Jump to content

ftswartz

Member
  • Content Count

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Okay

About ftswartz

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 03/27/1988
  1. Every strategy articulated so far besides case and a DA is terrible. Ks? Come on now, this case is not so amazing you have to resort to heidegger (unless thats already your thing). This is the blueprint to beat any of these small stupid affs.... Advantage CP + DA CP something to solve terror cooperation (anything really gitmo... racial profiling, pressure Israel... anything) + something to solve preemption (ban Iran strikes? declare a policy change of the US, also... anything really works here if you can find solvency evidence). Throw in a DA that does not link to the net benefits (aid links) and Bam, the case is slayed. The aff can't really argue rebuilding al-shifa is more important than closing gitmo, stopping torture or attacking Iran for their advantages. CP solves the whole case, risk of net benefit. Guaranteed they have no good add-ons, and if they read some health add-on or something then ... A. it has to be terrible because years disprove their harms B. 2NC CP out of that bitch Boom, game over.
  2. backfiles that apply to most topics.... so my answer would be any?
  3. Hey, if any one has old college backfiles (or anything recent) and wants to trade them, I have a few to trade, along with other high school files. Email me at ftswartz@hotmail.com if you are interested.
  4. ok, ankur my example of a dropped DA shows why your framework is dumb. If there are no warrants in an ENTIRE K DEBATE, for example, then how is a judge supposed to evaluate the round? A dropped argument is a dropped argument. Your standard for evaluating evidence is noble, but should not be applied universally. Yes, warrants are better than none. This is fundamentally different from your theory example, because sure I think maybe a team should not lose if they drop "Independenct voter the sky is blue". But if a DA is dropped, or a card that has no warrants is dropped, the other team has failed their burdon of disproving the claim, which in debate makes it valid. You hower intervene and say it is not valid until it meets ankurs standards of debatability, which blows for the debaters, and is arbitrary because there are competing interpretations of what a warrant might look like. You said..."it is incumbent upon debaters to make the necessary analysis to give warrants to the evidence. if that is missing, then how should one expect the judge to evaluate an argument? " This does not apply in my framework because im only saying when an argument is dropped, it should be given 100% weight as long as the claim is coherent. Its very easy for the judge to evaluate arguments. You also said... "your view encourages teams to slip analytics in the middle of cards and label them 'turns'." This is also false, because if you said "Turn - the sky is blue". Even if you grant the team 100% weight of their claim, it does not help them. The claim should be granted to them if the argument is dropped, and then weighed against the other arguments in the round. You then said... "there is no reason for a judge to ever give you a ballot because you have destroyed the judge's ability to adjudicate the round fairly by not permitting the judge to understand your arguments in context of those of your opponents." Its not hard to weigh competing claims without warrants, its how most rounds are decided. Any round where a team read the khalilzad card and the other team did not put any impact defense on the card is decided in my framework. That card only has a claim, and never will the warrants be fleshed out. But since it drops, the judge should just assume that loss of hege does indeed cause nuclear war. There are a whole host of claims in debate that are never warranted, and in those cases the judge should simply accept them until the other team disproves them (should not be hard with you in the back of the room). Mike Miller said... "If my reading is correct, what I understand Ankur to be saying is that any "card" (witness statement) read in a debate round for which there is no - or inadequate - foundation should be disregarded by the judge when he/she is rendering his/her decision. I couldn't agree more; an unfounded, undocumented statement is not valid "evidence."" Ok, this is what I mean by interventionism. If we decided debate rounds like court rooms, the judge would just vote for whatever side they personally agreed with, which is obviously bad for debate. Making arbitrary thresholds for evidence does a very similiar thing. Like my example above, all good judges will just assume khalilzad's claim is true (or any other short impact card, spicer, mead whatever) until the other team disproves it. This is how judges like dheidt evaluate rounds, I know this because ive seen their decisions. This is probably how you evaluate rounds too, I agree warrants always take precedence before non-warrants, but if its non-warranted claims vs. nothing, then the claim wins. Your interpretation would result in the judge having nothing to evaluate because by the 2NR / 2AR, the debate is so focused huge parts of a DA or case dont have warrants anymore because debaters simply dont have time. So an aff can just say in the 2AR "we have conceeded nuclear war impacts vs. their hippie K trash impact" and the judge has to assume those nuclear war impacts are true, warrants or not because the other team has not debated them. Oh, and yea I mistypes above. I meant 100 cards, not blocks.
