Jump to content

lickingbluefrogs

Member
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About lickingbluefrogs

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 05/28/1989

Profile Information

  • Name
    Lianna E.
  • Biography
    Babies are delicious...
  1. Yes, you can be sarcastic and aggressive. But unless you're in front of a judge who's a fellow jackass, try not to be downright mean.
  2. See the other thread on 1ARs.
  3. True dat. 5 good Answers are way better than 15 okay ones. Word economy, and going fast is key, as well as sticking preempts to args. in the 2AC so you can extend and cross-apply them. As the teams you debate against get faster and more efficient in the neg block, as a 1AR you may find yourself in a bad position. Sometimes, no matter how fast you are, there is no way to cover everything. In that case, go for your best answers. You can concede strategic arguments to answer back other args. And - I don't know if this is a good idea to do until you're more comfortable with debate, in front of the right judges, and pretty desperate, but you can do things like kicking case and going for your DA link turns. For example, if the neg team ran an intl. actor CP with a politics da and then case args and T, and they went really heavy on case in the 2NC, you can kick case (if they have no/very little actual offense on it) and go for your link turns and answer T in the 1AR. Thus, you turn back the net benefit of the CP and the advantage to your plan is politics, and the neg is forced to go for what you're winning on. If you think strategically in the 1AR, the debate is on your grounds - you don't have to go for the more difficult stuff to pull off, just think. You force the negative to go for what YOU're winning on, which rocks. Sorry if someone else posted something similar, I was too lazy to read everything.
  4. If they put a few link turns and non-uniques on it, should I bother reading more impacts? Won't that just help them, so should I spread them out on the link debate in the block by reading more links? Or should I read more impacts anyway?
  5. I run Sudan (I hate it, but our coach forces all the novices to run it). How should I argue that we meet...because I don't think we do, at all. The cross-x was pretty embarassing once on this point - I'd rather not repeat the experiment. I have all teh counter-standards and counter-def stuff, I just need a logical reason why I meet the negs interp...
  6. Someone told me about a UN Ordering K. Does anyone know what it says?
  7. Cuomo talks about our depictions of war and peace. The patriarchal militarist focus is on negative peace, which is just the ending of war at specific flash points and the concentration on ending the war at those flash points, which ignores the daily violence against womyn Positive peace is when we go past looking at peace as only the absence of war, but instead concentrate on getting rid of this daily violence. Or at least that's my basic understanding of it from hitting Gender cases...
  8. There are three types of kritiks. Ontological - they question the fundamental assumptions of the aff - the reasons why they propose their case, the way they look at the world and their definition of meaning. Methodological - they question the methods you use to implement your plan, saying that the assumptions behind the method are fundamentally flawed. Discursive - they question the language you use, your representations of the world through your rhetoric, claiming that you construct hierarchies and exclude with it because language shapes reality The kritik is basically an argument that questions teh assumptions you make. They can function only in the round, what is called "pre-fiat", assuming that the plan won't actually pass in the real world and so the discourse and waht you advocate is a reason the judge should vote on. Or they say that you have to reject the affirmative because their assumptions are flawed, even before you look at case. They can also function in a fiat world as a solvency takeout or a case turn because they can't solve with flawed assumptions and the flawed assumptions lead to replications of their harm. Sometimes people say that if you like use racist language, you should be voted down instanty regardless of anything. Yeah, and then the kid who explained this all to me told me I should probably not run one until next year, but that if anyone ran it againt me, I shoudl perm it like I woudl a counterplan and say that fiat is good and we should only look at the fiat implications.
  9. I'm a 2N - if the aff puts like three link turns on the politix da in their 2AC, what should I do in my 2NC? Yeah, this is a pretty stupid question, but should I just extend my links and read like one-card defenses and more !s? I just need help taking Politics in the 2NC...even if you don't wanna answer my specific question, please give me tips!
×
×
  • Create New...