Jump to content

THSwickedjuggalo

Member
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by THSwickedjuggalo

  1. I think I know who u mean by possum...and bro, I think it is kinda out there now(since u did post it and all) but hear what from whom? And CairoDC, dont be so quick to apologize. It is only bad rep and doesn't matter. You are just lucky that people can no longer constantly give u bad reputation. Not to mention it makes you sound kind of soft and weak. However, with the question u originally asked, you did only have sincerity in mind.
  2. I honestly think Trion will be full of surprises this year. There isn't a single senior to the team, meaning they wont lose any of our good debaters this year. Last year, multiple Trion teams who were in their first year of debate made quite a mark on the JV level and also on the Varsity level. Not to mention some second year debaters who did well in the Varsity level all year long. Trion Debaters to watch for: Kunzleman, Day, Helms, Alred, Dukes, Mcwhorter. Another reason why I believe that Trion will do so well this year is that all of our best debaters have passion in debate (except for Kunzleman, so much apathy within him). I belive that if Trion brings more teams to NFL mountain districts, that they would win a nationals bid for sure. Trion will be a force to reckon with I believe at any tournament.
  3. So Diamond did go to c-ton...interesting...
  4. As I recall, Brookwood last year ran PSI and the plan was talking about stopping boats or something like that. ne ways, the plan flaw here could have been ran as a topicality authority. This is b/c the US only has jurisdiction of the waters around it up to a certain limit b/c of international treaties. Since this is so, the plan is flawed and therefore cannot work. It is usually good to run a plan flaw argument in conjunction with a topicality argument just b/c they usually fit well together. I have seen teams win on these types of arguments and I myself would buy them.
  5. Spreading...I remember that tactic...the judge hated it for the most part. My partner and I ran like six off our novice year (that was when novice was different). The ONLY situation that I could see using spreading in is a JV round because once you hit varsity most judges prefer fewer arguments and more analysis. However, if you feel this animal urge to spread, pick the arguments that are the quickest to read. For example, a few topicalities, a short DA(or two), some oncase but theory and really deep and complex arguments do not go well together with spreading (CP's and K's mainly, however you can still run multiple arguments with a CP, just be really really careful). My opinion on spreading is that it is actually a very cheap way to win and the only way that I would vote for a team that spread would be if the other team didnt have a single piece of evidence against anything (assuming the arguments were actually logical) and just wasted my time. Even then though, I would have no clue how to do speaker points. And if you wish to read faster where you can get more evidence in, read the same things over and over (read them silently, read them aloud, read them with "and" between every word, read it backwards, read it so much that you almost have it memorized). Peace. Cochran
  6. I was never perfect with my flowing when I debated, however, I did know the right way to do it. Many people prefer to flow with their paper landscape (long ways) and divide it into eight different parts, one for each speech and have a different sheet of flow paper for every argument. Learn to abbreviate things also. It is usually safe to leave out little words like "the", "are", "is". Writing small also helps to conserve space. As for the importance of flowing, well, it helps you know what is going on in the round. Just because you can take their stuff and look at it doesn't mean you are ready. The flows are their to remind you have what the material is. For novices, I would recomend flowing with the paper landscape divided into different sections with the argument name at the top of the page, a different color of pen for each team, and extra paper within quick reach incase they run something extra. In novice, I rarely see a case where the authors or dates mattter since it is all washed down and preset, but it is still a good habit to get into (the habit being able to get the author and date). But novices, dont flow the whole tag, just enough to let you know what it is about, and if you want to save some space where you can write specific notes about the card. Good flowing habits come in handy in the JV and Varsity levels.
  7. I think this case is a good idea, but how would it work? And a little bit of rewording: Plan: The United States Federal Government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in the Armed forces by allowing non-violent first time convicted felon to serve half of their sentence in a military branch of their choice, after which time they would be released and pardoned. Inherency: We don’t do it now Adv 1 Prison Population (would decrease the overpopulation problem in prison) Adv 2 Rehabilitation (Find cards saying that the Army makes better men Adv 3 Budget ( Letting the criminals fight would decrease prison costs so they could use it on other crime related areas) Solvency…kind of blank I guess for now… -Cochran
  8. *sits and waits for the "right" answer*
  9. Ya though, wasn't OSPEC for over specific plans? We all know the USFG has three branches. All right, if they use one of those three, they are not REALLY over specifying. It is when they say how they get the money, what government sub agency will be enforcing it (ex. Congress pass a bill to increase ocean education,The Department of Education enforces, and they get money from taxes or something).
