Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Twist_of_Fate

  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.
  15. How is marriage a "service" from the government's side of things?
  16. I don't know how fast you are, but in my opinion, running more than 1 or 2 Ks max is going to get you in some trouble. I really don't think most Ks are going to have alts that play well together. I mean, sure, conditionality, but I think the Aff's Conditionality Bad story is probably going to be pretty good, especially in conjunction with the fact that the Negative is arguing that you need to include animals.
  17. Environment, fine, I guess. The quality of life card hurts me. Yes, our economy is in the shitter right now. Yes, some people are knocked down into actually BEING impoverished. But given how selfish Americans tend to be and how many studies there are about the various causes and complications of poverty, I think you're on the losing side of that debate, unless you're taking it in a kritikal love direction or something. The growth argument about microlending is bad for reasons covered in the microlending thread. Microlending works the way it does because organizations are microlending to third world countries. I don't think the same results would occur in the US. Synergy covers everything really well, actually. And THAT kind of poverty debate isn't as morally squicky as "poverty good."
  18. Looking at definitions for both "persons" and "people", I think this T interpretation has some issues. I know they are pretty horrendous standards, but precision and framer's intent on the choice of persons over people takes care of some interpretations. Interestingly enough, on T-People, American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Definition, has this to say: 9. Informal: Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods.
  19. I don't think you garner ANY strategic advantage in doing this. Looking at other definitions for "persons", which is the language of the resolution, your alternative cases for people that aren't people aren't great, if there even are any.
  20. I'd have to see tags, but that last card seems to be lacking in warrants of any kind. I'd go after that study they cite. I think a potential problem is who plan targets. The link to the first card you posted talks about the breakfast program applying to low income families. I don't necessarily think low-income families=persons living in poverty. On top of that, what's your strategy on a CP that extends the breakfast program to more children than you do, assuming there is a NB in the form of a DA or K to be had that makes a perm unlikely? On top of that, I think some of your internals are pretty shaky. First off, you have to leap the hurdle of breakfast=education. At first, this doesn't look too hard, but if you're focusing on people living in poverty, I'm sure the literatue base talking about the number of these kids that stay in school and continue onto high school and college are probably pretty low, and I really, REALLY doubt offering breakfast overcomes that. At that point, you lose your internals to your education advantages of democracy and competitiveness. On top of that, I think education=democracy evidence could be pretty poorly warranted, but I'd have to see it.
  21. I don't even care if it's for people living in poverty. If they want to prove that marriage is a social service and only want to give impoverished homosexuals the right to marry, more power to them. That's a strategically suicidal case anyway. I'd just love to see a definition or interpretation that comes close to making marriage topical as an example of "social services."
  22. What specific link arguments? The link is sketchy ass "tabloid geopolitics" bullshit, that, according to a poster earlier in this thread, applies to EVERY affirmative as long as they have impacts. Yeah, REALLY specific link there. I never said it's a round winner. I said you should be able to explain how or why your author isn't just another example of tabloid geopolitical evidence in round. Especially when cards tagged as such: "Debate is no longer a space where dissent and critique are tolerated. Language and image are weapons to combat an enemy, and glorify a politics mobilized around fear. Tabloid geopolitics determines which discourses and representations can and can't be said, and what counts as truth. These discourses tell us who should be abjected, dehumanized, and killed. Tabloid geopolitics control discourse, language, and the means of representation. " Are supposedly "big" in how the Kritik functions. This isn't an example of me asking the Affirmative to prove how they don't kill 400 babies through passage of the plan or why they don't destroy everything. The "specific" negative evidence is really an indict of practically all evidence. My basis for why this links to the negative is the evidence in the K itself. What excludes Debrix's analysis from applying to himself? At the point where you silence out our authors vis-a-vis the Kritik, how does that not become tabloid geopolitics because the negative is determining "which discourses and representations can and can't be said, and what counts as truth"? My arguments about why the negative links to the K would take nothing more than a cross-application of warrants from the 1NC. So, why don't you link? According to MY understanding of the K and how the affirmative links in the first place, this links to you as well. That is my argument. And that is sufficient. Why? If I run a case and you run a counterplan and both are passed by Congress and you run a Politics disad that you link to, I don't have to read evidence to make the argument "this links to you, too." I would explain more in round about why, but that depends on certain scenarios. And you won't explain why? If I asked that in CX, I'm giving you, who supposedly understands infinitely more about the K than I do, a free shot to ramble away about why you don't link. In fact, you'll pre-empt my arguments. But instead, you want to crush the clarification nature of CX? Okay...what's the point of CX then? And even outside of the round, what's the point in not answering it here? And as for questions, your other examples are entirely different. If I asked a hemp Aff how they don't cause nuclear war without any other basis in round, it WOULD be absurd. But the specific nature of this K sets up the negative to link into the K from the start, unless you can explain how Debrix is exempted from tabloid geopolitics. So, the question is what warrants are there in the Debrix evidence that excludes him from his analysis. If my 1AC is an example of tabloid geopolitics because of the language and discourse, how isn't the War Machine 1NC just as much of an example? Going back to the tag I mentioned earlier, how does the negative not directly engage in the tabloid geopolitics that are so bad by nature of the K? And you're missing my point. The courtroom analogy is stupid. CX isn't binding. I'm not even setting up a trap. Hell, this isn't a round or a virtual debate. This is someone asking you why a K that seems to focus heavily on language and how