  5. I heard that Harvard KT has read 100 pages in an entire negative block, but no way more than that could be in a 1NC. Oh and Ankur, I think that makes you an interventionist judge. If the team drops a DA that outweighs the case, and there are no warrents in the ev, I think you still have to pull the trigger for the DA.
  6. I doubt that card exists, it seems like government spending has very little impact on investments, spending arguments are usually more linked to the dollar. It seems like this is defense against a terrible... and non-unique DA. Oh, and that card above is kinda bad. Investor pullout of the markets is different than investors not buying our debt (IE investors can not buy stocks, or invest in our markets which causes the impact, even if they still buy our debt).
  7. Can some body post this... or post a link to this? Thanks
  8. I need the article that this card came from... if any one has it, that would be great. Bailey, 1990 (Norman A., Prof – City U New York, The World & I http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/subscribers/searchdetail.asp?num=17447) The question is not whether human life will be transformed-it will be. Nor is it whether that transformation will be good or evil-it will be both, as it always is. The question, how will we get there: Will we mindlessly follow the historical pattern of a violent collapse of the inflationary credit pyramid build up over the past thirty years, condemning an entire generation to the miseries, uncertainties, and dangers of another Great Depression? Or will we find the collective will and wisdom to manage our affairs well enough to avoid a repetition of that terrible time? The thirties, after all, began three months after the inception of the Great Depression and ended four months after start of World War II. This was not a coincidence. Tens of millions were killed and maimed in the Second World War. If another historical credit-liquidation cycle is allowed to take place in the usual chaotic fashion, the chances of another global armed conflict will be greatly increased-this time, not only would hundreds of millions (rather than tens of millions) be killed or wounded, but the very hopes and the future of mankind, as such might well be destroyed in the process.
  9. MSU is a public ivy and has a kick ass debate team.
  10. I can get you one after the TOC if that helps? I cant get it before because its on a computer I wont be seeing until like the week after. Just send me an email ftswartz@hotmail.com to remind me. Edit: Nice, some neg rep on this post.
  11. Ok, your interpretation seems to be a lot similiar to textual competition, which is something I dont really feel like getting into. But a few arguments. Your interpretation would limit out legitimate PICs. For example, gitmo. You should be able to PIC out of the ughyurs (sp) if the affirmatives says all detainess will be tried or whatever. This is not in the plan text, only the negative introduces the question of ughyurs. Your distinction between process and plan text seems to break down at this point, and seems kinda arbitrary. Your interpretation also allows affs to spike out of politics DAs by saying it happens late. The DA begged the question of when / how the plan goes down, so the affirmative by your interpretaiton can say, no wait normal means is next session of congress. You will say the perm changes this because the text of the CP changes this. I think functional competition is better for debate, if you disagree, then we can agree to disagree. Yes, I do think the delay CP is competitive. If the delay CP is bad for debate (which I will agree with you that it is) you should be able to defeat it on theory. Sure, I think negs should find other strategies. But theoretical objections to these CPs should be made external to competition arguments. These CPs are bad for debate. But allowing the affirmative to shift the meaning of their plan text upon the introduction of the negative strategies jacks neg ground. I mean, if your interpretation is just the negative cant inroduce a conditional timeframe to the plan, that seems to be a bit arbitrary. If what the negative introduces is different that what affirmatives should defend otherwise (temporality, enforcement, etc) than the CP should not change that. This would otherwise make most PICs not competitive, along with CPs to ban the plan (because the action of banning was only introduced by the negative) or even change the actor (courts CP if the aff says USFG), because the negative CP would only clarify what the aff said in the 1AC.
  12. I dont know about that, I mean the resolved debate is up for interpretation, and I dont feel like looking around for a shit load of definitions. But how could you justify that permutation but say that affirmatives could not advocate their plan in the future? It seems like affirmatives have to defend immediate implementation which would jack the genuine nature of consultation. Oh andd Msacko, I think most affirmatives would lose the consultation is normal means debate, unless they have a special aff (like I know stephen's peacekeeping aff had an ok shot at winning that argument). But for 99% of the affirmatives out there, we wont genuinly consult any one. I think there are other arguments to be made for the perm, im not a die hard consult fan. I just think saying the plan does not happen immediatly is not a very good interpretation of fiat.
  13. whats your warrant for that perm? (text comp.... consultation can happen during plan implementations etc...)
  14. Can some one post this card or give me the cite? Its the one about the tyranny of survival... says something about a "Pyrrhic victory". Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...