  10. Personally, these are probably two of the worst and most widely abused arguments just for the fact that the way I understand it, OSPEC was originally an argument for over specific (hence, over specification) plan texts (ex. a plan does something and is getting rid of multiple things and it even gives u the specific enforcers step by step, not just a branch of the USFG). However, it seems to me that OSPEC has evolved into an argument that where if they specify which branch of the USFG (Legislative, Judicial, or Executive) they are being over specific with their plan text. I was just curious about when OSPEC, ASPEC (which is often also confusing, and a TRUE explaination would be welcome), and any other SPEC's became really big in the debating culture. If you actually just sit and think about it, the way OSPEC is ran today, is totally ridiculous. We know that we have a USFG that is divided into three seperate branches, we know that each one can do different things, and we also know that their are checks and balances between each of them, so how could specifing a certain one be abusive in any way? But I only started this thread out of curiousity and possibly clear the fog forever on the speculation of all the SPECS.
  11. I personally wasnt around for this topic. However, I am pretty sure that if you searched the internet for the information that you were looking for, that you would definately find something. Information on mental health in general, could probably be found by researching psychologists. Also, may I ask what is the reason for this thread? I could see how it has some possibility relating to next years topic, but I am just curious about how you are going to use it.
  12. Wow, way to keep the thread on topic! GO MAGICMUSHROOM!!!WHOOT WHOOT!!!
  13. For once, I am going to step down and not say anything negative in reply. Instead, I will let things take its course.
  14. He cant help... Sadly, Allred has ascended me in any measure of stupidity. At least MagicMushroom and I at least attempt to help people, while Allred is busy prancing around making random stupid posts with absolutely no meaning. 1. No it wasnt funny 2. Good for you 3. Go drink some gasoline
  15. Well, Trion will see you at NFL mountain districts with its whole two policy teams...!!! It is going to be an interesting experience, this being trions first year in the NFL and all, my money personally is on Brookwood or Westminster (hopefully I spelled that correctly)...Ne takers on who will win NFL mountain district?
  16. Well, it is officially unofficial, but liikely to become official...and the officially unofficial fact is that Trion is only bringing a grand total of *sarcastic drum roll* two policy debate teams!!! And the teams are consisting of *even more sarcastic drum roll* Trion AC (a technical novice and Me ) and... Trion BM (My partner from last year and a technical novice (all the hype and no delivery...so far, Mojo:p )) However,the tournament will be my offical last tournament (b/c God forbid that by some twist of fate every other team including our own other Trion team gets posioned and win) and it will also be Damiens last tournament...the other two, well, this is just REALLY good experience for them...and just a good time for me ^.^ Peace... Cochran
  17. I cant believe I am creating this thread, but it is a legit idea...would a UN CP work for next year? I have not thought up a specific cp text yet but something along the lines of: Text: The UN should should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps,Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces by passing a resolution consalidating them all into one international body. Something along those lines...and maybe do like as a DA/K Plan Unilat. and CP= multilat and you get the picture there....but just an idea...tweak the wording of the text though maybe....
  18. See...all of this is why I hate arguing conditionality of anything...almost guaranteed, any region you go too, the standards of what is conditional, dispositional, and unconditional will vary slighlty...which is why some judges dont buy these argument types...but thanks for the clarification...
  19. Arguements for the negative: 12.) We sometimes do consider what multiple actors should do. Policy proposals are often directed simultaneously to a variety of different groups. 13.) Fiat should be viewed as a normative endorsement. From this perspective, we can easily endorse what multiple different actors should do. 14.) Multiple agent fiat enjoys general acceptance. The affirmative often fiats how President, Congress, and Courts will act with regard to a particular policy, and this has never been theoretically controversial. 15.) Almost all plans require action by multiple agents. Acting through Congress implies the persuasion of over half of its 535 members. There’s no difference between this and persuading actors in other government institutions 16.) In general, Multi-actor fiat legit: A. The affirmative plan uses multi-actor by using the USFG, which has multiple branches and multiple steps. B. Multi-actor fiat lets more voices be heard, so it increases education in the round. C. Not abusive b/c the affirmative is using and may also use multi-actor fiat. 17.) Object/ Mindset fiat legit: A. The affirmative is allowed to say that their plan, though it may not be popular with certain political parties, will pass, thereby they are fiating a mind change that would not occur normally to these parties. B. Object/ Mindset fiat allows for a better debate b/c now the judge can view things from our mindset also. C. Fiat is utopian in nature- fiat assumes that there is a problem and then the affirmative proposes a plan to fix the problem with fiat making the world better, hence, fiat is utopian in its nature. D. Since fiat is utopian in its nature the negative team can legitimately fiat the mindset shift. 18.) Realism requires the assumption of attitude change. No policy could come into being without the relevant decision-makers being persuaded to adopt it. 19.) Fiat assumes the normal process of policy enactment. The normal process includes persuading those who are responsible for the decision. 20.) Implications of fiat as persuasion: A. Likelihood of circumvention is lessened. Since decision-makers have been persuaded to adopt the plan, their motives to circumvent are eliminated. B. Backlash becomes less likely. The process of persuading policy makers involves persuading enough of the public that the plan is desirable to make it politically practical. Thus, plan adoption assumes at lest some change in the public attitudes. C. Fiat isn’t instantaneous for either team. Since it comes as the end result of a process of persuasion, we should assume that currently and popular plans take some time to enact. And I am assuming that individual fiat would be about the same as attidual fiat...all those are arguments saying those types of fiat are good...in general, I actually have a block for negative fiat that is roughly 25 points (excluding sub-points) long....some of the points are specific to what I run it with...(if u cant tell, whatever it is that requires a fiat block that huge, is highly abusive in that area...)
