Jump to content

Mocal

Member
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Mocal

  • Rank
    Registered User
  1. Even if you had a reason to run this instead of just doing a case turn, it is not competitive. A Patriot Aff will have to revise/apeal certain sections of the Patriot Act, not the whole thing. If your counterplan makes it permanent (They are about to do this anyway, permanent just means it is not automatically repealed after set period of time, it lasts until there is a vote to repeal it), then perm do both. There is no reason why you can'tr repeal the 1 or 2 sections and make the rest permanent. If the CP is to expand the powers (this is done by adding new sections, which they are about to do anyway), there is no reason why you can't perm do both, and repeal some sections and add some other. Since all the evidence will be specific to those specific section the perm solves everything.
  2. If your going to run this run it with a public popularity politix disad, that way if they say no one will donate because its unpopular you get a huge link to the disad.
  3. Although I think this is a bad case, If you just change the actor to the Supreme Court I think this could be topical. If you just have the SC declare detaining these animals as unconstitutional that is as on face topical as you can get. It really is irrelevant whether or not animals are protected under the constitution because it doesn't say "decrease the US's authority to violate civil liberties." The res says "Decrease USFG authority to detain without charge" so all that matters is that the US has the authority to detain them in the SQ. Also it won't be ET because you don't have to have them apply the whole constitution to animals, you could just argue that this one ruling will set the precedent for everything else. While it could be argued this is still ET, I think you can win that your PT is topical but your advantage is not.
  4. While it is true chosing the ground helps, no strategy is viable without time pressure. The aff has infinite prep, goes first and last and the whole debate is structured in their favor. Well, that is except for one this, the neg block. The debate is won or lost in the neg block and the 1AR. And without time pressure on the aff the aff will always win.
  5. Ankur, I disagree, completely oncase is not only not as good of a strategy as offcase and some on case, but it is not even a viable strategy against a decent team. The primary reason why it is not viable is that it doesn't matter how many no solvency, and no harms arguments you have, there is always a risk for solvency of something. And for inherency, all cases are likely (unless they are bad) to be atleast partially inherent. And when you have no impacts to weigh against the case, the aff team only has to prove that they improve the world the tiniest amount. This all changes with case turns obviously through, but there are only so many good case turns that you can run. And no matter how many you read, a smart affirmative will spend a lot of time on those, and relatively no time on the defensive arguments. This applies to defensive argument too, you can read 8 minutes of oncase, but can you read 8 minutes of good oncase? Also to answer your point of like analyzing the case and pointing out the contradictions: First of all a good affirmative shouldn't have enough contradictions for you to win on. Second, this is helpful and should be done in conjunction with on case and off case. To answer the original question, it is true that all on case debate has died out, however the best debates occur with a combination of on case and off case. This is a much more effective strategy for many reasons. First and most importantly, it gives you more strategic options at the end of the debate. If you run all oncase, well you can only go for case in the 2NR. The aff will know which few of those arguments you can go for and spend a lot of time on them. When you have T, a CP, a DA, and Case. You can go for T, you can go for the CP, the CP and the DA, the DA and Case, and if there is enough good case just case. This means the affirmative can be less prepared for what they know your going for because they have to cover more bases. Secondly, time pressure. The negative's only advantage is time pressure. Everything else in a debate is leaning towards the aff. While it is true when used in combination with off case the on case increases time pressure, when used alone it leaves the aff with relatively no time pressure. Firstly because they know which ones are good and what your going for. Second, many of your arguments with be similar, if they are next to each other the aff can group, if not they just say extend my answers. The maximum time pressure is off case and on case togethor is maximum time pressure for several reasons. First, your only going to have your good arguments on case, those are the only ones the aff needs to spend a lot of time on. Remember good oncase args are great time pressure. Bad on case arguments will take you more time to read them than them to answer them. Second many off case arguments, like T, can be read in 30 seconds and the aff has to spend a minute on it. Third and arguably most importantly, CPs and Kritiks allow you to not defend the status quo. In many cases the SQ is indefensible. Genocide is the perfect example. This leaves you with only one real option, that peacekeeping increases genocide. Look to two paragraphs ago for about how having multiple options is good. Also, in this case the aff would be very prepared for this. More importantly on the subjects of CPs and Ks, even if the SQ is not indefensible, its always going to bad. This puts the aff an extra step ahead of you. CPs and Ks in most cases are simply better options.
