Jump to content

dziegler

Member
  • Content Count

    3769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by dziegler

  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.
  12. Make sure all of your table of contents entries could be saved as titles for Word documents. E.G. when you convert to expando and see the list of the various pockets that come up, they can't contain \/:*?”<>|.
  13. I'll only vote for ASHTAR and e-prime. You can win any argument in front of me - as long as you tell me why it relates to those aforementioned arguments. Family Guy references pre-5th season will give you half a speaker point. Family Guy references post-5th season will lose you a half a speaker point.
  14. The problem is that, empirically, the way businesses operate is backwards to this model. Most businesses often find a way to cater to racists/homophobics/general douchebags under the guise of it being bad business to exclude them. However, these very same businesses oftentimes exclude minority groups one way or another because of prejudicial opinions of them. Reality is: businesses aren't completely rational, but do cater to said rationality. Bigots don't represent a minority of society - they oftentimes represent a majority, especially in smaller, localized towns. Even in larger towns, the impact of excluding minority groups isn't so seen as fluidity of travel/the ability to go across town for the 'white restaurant' is readily available. While businesses wouldn't exclude groups that would damn the business, it still can appeal to exclusionary policy due to individual ideology, e.g. they're racist. This is one of the reasons there's a distinction between de jure and de facto racism/sexism/insert ism here. It's a fact that prejudice exists. It's merely a question in the laws eyes to whether law that exists either directly causes said racism or has no effect and that racism existing in the status quo is just the result of societal preference. In a world where the realities of prejudice are as I noted above, a lack of law regulating it may constitute a de facto support of such exclusionist tendencies. That's probably why the law was passed the way it was. Not to mention the fact that the societal standard is still allowed to be free. There's a reason why guys in cowboy hats and boots don't go to the hipster kids bar. There's also a reason you don't see a ton inner city kids at the rodeo. There's still free choice allowed - there's just a preemptive limit on bad shit you can do to individuals that don't fit.
  15. Repeat after me: "I hate black people." And wait.
  16. Well, more than the plan is mutually exclusive with the alt. It's probably impossible to endorse the representations/assumptions of the 1AC and endorse the alternative. Competition for the floating PIK is rarely based on the plan, but the particular representations and assumptions of the 1AC.
  17. I disagree. Turkey would logically be included because it's a key part of our Middle Eastern presence. It's one of the few countries in that region of the world that allies itself with the US. To leave Turkey out of a discussion about our military presence is to sort of have a resolution with a giant elephant in the room. Kuwait is significant because our presence there implicates both Iraqi and Iranian policy. There's advantages to be found - it just hasn't been researched by those denouncing it as of yet.
  18. There's a torrent website mod somewhere shaking his head right now. This is like pirating a Nirvana album, only to have the torrent contain 18 copies of Smells Like Teen Spirit.
  19. Just a few things: 1 - Get cancer before saying "C WHAT I DID THUR!?" ever again. 2 - You clearly are underestimating the tricks an aff can deploy on a T flow - after a season of 1AR's defending cases that were virtually anti-topical last year, here's a few: A - We meets serve as no links. We interpreted military presence to mean pretzels. 2NR didn't go for T, and their hard power DA doesn't have a card talking about pretzels. That's a problem. B - T is far from the only no-risk argument. Condition CP's, Consult CP's, Word PICs, most kritiks, etc. C - 'We meets' are just defense against legitimate abuse claims that prevent negs from going for their ideal DA/K. An aff counter-interprets substantially, etc., and the neg assumes this is a 'we-meet' when, really, the aff is just saying a different point of view is better. All of sudden, DA's get mucked. 3 - Your only real answer to framing reasonability as a question of education over fairness is "Limits solve education." This is a totally vacuous claim that: A - doesn't answer the arg of 'limits are arbitrary - your 'ideal' limits is a standard that no negative in the country premises research on, and if they do, they're stupid and probably debate for UNT", and B - Just ain't true. In-round education is minimal at best, since most teams default to generics with a link card that says two words that are in the aff plan text even if the topic is small. This also establishes a false dichotomy of 'a select few topics are sweeter for education than many' without ever articulating why the education of those few topics is any better than others outside the scope of the given interpretation. Even if we learn more about a politics disad and CP b/c the topic is small and you can reasonably predict that the strat is competitive against half the affs that will get ran at a given tournament, that education is sort of silly if you're excluding areas of the topic that are sort of central to the discussion. I guess now is the point to talk about the elephant in the room, and that is the difference between critical thinking and lit-based education. You seem to think that critical thinking/preparation/these sorts of artificially established norms are good for the community, and to an extent, they are b/c they don't make final rebuttals risk of an impact vs. risk of a link. But the 2 hours I debate a person is nothing compared to the hours I will put into prepping the strategy to deploy there. Education doesn't occur when a team reads an aff and I have a sweet strategy. Education happens when I'm forced to read a bunch of random shit to prepare for things. If education is a question of what we research vs. what's easy to prepare, then clearly the aff should get a ton of leeway on T debates b/c the alternative is really really stale, limited debate without any real merit to larger knowledge about the topic that is politically useful.
  20. The argument isn't that the aff shouldn't be held to every word in the resolution, but rather, that the process by which the negative has come to interpret the resolution is not a universal standard, and therefore, not reflective of the way actual prepping/neg disad and case strategies are written. This requires a framing argument that T interpretations should be premised on the way actual debate practices go down, otherwise, it's absolutely arbitrary. There's no reason to reject the aff b/c they didn't use a model the neg outlined. Many others, e.g. their we/meet and reasonable counter-interp claims, are probably 'good enough.'
  21. No doubt you should be making a side bias argument on conditionality debates. All I'm saying is that, if we replace 'reasonablity' with 'RVI', you're warrants justify RVI's. Look - I'll even do that: Offense-defense paradigm bad is a reason to prefer RVI's. It is a no risk proposition for the negative, making the argument inherently neg biased. RVI is the only way to even the playing fields. The reason I say that warrant isn't that helpful is because if the neg goes for T exclusively in the 2NR, the 'no risk argument' analysis doesn't make sense anymore. Just like an RVI. If that's the boat being rocked in the 2NR, it's an all-or-nothing move for the neg. This is why contextualizing reasonability as a framing device for holding education prior to fairness is a better argument. Because even if the neg is all in on T (even as early as the 1NC, in 1-off framework debates being a prime example), it doesn't mean that their interp isn't arbitrary in the context of the aff. Aff contextualization is key because of the regressive nature of competing interps - you can always find a Black's Law definition that excludes the aff. Even if your standard for competing interpretations being ok is for the interp to be contextual, who defines contextual? Is this an expert in the field? Talking about the concept in general? Talking about the aff exactly? The obvious arbitrariness of any stance either way means that crucial education could get thrown to the wayside, especially since there's rarely, if ever, a pure community consensus on what a particular word or phrase means. This short circuits limits arguments quite effectively because, since there is no universal interp by which to base research on, the limits args by the neg just don't make sense. The only thing the community has ever had is a 'general guess', which is why it doesn't make sense to hold affs to a higher standard on T than that. Note that if the neg is all on T at any point of the debate, this argument is just a big way of saying, "Even if we're not the most topical aff on the topic, we're good enough. Don't reject us - reject the neg because their interp would exclude our education and our education is good for x, y, z reasons." EDIT: This is in the context of T debates. The arguments are substantively more different in a world of general theory like Condo.
×
×
  • Create New...