  20. Sry to double post...Unconditional arguments in general (conditionality is usually made on only CP's and K's) usually means that the negative team cannot drop it no matter what...however, there are ways that they can actually drop an unconditional CP/K and win...that is basically if the judge doesnt buy these type of arguments for either side...or the negative team drops the CP and runs abuse good arguments...(which apparently exist, and which apparently, and oddly, actually can win rounds). But speaking in general, the best way to beat an unconditional CP is to prove plan is better, prove that CP is bad, or just straight up turn the SOB...also, there are competitivness arguments u can make such as the CP is a PIC, and the CP is topical...however, those three ways to beat an unconditional CP, actually apply to any CP...peace...
  21. And now, time for the biggest load of theory BS that you will ever hear in your entire debating career. Unconditional CP’s illegitimate 2AC 1. Unconditional CP’s take out all affirmative ground. By allowing a CP to be run unconditionally, the negative team also becomes affirmative when they are supposed to negate, not affirm the resolution. When they so specifically state their ground to stick with the CP, that is what the affirmative does at the beginning. 2. If the negative wants to act like the affirmative, they must meet ALL affirmative burdens, if they don’t meet, a vote on the CP is unjustified. Since the negative team wishes to be affirmative so badly, they must meet all five stock issues, Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Solvency. Not to mention they also now have the burden of proof also. 3. When both teams have burden of proof, clash is destroyed. Now that both teams posses the burden of proof on their position, focus on other issues in the round totally die, decreasing any clash on any other issues. 4. If the negative does run DA’s with the CP, they don’t matter. The DA’s act as why the affirmative case is bad, but at the point where the negative becomes affirmative, they link back to their own DA’s and the CP doesn’t solve the MPX. 5. Makes the negative a moving target. If an unconditional CP is allowed, the negative team becomes a moving target, they are now allowed to go for the CP, K’s, DA’s, or Topicality and not be penalized for it, even though they too are now affirmative. 6. If the CP is unconditional, then it should be the only thing the negative goes for in the 2NR. Heck, the affirmative has to stand behind their plan, and only their plan through the whole round, the least the negative could do is stand just behind their unconditional CP since they believe it is so great. 7. At most, if the negative goes for more than the CP in the 2NR, the majority of the time has to be spent on the CP, if not, the CP must be rejected. Unconditional means they must go for it in the 2NR, however, if they just touch on it, it becomes abusive to the affirmative team b/c now they must repeat the 1AR arguments against the CP and answer anything else they decide to go with. 8. Well, the negative team says that is abusive to only go for the CP in the 2NR b/c it takes out any DA’s as net-benefits, they should have ran the CP as a different status. If the negative knew they were going to run the CP and some DA’s with it as net benefits, they could have ran it as a different status where they would not be required to go for only it. 9. Just b/c it is predictable, doesn’t make it good. We have already proven in our previous three points of why unconditional CP’s bad, so they check the fact of predictability. 10. Rejoinder A. The negative must be responsive in the 2NC or we assume they concede our unconditional illegitimate arguments. B. Burden of Rejoinder- the debate must clash throughout. No clash in the 2NC means they concede that unconditionality is bad. C. The 2AC is the affirmatives last chance to generate any offense, so the 2NC should be the negatives last chance also, if the negative attacks unconditional CP’s illegitimate in the 1NR, the 1AR gets leeway with other arguments in the round. See? Doesnt every bit of that sound like total BS by the affirmative (Mind you, you do run this affirmative, incase u couldnt figure it out) I am sure that it has more holes than swiss cheese, but whenever there is something like that in the round, they have to defend it...not to mention I have Uncondital Illigt. speech by speech too...lol... peace...
  22. AMEN...I hate it when certain schools always go to other teams or even their coach to get prepped out...that is just bad for debate...and to say that we should be prepared to defend our case well enough where we can win no matter what, is just ridiculous b/c the team we are facing could totally suck but get good arguments with everything blocked out equally and just run it and win...and now, on to a somewhat unrelated paragraph... Diamond...since you wont give me a body cavity search (damn it! I wanted one from you sooooo badly too...lol...nothing like a cavity search from a vegan!)...just embrace Icaza's idea...*laughs at the sight of Diamond in an airport and Icaza screaming "Jihad" with a turbin on his head, while some nice old ugly nurse pulls the rubber glove back and snaps it, getting ready to "search" Icaza...*
  23. With hard work, and being a total idiot got me this bad rep with so few posts...I am awesome...and who the hell would give u a bad rep for posting a simple question in this thread?.? Peace...
×
×
  • Create New...