  6. I am getting sick of typing long posts so I am going to simplify this down to the only argument that matters. The one I said about how the neg has to prove there are more or different cases under the aff's interp than their's. I have yet to see anyone argue this is not true, only that there are more cases under the aff's interp. (Someone correct me if this is untrue, the only one that I see could be a arg against it is the basketball thing...and as I said I did not understand that, or maybe the grammar thing, but I will get to that later) Obviously this is what you would argue. This is why this topicality arg sucks, because first in every speech you have to spend a relatively long amount of time winning that one argument before you get to the regular T debate. And then after that you still have to win the rest of the flow like any other T debate. (This is everything else we have been arguing) So I see no reason to run a T arg that at the very least has an extra hurdle than most, and at most (as I have been arguing) is a useless arg even after than first point. I see every one of these T debates coming down to whether or not combinations of plans is more than just the plans. If the neg loses this arg, the T debate is over, if the aff loses the still can win on other arguments. As I keep saying I think if you are prepared to debate them separately you can debate them togethor. People keep giving ways that combining them could somehow skew the debate, but these are unlikely situations and no one still has been able to give me an example of two cases (from next year's or any topic for that matter) that when combined actually create these weird situations they are thinking up. The only possible way I see getting out of this argument that I have continued to empasize for awhile now is to claim that because of the way the resolution is worded, yours is the only grammatical and therefore true one. As I have said this is still dependent on the above arg because grammar's impact is predictability and a brightline. (which go away when the neg loses that arg) There was one person awhile ago who pasted a block of impacts to grammar, and I answered everyone and they went conceded. However the point was made tht there is a way around thius argument, but every one of those argument was pretty bad except for the ones about predictability and brightline. Like one said that if we are ungrammatical the UN is going to invade the US....
  7. I have no idea what you just said. Something about basketball is all I got. If you would explain this in English I could respond. In the mean time I will explain what I was emphasizing before. The aff will always win that they increase neg ground, because it is just true. Every other standard (limits, predictability, brightline, and reasearch burden) does not apply when both standards allow the exact same cases. The other two standards Grammar and Framer's Intent, as I have explained, only act as a prerequisite to other standards. For example, Grammar is important because it provides predictability and a brightline. But as long as the aff proves that the same cases are allowed under both interps, as I just explained those standards become null. Which means neg ground is the only standard left, which the aff wins. No sane judge would vote for a neg that didn't prove the aff allows more or different cases than they do. This has already been argued several times but I will argue it again, I guess. Sure if you take combinations there are "more" cases. However this is irrelevant because if you are prepared to debate them separately, you are prepared to debate them togethor. Lets take a case from this year as an example. Two commonly run cases are Sudan and Liberia.(assume they are both topical for this example) If you have research done, and knew they were topical, then if someone runs them togethor it is no different. What the resolution mandates is up for debate, that is the entire point of topicality. Just because you think its "obvious" doesn't mean the judge can assume its true before he judges the topicality debate. Why not just stand up in the 1NC and say "Its obvious our definition is the only real one" and sit down? Also its obvious to me genocide is bad, but some people argue and win on genocide good. 90% of good (or even all CP) are PIC. In 30 seconds off the top of my head the only non PIC CP run this year I can think of is Withdraw from the UN. And even that can be a PIC, leave the UN and do the PKO unilaterally. Why? Because PICs are a lot better. Who cares about the PIC theory debate, if you don't drop it you shouldn't lose on it. The reason why PICs are better is because it means there is less about the CP you have to defend. Because the aff can't argue against there case. Futhermore you don't seem to understand how amazing the CP do one side when they do both is. In your CP situation, the aff argues that your CP doesn't solve and reads some DAs that link to it. Which is standard CP argument. In my CP situation the aff can't argue that the CP doesn't solve or read DAs against it because that means its their case also. This means the aff will have 0 offense. And I would hope I wouldn't need to explain how bad going into a CP debate without offense is, or atleast a no solvency. See above how grammar is irrelevant when the same cases are allowed.
