Jump to content

BlackEagle

Member
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About BlackEagle

  • Rank
    Registered User
  1. Some people like to divide their blocks up between their offense and their defense. It is also possible, like you said, to structure them like (T) with your interpretation of how it should be (i.e. "Our interpretation is that the affirmative gets exactly one permutation per negative advocacy." for a multiple permutations bad block.) and then reasons why to prefer your view of debate.
  2. That's not really necessary. Significance is more or less implied in the statements of the harms, and there are many cases structured such that the solvency for each advantage is at the end of the harms claims. In fact, because he has so many different advantages, each of which requires specific solvency, his decision to put solvency at the end of each advantage is probably a better choice. Agreed. This is begging for an extra-topicality violation, and you don't really seem to have a reason for why reanaming the War on Terror would be a good thing.
  3. The number of possible harms areas / cases is huge. For example, you could have a case that attempted to get more engineers, nuclear physicists, high-level scientists, etc., which would be key to research on stuff for some high-tech area. It would make for some really interesting debates that would be quite different from anything on this or last year's topic.
  4. I definitely prefer the Africa topic, but I personally was hoping that Postsecondary Education would have been the chosen one.
  5. Does anyone know what it took to break?
  6. After Round 6: Jesuit Dallas OS is 3-3 Woodward Acadamey RS is 3-3 Not as sure about these: Woodward Acadamey BB is 6-0 Edgemont BK is 5-1 Georgetown Day ZZ is 4-2 Additionally, Kinkaid HT dropped to Georgetown Day BB in Round 6.
  7. Going in to round 5, Jesuit Dallas OS is 3-1.
  8. QFA. And remember that for harms, you can claim pretty much any conflict that falls under the resolution. PMCs aff. is just awesome...
  9. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the card. It's a nice impact for that CP/aff. If they aren't one-in-the-same, both cards exist independently because I remember us running those statistics/facts.
  10. The perm isn't severance at the point at which they read their "X will say yes" to the plan cards. This means that the perm won't sever because the aff. concedes those cards in favor of the perm. If the team DOESN'T read those cards, then they haven't proven solvency for the plan's advantages. In the second case, you're left comparing the CP NBs vs. the aff. advantages. If I'm wrong about any of this, please, point it out. In my opinion, the best strategy against Consult X CPs is to use this perm and then try to turn/outweigh the NBs. Turning/outweighing the NBs. can be hard though, against a well-prepared team.
×
×
  • Create New...