now, overall, here's why I think this is weak. It's clear this strategy has THREE 2NR roadmaps, and in my mind, only three. Option 1) K Option 2) CP and DA Option 3) DA I mean, technically, I suppose you could go CP, but I don't think you're going to have an easy time selling it to me without the NB. I don't foresee being able to take all 3 in the 2NR because I don't think your CP will escape a link to the K. At this point, theory arguments are going to gain a bit more weight because it's fairly apparent that your strategy is transparent. While it's true that the 2NR is almost always clear about taking what's undercovered, I would weigh taking something undercovered about a strategy that played well together differently than taking something undercovered from a strategy that contradicted itself. Not all judges will be like that, but that's a personal thing. In conclusion, I would agree that there aren't many affirmatives being discussed right now that would escape that strategy, but it's a relatively predictable and well-worn strategy when you break it into its components. They don't really gel together, so them being run as a unit isn't anything special. I guess another thing that I would pick up on as a competitor and a judge is that you're running 3 off in a debate that could easily be 1 off or 2 off. To me, this says you have some concern aout putting your eggs in only those baskets. While diversification is generally a smart thing, I think you neuter a lot of potentially damning theory and framework arguments by limiting yourself to either the CP with a couple of NBs or the K, especially if you're confident that you're on the winning side of those debates rather than counting on them to undercover something enough to exploit it.
  12. "Society" doesn't appear in the resolution. I think you run into serious problems when you try to define a word that's a term of art by reverting back to its derivative. I think you may be on to something, but I wouldn't argue it that way. However, most definitions of "social services" aren't specific. The best thing I could probably suggest is a definition that defines as "social services" being specific to a country's citizens and then argue that animals aren't citizens.
  13. I understand this, but the benefits don't necessarily make something a "service" in my mind. Er, that sounds a little unclear. The government is providing the benefits, but I don't necessarily think it's providing the service outside of maybe marriage licenses, but I wouldn't concede that marriage licenses are a social service. You may be able to spin some sort of effectually topical case off of courts, though...
  14. The problem with politics on this is that I'd LOVE to see warranted and contextual evidence about why condition social services don't link, but regular social services do. On top of that, as a judge, I'd want this to be fairly specific to the affirmative or they have the high ground in the debate.
  • Create New...