  8. I speant 5 minutes to find it, I am sure there are better ones out there. Also you keep forgeting that in this case framer's intent has no impact. In order to win this T debate the negative has to prove that there is atleast one case the aff can run under the aff's interp and not the neg's. AS LONG AS THE AFF WINS THE SAME CASES ARE ALLOWED UNDER EACH THE AFF WILL ALWAYS WIN. If you don't do this, then the aff will always prove their counter def is better for debate, even if its not the "real" definition.
  9. In order to win this T debate the negative has to prove that there is atleast one case the aff can run under the aff's interp and not the neg's. AS LONG AS THE AFF WINS THE SAME CASES ARE ALLOWED UNDER EACH THE AFF WILL ALWAYS WIN. In order to win this T debate the negative has to prove that there is atleast one case the aff can run under the aff's interp and not the neg's. AS LONG AS THE AFF WINS THE SAME CASES ARE ALLOWED UNDER EACH THE AFF WILL ALWAYS WIN. Just for emphasis. This argument will get you nowhere because you have to prove what the resolution mandates before using it. You prove that by winning your T argument. Thus you can't use it as a reason to prefer your interp because you haven't won it yet. 1. This argument will get you nowhere because you have to prove what the resolution mandates before using it. You prove that by winning your T argument. Thus you can't use it as a reason to prefer your interp because you haven't won it yet. 2. You lose one argument, and gain a thousand. Most importantly you gain CP do one side 1. Once again you can never prove you are given "THE" ground because: This argument will get you nowhere because you have to prove what the resolution mandates before using it. You prove that by winning your T argument. Thus you can't use it as a reason to prefer your interp because you haven't won it yet. 2. Also once again You lose one argument, and gain a thousand. Most importantly you gain CP do one side.
  10. No smart aff would do this. If they did you could always argue severance bad, advocacy shift bad and win on it because its massive abuse. As I said in another post there can be major plan shifting with any aff. Run a spending DA, after the aff clarifies they spend 2 billion in CX, oh well we are severing we send money, we only send troops. There are many other ways too. 1. Don't punish us for what we haven't done? 2. Its different than most potential abuse. First as I stated above you can do it with any case. Second the aff has to take a major step that is abusive under any circumstances. This is different than normal because like a potential abuse where the aff can non-unique your disad, non-uniquing is not bad, just in that circumstance it is. argue that in a round AFTER the aff does it and you will win Same cases = same predictability Same as above I am not sure if its in the post you are quoting but I described in one how even in that circumstance the case is still less developed. You would still have to read solvency/harms for both sides instead of one. And less preempts to specific arguments from both sides. This is non-responsive, framers intent is dumb because they always intend for you to debate it out. You misunderstand the point of limts. The only real benefit limts provide is neg research burden. (which translates into your more specific attacks arg) But at the point where the same cases are allowed, just combinations of them, you have the same amount of researching to do and therefore the same amount of specific attacks. If you are prepared to debate them separately you are prepared to debate them togethor. obviously the same cases = the same brightline. In order to win this T debate the negative has to prove that there is atleast one case the aff can run under the aff's interp and not the neg's. AS LONG AS THE AFF WINS THE SAME CASES ARE ALLOWED UNDER EACH THE AFF WILL ALWAYS WIN.