debaters treat evidence and impacts in round doesn't intrinsically link back to itself. What's so special about Debrix's warrants that my authors don't have? Why does the Aff feed the War Machine and the negative doesn't? I'm not under the illusion I'll win the round in CX. I realize I have to make the argument in a speech, but more often than not, refusing to answer a question in CX, letting them make an argument about it without clarifying it, and then sandbagging your answers for the block looks like a dick move that some judges aren't going to appreciate. There's a LARGE difference between "doesn't your K link to itself" and "why doesn't your K link to yourself". I don't have a 1NC for this on hand. I have this thread. Send me a 1NC so I can see the warrants in your link and alternative evidence, and I will ask a specific question. And a specific question is important because if I ask "Why doesn't Warrant X in Card Y mean that you guys link into the Kritik as well," that's completely different and not even close to being a "How doesn't your plan punt the judge's dog in the head" sort of question. It's not a vote aff argument. I'm not asking you to vote aff. As a judge, I wouldn't by default vote aff. But a team that seems reluctant to answer fucking CX questions about their K portrays to me that the 1NC doesn't have a solid handle on the K. I would assume you would run this as a 1 off, in which case you shouldn't be scared of answering why you don't link. Like I said, as a judge, I'm not going to give the negative the win because they confused the other team. I prefer policy to kritikal, and if the other team is confused, the negative should assume that I am as well, because I specifically mention it in my paradigm. These are subjects that authors and philosophers have devoted years of their lives and countless pages to. You're trying to encapsulate that into 26 minutes of speech time. If you want to win a K, you have to show me you know it. Not being able to respond to why your author is different than the sources of the affirmative evidence or not being willing to answer it before the argument is made is silly. If you're running it, you should be on the winning side of that debate. Hell, if you give a good enough CX answer, you'll discourage teams from wasting time on those arguments. And, as I've suggested several times, the specifics of the position and my understanding of what the thesis of the kritik is makes my question of how it doesn't link to itself make a lot more logical and substantially less abusive question than "Prove how you don't cause everything to die or we win, OMFG" when nothing related to those arguments has happened in round. Like I said, hit me up with a 1NC and I'll construct specific CX questions for it. To put it slightly differently, your supposed "specific link" isn't what this thread has represented. The link suggested by the discussion thus far is pretty generic. At the point where your Kritik deals with how language and tabloid geopolitics fuels the War Machine, you should be able to explain how the language of your advocate isn't in and of itself tabloid geopolitics and how your discourse in round won't be a further example of tabloid geopolitics. By your logic presented in the thread, the smartest answer to ANY CX question is "Make the argument in round," which moots the point of CX anyway. What exactly is CX used for in your world of debate? Granted, the original question is vague in the context of not being able to ask about your specific cards and warrants like I would in round, but this question is different than burdening the Aff to prove how they don't link to arguments that haven't been read. Yes, my "you link" argument hasn't been made in round, but I don't think it's abusive or even nonsensical to assume that you should be able to answer a question of why the warrants in your link card don't link to the 1NC shell and the discourse of the negative in round. Hell, to make it equivalent to making the aff prove how they don't destroy all life, let's say that in the status quo, we're going to be wiped out by an asteroid for certain in a year. Science is behind on the technology to do shit about it. It WILL hit, and it will kill the planet. The resolution focuses on what the world should do in light of the situation. Aff case is nuke the planet. Now, this is a little more blatant than the mumbojumbo of your Kritik, but based on that analysis, it would be an entirely fair question to ask the 1AC whether or not they kill everything on the planet, too. And I don't think that the 1AC answering the question with "you'd have to prove that" and moving on would make the speaker look very good, especially if the neg points to the warrants in the 1AC that posit that nuking the world would kill everything specifically in the question. The "proof" of why you link is in the 1AC, or in the case of the K, in the 1NC itself. Hell, let's set that aside and address why you won't answer the question in the context of this forum post on the "help me" topic. Go ahead...flex your debate-peen. I'm an easy target. I hate Kritikal stuff. Dazzle Cross-x.com with your brilliance. My question's not a dumb question, it's an ignorant question. I'll admit as much freely. I don't understand the K. Based on what I do understand of the K and what Debrix argues, he doesn't get to exempt himself from tabloid geopolitics, and the negative sure as hell isn't free of being tabloid geopolitics. Hell, if you're going to be difficult, I posit in my 2AC that Debrix isn't special and that his analysis is just as much an example of tabloid geopolitics as my 1AC and furthermore, that the way the K argues against our evidence and the way the round is carried out in general is an example of tabloid geopolitics. If we're going to be held to our discourse, the negative should be held to theirs. Like I said, hit me up with a 1NC Shell and I'll offer better arguments. Let's say you give your 2NC answers. I now ask my question of "Why doesn't Debrix and other negative authors (if there are any used) also feed the War Machine with their language?" and "Why don't you, for that matter?" I've already made the argument that the negative links back to the Kritik in my 2AC, thereby taking care of your "it's the aff's burden to prove" quip. So, how are you going to explain it now? Or what was your 2NC answer?
  23. I'd love to see a definition of social services that you think would make MARRIAGE a social service. I mean, at best, you might tie it into legalizing gay marriages before justices of the peace, but even then, I don't think the lit is on your side.
  24. Uh, that's some pretty bad evidence. It mentions poverty once. And even then, it's talking about poverty rates in 20 of the Army's most recruited from counties. That, and I think an Aff claiming to solve for poverty isn't necessarily going to fare too well anyway. Even then, I can see arguments being made along the lines of "even if we save one person from poverty, you should vote for plan." I mean, I'm seeing common disad scenarios as somewhat unrealistic this year. I'm hoping we have some more down to earth disads.
  • Create New...