Jump to content

heggo

Member
  • Content Count

    243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-17 Bad

About heggo

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  1. Sure, I'll send it to you. Just email me.
  2. The course of actions is: If you are a neg: PLAN PLAN! If you are an aff: Kick case, go all in on a counter kritik.
  3. Well, I suppose you could cut some Coulter evidence that amounts to a rigged game sort of deal. I am sure that she wrote something about how the media is too liberal, ditto those who indict her, etc. You could use that to set up a sort of rigged game argument, which would simply say your evidence is biased against Coulter/the neg team. I don't think it would be a great argument, but it could be done. If you want to bother with a rigged game framework on your disad, I mean. PS I think there are better religion good impacts in the radical orthodoxy good files that were put out. I am not sure, but I think Northwestern and WFI put them out.
  4. Thank you for the information. I wont do it then.
  5. I have a slight problem with realism debates-realism, being a theory that explains how states interact, isnt something that you embrace as a policy option. For instance "realism will never go away" doesnt answer "your aff will lead to more wars in order to maintain hegemony" and "realism inevitable" vs "realism isnt inevitable" doesnt disprove a kritik and treats realism as a policy option that people adopt. It isnt.
  6. I recently found what would appear to be a kritikal aff based off of the book "Specters of Marx" by Derrida. I dont know very much about this book at all, and after reading the 1ac I could hardly isolate whether the aff was pro or anti capitalism. After re reading it a few times, I understand it to mean that capitalism is bad, marxism is bad, communism is bad, so we should (?????). I dont really understand the alternative he proposes, or most of any part of it.
  7. I have some answers. PM me. Also, the CP isnt bad at all-there is good ev as to how solving society first is best, and leads to solvency in the military. If the aff is straight up homophobia I think the cp could win. Especially if the net ben is militarism, because then a hege add on is terrible as an answer. Plus, the neg can always go all in on gay rights movements disads.
  8. If you kritik a purely kritikal aff you have to be very careful. Your kritik has to be based off of the assumptions of the plan, not a more shady link like "expanding the peace corps leads to militarism because of bulldozers going through forests" or something like that. You also have to be careful that your kritik isnt solved by the aff, like if the aff has a cosmopolitanism advantage dont run a generic nationalism kritik.
  9. I'm only interested in the theory and topicality aspect of this debate. You see, this is just an example and I already have something interesting worked out.
  10. So what does everybody think about this by way of topicality, theory, and overall legitimacy: The idea would be to run one over arching plan with planks that could rightfully be plans on their own. For instance, a plan text could go as follows: "Thus we stand resolved that the (USFG or some other actor) should establish a policy substantially increasing participation in the United States Armed Forces. Plank 1: (End Strength) Plank 2: (Special Operations) Plank 3: (Linguists)" All of the planks are part of an overall idea of improving the military and US hege as a whole, but could stand alone also. So would this be legitimate? The only problem I can think of would be the topicality violation "a" and that their may be a legit abuse story. Also, would a good response to the "a" topicality violation be that the end strength, spec ops, and linguists are all part of one large policy and that real world policies arent 1 pointed? A definition of policy as a goal could support that interpretation. (Please dont lecture me about how this would be terrible because hege is bad or because it links to militarism or some other reason specific to the strategy as a whole. Please keep it on theory and t.)
  11. I was at a tournament and someone ran a kritik of my aff with the authors being Hursley and Frost and the book being "Moral Cruelty." The link appeared to be our saying that you must always vote to prevent heterosexism, in other words a totallizing ethic. However, I think there is much more to this kritik and if anyone has ever heard of it before (or has an electronic copy that they could give me) I would be very happy if someone could explain it to me, along with the general ideas that Hursley and Frost put forth. Thanks.
  12. I have Coon Hardy and the Zs. heggoh@gmail.com
  13. heggo

    Floating PICs

    Could someone please explain floating pics and give me an example of them. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...