  11. Since like three people are arguing with me now, I will answer each of you in a separate post. First Twist_of_Fate. Simply put the reason why this topicality argument is dumb is because the aff's interp will always allow the same cases as the neg's making all neg standards go away. Then the aff will have the added benefit of more neg ground. I brought this one to the top because it needs to be. There are several useable definitions but I think this one is the best: Either means both http://www.dictionary.com ei·ther ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thr, thr) 1. One and the other; each Now obviously this is taken out of context and ignores the word "or" but that is irrelevant if we prove it is better for debate. First of all the grammar standard in debate is good for two things, Predictability and Brightline. It is a prerequisite to those standards. We were arguing before and you seem to have conceded that the same cases are allowed under the same interp. You still haven't given me even one case that is allowed under my interp that can't be split up to two cases under yours. So at the point the same exact cases are allowed, there is the same amount of Predictability and Brightline so grammar is useless. Another thing, grammar is only what is commonly accepted by "intellectuals" and others. If the judge votes for my interp in essentially becomes grammatical for debate. same cases means the same predictability First of all I hope your joking with this. But the UN is not able to send a PKO to restore grammar and even if they could they could never invade America because we would veto and our army is stronger than their non - existant one. Thats nice, keep the rest of the world grammatical, we will take an interp slightly less "in context" that makes debate better. Mine is not arbitrary it is taken from a respected dictionary. No impact to democracy. the Soviets were communist and spoke Russian. Russian is grammatical. Korean has produced both communism and democracy and it is grammatical. Thats nice, keep the rest of the world grammatical, we will take an interp slightly less "in context" that makes debate better. No impact to keeping debate National. T is about defining definitions and defining which is better for debate. Which caused abuse and which has a potential for abuse. As long as you use a real definition from a real dictionary its fine. This card can only help me. This means we don't have to be completely grammatical. Also this makes it easy for me to claim that since English is flexible so once the judge votes for my definition it becomes grammatical. Never said grammar was bad, I said it was irrelevant in THIS SITUATION. Thats nice, keep the rest of the world grammatical, we will take an interp slightly less "in context" that makes debate better. Thats nice, keep the rest of the world grammatical, we will take an interp slightly less "in context" that makes debate better. Thats nice, keep the rest of the world grammatical, we will take an interp slightly less "in context" that makes debate better. You seem to keep forgeting that both interps allow the same cases. Same cases = same limits. Once again you seem to keep forgetting that my interp allows the same cases. You have no reason to complain when the aff has the same amount of ground and you have double the ground. Let me take the two possible situations as examples. The first is where the aff simply combines two different cases. Under this one obviously you have evidence for both sides. The only difference is the aff has claimed the SAME amount of ground, limits, predictability, brightline and neg research burden and given you double. Now you have several solid strategies. First argue against one case and CP do the other. With this strategy you still get to spend your 8 minutes (well more like 7:30 because the CP won't take you long) you want on one case. This strategy is good because you are spending 8 minutes where they have only speant 4 in the 1AC. This means two things. First they have less cards they can just crossapply over. And second their case is weaker. You will have an easier chance of winning on harms or solvency. Another great strategy is to read the offcase that link to both sides. A lot of the K's will, terrorism DA and many others. The Aff wants you to spend four minutes on each, so don't. The second situation (the more common one) is when the Aff has one plan that effects both. Its important to note that in this situation you still have an advantage even before the debate starts. The aff still has to read solvency and harm cards for both sides, which means a less developed case. Also its important to note that there is no case that even if it takes 1 action to affect both, can't be split up into two different cases. You conceded that before. So as I said above the aff has the same ground, limits, predictability, brightline and neg research burden and you have double the ground. In this situation you can do the CP do one side thing because every case can be divided up. Also this situation is absolutely no different from a debate where the aff just claims one side because it is just one case that affects advantages from both sides. So the only difference is that you have double the ground.
  12. 1. As I said before argue severance bad 2. Time can be just as screwed up under any plan. Say the affs plan in extra topical, they could just sever out of extra topical part after you speant both time with the topicality arg and maybe some args that linked to the ET part. OR You could spend 4 minutes with oncase args against that advantage plus some offcase that link only to it. 1. First of all there is no benefit to getting rid of the combination of two plans since its the same predictability/researching 2. Can you name a case that can effect both parts of the resolution and cannot be run as two separate cases each affecting only one half? Even if you can, there will be 1 or 2 at most and limiting 1 or 2 cases will be outweighed by the massive amounts of ground you gain. The problem with this is that you first have to win your definition. Thus you can't use it as a reason to prefer your interp because you have to win its untopical first. 1. Major severance perm abuse, so run severance bad. 2. And topical counterplans are bad why? I am not understanding what you are saying... Its simple, most of the offcase will link only to half the resolution. Doing both sides double the ground. See above too. The limits/predictability is the same, as best its a tiny bit better. This will be outweighed by the massive amount of ground you gain. This is mostly true but: 1. This is a very small number of cases 2. You still need solvency and harms cards for both sides instead of ones. Which means less on each side instead of having double the amount on one side of the Patriot aff. 3. It STILL makes it harder to preempt common args. Because now that the neg has double the ground, less of the args that can be run against you will have have answers to already in the 1AC. 1. Once again the framers meant for you to debate about it. 2. There is no impact to grammar. The only impact to grammar is predictability/brightline, at the point where the same cases are run it deosn't matter. And even if you prove a little predictability/grammar that, once again, is outweighed by the ground you gain. Copy and paste from above: 1. First of all there is no benefit to getting rid of the combination of two plans since its the same predictability/researching 2. Can you name a case that can effect both parts of the resolution and cannot be run as two separate cases each affecting only one half? Even if you can, there will be 1 or 2 at most and limiting 1 or 2 cases will be outweighed by the massive amounts of ground you gain.
