Jump to content

Screech

Member
  • Content Count

    853
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Screech


  1. TheScu is right - there are always biopower answers out there and most of them will still apply even if the 1AC clearly loses on the link debate. Impact takeouts and turns are probably the most effective strat, but even the perm debate isn't really that hard. Just use generic arguments that have been welll-established over the last 10 years or so.

    I don't think biopower is even the biggest K on the topic - I would just run straight-up statism. Mandatory national service is the ultimate example of state control. Then impact turn with RiMal and Machiavelli.


  2. There are several interpretations of negation theory, neither of which are abusive.

     

    1. Hypotesting-style negation theory (ie running Bush Good and Bush Bad). If the neg runs Social Security both ways, it isn't abusive because they are morons (it would be like saying a double bind is abusive). You just concede the better links and uniqueness on one and the better impacts on the other ("We concede social security won't pass and we are a concession on the bush bad, and that social security is awesome from bush good). Then you give a few warrants why the arguments you conceded are better than the other arguments they read, and they can't contradict what they said in the last speech (which really is abusive and you can make a big deal out of in the 1AR). They've just given you a new advantage to plan.

    The other thing you could say is that they made both arguments on each side, and we're conceding all of them, so it's like -x + x, which is 0. Basically, their arguments are a wash with themselves.

    2. Normal negation theory - just running two different levels that contain a performative contradiction (your DA is China and your K is security). This is only a mistake if you run a DA that links to a rhetoric K - saying that securitized rhetoric is bad and we're all gonna die if the state doesn't crack down on Muslims isn't really abusive, it just loses you any unique link on the kritik. I do agree with ILike2DB8's interpretation though, because the unique nature of a counterplan as a test of opportunity-cost rather than an actual advocacy (as opposed to a DA, which you would actually use as a justification for advocating the status quo) means you can contradict your K and not have to pay the consequences. It's basically only a DA and a rhetoric DA that can contradict, and even then only something like Security or Nuclearism that can really screw you over.


  3. AFRICA IS NOT BALANCED - it's a continuation of the dogmatization of debate. Debating all liberal, all the time is stupid and biased. The fact that you don't agree with conservatives only makes that more true, since the purpose of switchside debate is oh, I don't know, to SWITCH SIDES. The national service topic is the ONLY conservative topic in the last three years (and I think for at least a few years before that, but I can't be sure). Vote for it to preserve actual debate, not just to see who can roll harder left.


  4. I'll just answer this post, since it addresses the major issues and seems pretty cohesive.

     

    The africa topic is much better for a few reasons.

    First, as has been much repeated and relatively unanswered by proponents of the national service topic, is literature. There is simply an enormous disproporionality in the amount of topical literature on national service as opposed to africa, and for good reason: africa and our responsibility or lack thereof to help it out are simply much more important and relevant to our lives than the possibility of a national service requirement.

    First of all, this argument bites you in the ass. Who the hell can honestly say that helping people is bad? There are no heg/soft power links AT ALL on this topic. The BEST you could get is, maybe, some Malthus and a spending disad. You said it yourself - it's our moral responsibility to help Africa, and everyone knows it already. Where's the education? Besides, the aff would just run deont/racism in the 1AC and crush you with it.

    Second of all, there's plently of literature on the draft and national public service programs. There are empirical examples in the New Deal programs and in quite a few countries (Europe, Asia, Canada off the top of my head).

    Second, the national service topic is worded badly. The only intuitively reasonable, common-sense interpretation of the word "comprehensive" doesn't allow affirmatives to have the "squirrely" ground which seems to be the only way to create differentiated debates on the topic. The most intuitive interpretation is that it applies to the area of service which an affirmative provides.

    You're forgetting several important things.

    1. Parametrics - it's not the Aff's burden to prove the whole rez, just a part of it. More on this later.

    2. "Comprehensive" isn't a modifier of "national" but of "program" - the easiest and best counterdef is that comprehensive just means all-inclusive, i.e. everyone must take part. When the neg runs their "comprehensive means everything under the sun" violation, you just say depth>breadth, which is what the neg has been doing for the last 40 years. Is that too hard?

    3. The meaning of the modifier comprehensive changes according to the Aff's definition of the word "program." A program of comprehensive medical service is a hell of a lot different from a comprehensive draft - there are still multiple 1ACs without having to run whole rez. That means you can parametricize which service you provide, while still having it be comprehensive in the sense that it affects all Americans.

    4. Comprehensive is so unbelievably better than substantially - I could skip stones off of Sally Struthers' head and be topical under the Africa resolution.

     

    Third, there is no pressing need for a national service in the real world.

    I'm sorry, what? So military overstretch and the eventual destruction of all life on earth as a result of China's invasion of Taiwan isn't a pressing matter? The debate about public service vs. individual rights has never been more pressing. It's a major factor in every election (the draft, healthcare), deals with the key issues of poverty and class-based oppression (public works and service), and is key to reviving the US' stagnating economy (public works projects) as well as reviving national pride (all affs, with Rorty impacts maybe?)

    Anyway, since when is Africa so unknown? I remember my grandma (who is 65) telling stories about how HER MOTHER would say "there are kids in Africa who would love those unfinished yams" or some such. Granted, it's a shitty example, but the general American populace has had awareness and a direct motivation to action about Africa for something like the last century. Where's the unique education?

     

    Fourth is the K debate. I'm not saying that negative kritiks would become too repetitive on one side of the topic or another; i think that debaters always will gravitate to a k if they like it and make it relevant, and also that no matter what the k, due to the aff-centric nature of most of the responses made, k debates become pretty similar no matter what (except normativity.)

    1. This is debate. If you don't want to have to debate the K and are too much of a wuss to get some fucking impact turns and write a 2AC block, you lose. And complaining about Ks only means you aren't good enough to beat them. I love beating the K, frankly (not that anyone runs it in Oregon).

    2. There are several simple, cut-and-dried K debate solutions for next year

    - Do real research and actually win on the impact turn level

    - Do fake research, find a few Rorty cards, and still win

    - MAKE UP 2AC BLOCKS! Who cares if there's no literature by the national service authors? Analytics are just as good on the K.

    - Malthus

    - Util frontline

    3. I quote, "the national service topic forces affs into a defense of government policy and a defence of the subordination of citizens' choices to that policy". NO SHIT. The point of the entire resolution is to defend an idealogically conservative point of view. Debates in which the 1AC rolls hard left and the other rolls "harder" left are neither interesting nor insightful, but rather dogmatic and non-educational. It's called DEBATE, and sometimes you have to defend things you'd rather not. PLEASE quit now if you don't like it.

    4. If you're concerned about negative repetitiveness, you just don't take into account the sheer inventiveness of many of those who run the K and the affs who like to beat them on it. NO ONE!!! no matter how good they are can run only biopower the entire year and not be beaten on it. Aff teams wise up, it's not like they forget what someone has been running for the last five tournaments. 2AC blocks get longer, 1AR blocks get written, and hundreds of pages of evidence get churned out "just to beat that annoying biopower team." Besides, there isn't just biopower. Let's start a list, shall we?

    Narch CP

    Statism

    Objectivism (ah, good times)

    Foucault/Biopower/State of Exception/Whatever

    Nihilism

    Normativity

     

    This took me all of 30 seconds, and I'm only a noobish, mostly non-critical Oregon debater. Anyone more experienced want to have a go?

    Even if you're right and the neg will run the same K all year, the same is true for the Africa topic with Patriarchy/Imperialism masking.

     

     

     

     

    National Service the single best resolution I've seen (proposed or debated) since I joined debate during the Marine Resources topic. Don't screw this one up.

×
×
  • Create New...