Jump to content

syme

Member
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About syme

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 08/12/1987
  1. syme

    EKNFL Congress

    results? this was yesterday, right?
  2. Okay, good to know. Iowa (specifically, Des Moines area).
  3. Can anyone point in the direction of a good guide for judging LD? I debated in CX and parli (and judge CX fairly regularly), but I've never really seen a real LD round and may have to judge it in the near future. I realize that this is probably a relatively controversial subject (or maybe not. Like I said, not much experience in LD), but if anyone out there can maybe link to something good, I'd appreciate it.
  4. Not to derail or open up a parli bashing session, but really? who?
  5. Sorry, I didn't mean to be unclear. There's a lot of great recent literature. I was speaking specifically to the supposedly "unbeatable" casese from 94-95, that I'm not sure have very recent lit (AIDS exclusion, etc).
  6. Several of these cases were run on the Civil Liberties topic in 2005-2006, so nobody who was on that topic will still be debating. I think that a lot of the cases you identify don't have much recent literature on them, or the laws that affect them have been modified over the past 15 years. The unaccompanied minors thing, for example, was changed around quite a bit when they folded the INS into ICE (plus some paranoid guys wrote a lot about it after 9/11 so there are specific links to a couple of disadvantages). On a lot of the other cases you mention, there's just not been much of anything written about them since the early 90s, which kind of makes them unattractive (or at least did back in 2006, I don't know if anything's changed since then). I only saw an HIV exclusion case once, although I did get my ass kicked by it.
  7. Five minutes of high school physics in the 2NR.
  8. God knows it's impossible to find links for that on any topic that doesn't deal with prisons.
  9. I gotta say, I like the immigration topic. I think that there are a wide variety of interesting affs (whether those affs are macro-level overhauls, affs that deal with specific groups of individuals - asylum seekers, children, migrant workers - country affs) with specific policy lit on both sides. There's also a lot of good generic neg ground to check back the wide variety of affirmatives (although counterplan ground might be limited to branch CPs), politics links, and internals to a wide variety of impact scenarios. There's plenty of decent K lit as well for people who like that sort of thing. Prison reform strikes me as an important policy issue that would actually get really old really quickly and (off the top of my head) doesn't seem to have a wide enough variety of good (policy-related) neg ground. Universal Health care seems like it would result in people being able to switch out their solvency mechanism and have exactly the same harms and advantages every round on the aff. I think everyone would get sick of it by the end of the season. Space would be pretty good. Not a fan of the elections topic. Not a lot of great impact scenarios on the aff, and I have a hard time thinking of good neg arguments (It seems like people write a lot of interesting articles about problems with the electoral system, but nobody bothers to refute those articles purely because they know they'll never be implemented).
  10. I understand that you're trying to prove the abuse claim. I guess what I was getting at is: if you have a solvency card that said that the plan would lead to the states doing something, for example, and they fiat the states doing something, couldn't you also prove the abuse that way? Essentially, they're fiating your solvency claim. I guess that doesn't give you the same magnitude of abuse, though, which you would need to turn a theory whine into something for the neg to worry about.
  11. Would you even need to have an entire advantage devoted to it? It seems like you could just have a solvency card - say, "States model federal guidelines" or something.
  12. syme

    Theory

    To an extent, it's probably just sort of an institutionalized practice among squads and perpetuated by coaches who teach at workshops, institutions, etc. However, it's not a difficult conclusion to reach. Why should an argument about, say, PICs be carded? It's either an appeal to authority - this coach says it, so it must be true - or it has warrants, in which case the debater (who, after all, does do debate and has at least some measure of expertise about the practice) can make the argument just as credibly. At least in my experience, reading cards for theory arguments (at least, ones that were specifically about policy debate - stuff like "counterplans must be non-topical" just doesn't get you anywhere - not because of some weird debate-culture-consensus, but because it just doesn't seem to do anything for the argument - it doesn't make it any more persuasive or give at any more weight in the round. I say this as someone who, as a novice, did read carded theory arguments once or twice in East Kansas, debated against teams that have read "evidence" for theory arguments out of textbooks, and as someone who has judged rounds where it was done. On preview, PhilIanDumer made the above argument in a more extended way, but I've already typed this out so here's some additional thoughts: Most theory cards are about ten to fifteen years old. Inevitably, the argument essentially came down to "this textbook says that counterplans are cheating. vote aff." About the only way I could see a carded theory argument be more persuasive than a debater simply making the argument is if it were attached to some sort of predictability argument or were trying to make a case that a 'commonly accepted debate standard' existed (for example, that cases must meet a prima facie burden or that presumption existed); you could use the fact that a piece of evidence was in a textbook or in the Rostrum as evidence that this is the most common practice in debate and thus the one you could predict and that teams should stick with that practice because predictable debate practices make the round better. Even then, though, that's not a very good argument, because it doesn't seem to allow for creative, innovative argumentation or changes in debate practices - and say what you will about contemporary debate, but I'm pretty sure most people are glad that we don't read plan in the 2AC. So in short, yeah, there's a 'consensus' that cutting evidence on theory is pretty much a waste of time, but it's not as if a couple of teams decided one day that theory evidence isn't necessary. If you can come up with a reason why reading evidence for theory is either necessary or a good idea, I'd be interested in hearing them. In the interest of full disclosure, I compete in a form of debate where bringing cut evidence into a round isn't even allowed, so I may come down a little heavily on the "cutting cards on theory is a waste of time" side of things. apotter53: If you're attending tournaments in Kansas where you're getting into even somewhat complicated theory arguments, then having evidence probably isn't going to do you too much good. If you're attending smaller tournaments with more parent/lay judges, then you might see if you can hunt down a copy of Hensley and Carlin's "Mastering Competitive Debate," which seems to be the most commonly used debate textbook in Kansas and which, as I recall, has some basic theory stuff in there. It had a seventh edition come out in 2005, but I'm not sure if it's still in print, and I can't really say that it would have a lot of counterplan and kritik theory. The NFL's Rostrum occasionally has articles on policy which discuss various debate practices, and some older issues have articles about the advent of kritik debate. Like I said, though, these are bound to be a little out of debate for most tournaments where you're likely to see kritiks. It might be good to keep around for tournaments with varied judging pools, like regionals and state; I can't remember what classification Buhler's in these days, but odds are good you'll have a wide range.
  13. Expanding on what diacritic points out: You double the links that the neg can use, and you reduce the amount of 1AC time you have for any particular technology, which makes it harder for you to leverage your 1AC evidence in the 2AC. I can see the neg making some theory whine about a moving target or a lack of a solvency advocate, but that probably wouldn't be very persuasive to a judge. Besides, why would they want to do that? That would reduce the amount of time they had in the 1NC to read case turns against one side of your case or the other.
  14. I'm not sure what you're saying makes sense. If the plan text is topical, the plan is topical. If they say "The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States by assassinating God" or something that is not actually topical, then it's not topical; just saying the resolution as part of plan text doesn't make it topical. I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're asking very well, though, so if this seems like a non-answer, I'm sorry.
×
×
  • Create New...