Jump to content

I<3topicality

Member
  • Content Count

    1237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

About I<3topicality

  • Rank
    Regular
  • Birthday 08/30/1991

Profile Information

  • Location
    arizona
  • Occupation
    debating

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't think that's accurate. Plenty of critiques don't have texts. "PIKs" are criticisms that end up solving the affirmative by doing it -- just through a different mechanism that avoids the link.
  2. I don't think that is an answer to textual competition, though. Their argument is that there is no severance because the counterplan and plan are not mutually exclusive because the words in each of the texts don't 'contradict' each other. Meaning, the plan could actually be the counterplan because there is no mutual exclusivity. Obviously severance becomes an argument if they go for functional competition outweighs, but just saying severance bad doesn't really answer the thesis of textual competition.
  3. Arguments are being conflated - Nisarg is saying that the implementation of capitalism sometimes causes violence. Though this is obviously true, there is also another argument which others are making, namely that capitalism as a system is bad because it necessitates commodification. Well, that may be true, but an economist would say thats necessary for incentives - the cornerstone of innovation, value, and action. Saying capitalism as a whole is bad is certainly a more sweeping statement, thus more likely to be inaccurate, than saying its implementation can be rather poor at times. The debate argument, though, probably gears more on the "sweeping" side; however, a strategic team would emphasize the 1AC's particular implementation more so than the entire theory because it creates more insulated offense.
  4. I just want to make clear that I was not trying to criticize them -- but recognizing the tournaments which one has done well at seems to be an important determinant of the points they should get. For example, winning Long Beach has little meaning in comparison to winning MBA...or even quarters of MBA (at least I think that is a tougher feat.)
  5. lol no offense, but I don't think Alta should count as a tournament this year given the quality of teams there. I thoroughly enjoyed it last year, but for some reason this year, no one good enlisted -- 2 or so good teams max, one of which was Rowland Hall; but that doesn't qualify as tough competition because prelims is ballgame and outrounds you barely need to break a sweat. But I don't know the macro picture of everything really; I just wanted to make the comment about Alta since I was astonished about the poor competition this year. Quick edit, I'm sure someone has realized how silly this is, but given how well Damien has been doing -- and well does not mean go to 10 tournaments and break at all of them, it means win percents at tough tournaments -- I'm incredibly surprised they aren't top 5. Not to start a controversy, but just something to think about given their performance at Greenhill, Glenbrooks, the round robins, winning USC, etc. Last comment for me though since I don't know that much this year!
  6. I want to preface this by saying that I respect all of Rowland Hall's debaters -- I think they are very personable people, and Mario/Andrew are pretty talented. But I think what your comment doesn't take into account is the quality of tournaments. I don't follow debate much anymore, but occasionally I look at tournament results; I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that they attended Greenhill, St. Marks, Glenbrooks, or some of the other really tough ones. Though I see they will be at MBA, I think it might be a little early to make this declarative of a statement "khack211." GL to all the contenders for the award though -- it's a big accomplishment!
  7. Hey pal, I wasn't aware that the mature way to disagree was to neg rep people, but hey what do I know Most counterinterpretations aren't very good, and the ones that are have substantive reasons why they either create better limits/ground. That make sense buddy? lol @ reasonability being an equalizer. Did you just get beat on T a lot when you were young?
  8. I rarely see the impact to T as being fairness; it seems good teams articulate the impact of cost benefit analysis which is the internal link to education, and vote negative on presumption because if they're not topical, voting affirmative wouldn't be affirming the resolution. No teams ever identify an internal link to reasonability. Ultimately the violation is a reason why they're not reasonable.
  9. The distinction between a word PIC and something like a biopower K is that the PIC is a cp with a K net benefit whereas biopower is a critique of the aff's metaphysical understanding - which requires framework arguments to be successful. Lee seems right about that insofar as fiating an alt would be utopian; your argument is just fiat a policy, but the only policy capable of fiating is something that is essentially a CP: word PIC is all I can think of. (Don't think either of you disagree, just miscommunication perhaps)
  10. I promise you, this will not make you a better debater/person. It's going to make people think you're an idiot. lol @ these specs.
  11. ehh, just because their harm is 'illegal' doesn't make it non existant. Topicality is a question of is the plan germane to the resolution. If they win that they implement a social service for the purposes of human trafficking, they're topical. true that.
  12. Yeah, an external impact should usually take the form of some framework related argument. Nuclear war impacts are silly given that there isn't a unique internal that would actually cause nuclear war like a disad would have.
  13. Foucault cards answering pragmatism will be applicable - especially disads to claiming to explain objective reality. Arguments such as pragmatism permitted slavery, etc are also useful in proving their methodology is bankrupt.
  14. My favorite topic by far The importance of the energy debate in todays climate is just mindboggling. The topic provide alot of in depth avenues for discussion, and good counterplan ground as well. Was suprised protectionism wasn't run as frequently. Sure, teams like St Marks/Damien would, but its just somthing I'd expect to hit every affirmative round and didn't! And does this whole thread section go into an archive?
  15. When evidence is talking about one nation attacking another because they are a "threat" - and the argument would be that the way they represent and describe nations as being threatening creates a self fulfilling prophecy.
×
×
  • Create New...