Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dziegler last won the day on July 29 2011

dziegler had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1548 Excellent

About dziegler

  • Rank
  • Birthday 11/10/1988

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Name
    Derek Ziegler
  • School

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Don't worry buddy. We'll cross it together!
  2. Ah, ok. I assumed you were offended by Beth's comments that women in debate was a good thing. Glad we cleared that one up.
  3. Don't be surprised - *especially* on a space topic, of all things - if aff ideas with this concept or crazier ones become a go-to for some teams. Deployed effectively, it means the neg has to win a slew of meta-level impact arguments concerning the nature of interstate conflict and the chances of aliens existing (and violent aliens, at that). Not to mention that the aff has a structural space militarization good argument that can interact with disads in a host of ways, not to mention that if the only aff contention is "we stop bad aliens overseas", there's a low potential for turns on the case, meaning the aff also has an option of jettisoning case and going for turns on a disad, etc. Bullshit notion, for sure, but when translated into debate-speak: a lot of random things you can do that, if mishandled, translate into aff ballot.
  4. The reason such an aff idea is strategic is because it allows the aff to single out an extinction-level event (colonization by ET's) and weigh the magnitude of such an event as quantifiably outweighing the risk and/or impact of a conflict that is terrestrial in nature. Once has aff has won all of the necessary arguments to insulate itself from terrestrial impacts (No GPW, No Global Warming, Impact/link level D to common disads), it's very difficult for aff to not win that - even with ~1% risk of their aff being true - that it outweighs. The reason such an aff is unstrategic is because of lack of quantifiable timeframes to any alien invasion shit, and the short-term political effects to the plan both internationally and domestically. Not to mention the length of time necessary for space development. A neg needs to win *nothing else* but a disad that results in extinction that happens *not before the aliens attack but before the aff plan's program goes into full effect*. This is the meta-narrative to this debate that matters. Aliens exist/don't exist is only a miniscule portion of one of the relevant debates.
  5. This is largely a myth - a few arguments: A - The 'Big Schools Have a Ton of Coaches' Arg - even the biggest squads have only a few people that are the consistent card cutters. Sure - typically speaking, larger schools will be deeper on the update level of things like politics and the depth of backfiles, but for all intents and purposes, three dedicated people on a small squad can match a large squad. B - Flexibility > Depth - if you do buy the arg that the large schools have hired 80 people to cut a hit against you, what option seems best? Read a K all year? Read a single CP/Politics strat all year? Or run multiple arguments and be flexible? Flexibility means the research advantage gets cut fractionally but the number of 2NR's you have given that year. It also takes out the advantage those teams have in breaking new against you. For example, if a team has cut a new aff under the assumption that they'll break it against you because you've been winning lately on a specific politics DA that the 1AC internal link turns, the ability to go for a K or T competently offsets that benefit. C - Big Schools Haven't Thought About the K Arg - It isn't the early 90's anymore. Big Schools haven't just ignored the K. For most judges, traditional framework arguments on the aff are a non-started, and T on the neg is seen as a dependency as opposed to a strategic vision. People have thought about your K. The benefit to a K based strat, however, is that 2AC answers are pretty predictable, and if the team is particularly policy oriented, you have a bit of a ground and knowledge advantage. This, however, is not unique to big schools. It's pretty much unique to about 65% of teams that debate.
  6. Unsure about your question. I'm assuming you're asking if controlling uniqueness means your links is more/less relevant. On the aff, controlling uniqueness is a double-edged sword. While, on the one hand, it really is a try-or-die framework (x is guaranteed to happen now - the impact is extinction - try or die - x being guaranteed means its inevitable with the way the squo is), that massively ups the degree of a link you have to win. It also ups the degree of the internal link you have to win. The link debate would say "we do something that is the opposite of the reason the squo --> bad things" and the internal link debate would say "what the plan does is sufficient for that, and not just a general direction." So, sometimes controlling uniqueness to too high of a degree means that you've just been reading a solvency takeout to yourself. This is often why uniqueness debates are framed in terms of the internal link (e.g. x happens now, but only because of y. We completely change y."
  7. The only thing I would add to this is: Controlling uniqueness is clutch in a debate where you have a CP that solves the entirety of the aff (typically, an agent CP). In these debates, controlling uniqueness and winning your CP solves the aff is game over for the affirmative because there is no risk of them having offense anywhere, whereas you have a risk of your disadvantage. The other thing I would add is that there are cases where 'too much uniqueness' is a killer. Winning a high magnitude of uniqueness means that, to prove you have a unique internal link, you have to win a high magnitude of a link. Especially on disads where uniqueness is lop-sided in your favor at the time, it's better to read the less conclusive uniqueness because this evidence often supports the thesis of your internal link (e.g. doing x link is enough to trigger the impact). This is the difference, using SKFTA as an example, between reading a card that says "God himself couldn't stop this treaty from getting passed" and "While there's momentum that makes passage very very very very very very freaking likely, political fights could still derail."
  8. lol I'm all for correcting debaters and pointing out that their frustrations are misguided. I'm not at all for calling them jackasses and refusing to judge because I think a couple of high schoolers are being pricks. I don't think this is that much of a crazy strategy for dealing with silly high school adaptation issues.
  9. This is a bit too far. As a high schooler, that were very few things that were as frustrating as going to a tournament having prepped out arguments assuming flow/line-by-line analysis just to find myself drawing judges with little experience. It was even more frustrating to be vocal about said frustration just to be hammered down coaches/former debaters at large for being selfish and inconsiderate of the time others had put in. I also realized that a lot of my frustration wasn't directed at particular judges, but how isolated I felt as a debater from the style I'd conformed to and the style that was necessary to win a ton of ballots at regional competitions. There are some debaters that deserve to have a large velvet J (for jackass) sewn onto their blazer prior to a tournament. But the large majority don't fit this mold. Your animosity, in particular Alex, is uncalled for. What's needed is a bit of compassion - 'benevolent molding' - if you will. Not this type of bashing from the elderly. I'd much rather judge a couple of cocky debaters that aren't as good as they think they are - tell them so - and tell them how they could potentially be. The animosity on both sides is sorta silly.
  10. I've never understood this approach to politics disads. If you read three link turns, the neg is just gonna put D on them and read two other link scenarios. Straight impact turning is bad because, since the neg controls the choice of scenario they've picked, are probably on the right side of the debate. But a host of uniqueness/link takeouts and two meta-level impact takeout arg and two impact turns is a low time investment for the 2AC that can pay off in the 1AR as you get to pick and choose between a "no uq/link - case outweighs risk of impact" or a "we'll just win your shit is good." Blocks have to consolidate a ton of time to this approach - not just pull out their Uniqueness Wall and read some new link cards. Not to mention that negs are rarely ready to defend the impact implications of their disad-of-the-week. How many people in the country that ran the series of FTA's a couple of years ago actually knew what the fuck those FTA's did? How many people know the intricacies of tax cut economics? Debaters know link/political capital language because they invented it. Impact debates make it a question of research and analysis zeal instead of the ability to mechanize out of habit.
  11. I'll donate to something that doesn't advertise it being about 12,000 above its goal.
  • Create New...