  13. Wait so making the negative think is abusive now? It is possible to sever out part of your plan with any plan. You can sever an advantage or whatever Just because it is possible for the afirmative to do something really abusive isn't a reason to vote them down. If they do this then argue severing your plan is bad. For limits - there are the exact same cases allowed, just combinations of them too. Limits is only a standard because it makes it easy for predictability and reasearch burden. At the point where the same exact cases are allowed limits is a useless standard. For ground - First of all you have to prove you are entitled to that counterplan in the first place. Second, that is the only argument you lose. And it is replaced with a much better argument: Disad that only links to one side and CP do the other. Third, There is infinately more ground when you allow both sides to be run at the same time. By running only half the resolution in your plan half the DA, Case arguments, Kritiks and some of the counterplans instantly don't link. You should be thanking the aff for running both sides. Yes you should. You will have evidence and strategies for debating both sides separately so you will have them for debating them at the same time. It would be much easier to beat a team running both sides than one for several reaons: First you have more ground, which means a greater chance they don't have blocks/answers to your args. As stated above, argue against one half and CP do the other is a great strat. Second their case will be weaker. Instead of devoting a full 8 minutes to developing a case in the 1AC they essentially have to develop two. Instead of having 2-4 advantages from both sides they only get 1-2. "They" meant for you to debate whats topical. Framers intent is a dumb standard. The little predictability/brightline it gives is made useless since the same exact cases are topical under both interps At very best against a very crappy team you might be able to falsely prove that limits/predictability/brightline were hurt a LITTLE. But this will always be outweighed by the massive amount of ground you receive under the aff's interp.
  14. This is a horrible T violation, there is no abuse and there isn't even the slightest potential for abuse. Since you have to be prepared to both sides of the topic anyway there is no reason to vote on this. You will never win that your interpretation is better because you will have no standards. The only possible standard is grammar, which is also argued is that it is the prerequisite for all other standards. But when the aff interpretation can capture every other standard there is no need for a prerequisite. The aff interp will undoubtably be that you can do both sides at once. They have the same predictability and limits since it will just be combination of cases under the neg's interp. Plus most importantly the affs interp doubles neg ground.
  15. Well even if this is true, it still in no way undermines fiat, which seems to be the only reason everyone is saying politics are illegitamite. Certainly an aff team can make this argument. e.g. against a political capital DA, you could say a random Senator instead of Bush proposes the plan and spends his PC on it. However I disagree with this. In the absense of Aff specifying specifically it should go to the most likely. (Which obviously can be debated about) For example, Republicans are unlikely to support the UN through a PKO, so inorder for it to be passed it would most likely require Bush supporting and spending political capital to pass. However even if I am wrong about this, really the only politix IL this takes out is Political capital and focus, because the rest rely on perception. So as long as the plan is passed it works. Take olive branch for example. As long as democrats see Bush making concessions to them, the IL works. Now the obvious answer to my argument is, Bush will veto, 75% of Congress will override his veto. However this is at best link mitigation, since Bush is not the only Republican pushing for his agenda. It can even be turned by saying, this means more Republicans have to make a concession which feeds into the olive branch more.
×
×
  • Create New...