Jump to content

Poneill

Member
  • Content Count

    974
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Poneill last won the day on November 12 2008

Poneill had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

481 Excellent

About Poneill

  • Rank
    Moderator
  • Birthday 01/07/1992

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    pwneill10

Profile Information

  • Location
    Murderapolis, MN
  1. From the perspective of a more natl circuit oriented LDer, some types of topical CPs (mainly PICs) are used (although on a lot of LD topics, they're probably bad given there's not usually parts of the aff/rez that are substantial enough to not start off far behind on the theory debate); but if you're talking about artificially competitive topical CPs, I don't really know what the community would say about it. On topics that lend themselves to plan focus debate (for instance, the sanctions topic), it's rare to find a topical CP that solves case. Hence a topical CP would be a poor choice because 10 seconds into the 1ar, any LDer who can hold there own will have mooted however much time you invested in reading the cp/net benefit(s) to it.
  2. Redlands has said they're no longer going to fund the debate team
  3. http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=994673 Start there. I'll answer your question about T/Theory later, but for now just understand that you need to flesh out arguments more in the first speech you read the shell since there's only 1 more speech and because the norms are not as developed in LD.
  4. O RLY? Lets go through the arguments as they played out. Synergy claimed it's hypocritical and doublespeak. Fox on Socks says no - he didn't ask for the prize and answered the doublespeak claim in his speech. Also, here's a link to a good article that outlines this position. You say "His acceptance speech was the definition of doublespeak and hypocrisy." Doesn't seem to address anything the previous post said. Obama is defending Just War Theory (in essence), which has a substantial amount of literature (hell, the Sullivan article Fox on Socks linked to has quotes from someone who Obama draws his beliefs from that answers your claims) backing it up. It's cool to disagree with it, but you can't claim you're responsive by re-asserting what Fox on Socks answered.
  5. Cuz that's totally responsive to the post right above yours:
  6. Yeah I mean even if it isn't structured like a CP or a DA, you will see people making these arguments a lot. But seriously, knowing your judge = best advice possible
  7. First off, where are you debating? There's no real "national circuit" tournament this weekend (ie an octas/quarters bid that brings in people from everywhere. Then I can help answer your question(s)
  8. well, first off, most people who believe in O/D don't believe in the idea of terminal defense. The "always a risk" arg is actually true - however, the issue is whether this risk is large enough to warrant consideration. There is a risk that a plan could cause an alien invasion that would kill us all, but we probably wouldn't say that risk warrants a rejection of the policy. Second, the way to beat back these risks is to either have some reason why the judge should ignore such low-risk arguments, or win that theres a larger risk of whatever impacts youre claiming being solved better in the world of the plan vs the world of the cp/squo.
  9. Umm this just begs the question of what the party ought to stand for. Who's to say that the people who create these standards are the ones who should determine what the partly stands for?
  10. Recency only matters if you can establish that something that would affect the issue in question has happened since the older of the two pieces of evidence. In order for the 3 year difference to matter, they would have to point to some change in legislation that would alter what "social services" means. My guess is unless their plan deals with a new program (idk what itd be), then it shouldn't matter
  11. Yup (Scroll down to the section titled "Nietzsche's Positive Ethical Vision")
  12. Naturally. I'm in the process of cutting H & N and I just wanted to make sure that my understanding of them on this subject wasn't totally off
  13. Although from my reading, the arg is more that poverty k2 resistance than just "poverty good", no?
  14. In your mind, what is the distinction then between "policy" and "value" debate? Because I honestly don't see the distinction you're attempting to make. Under your interpretation, all policy debate is just second-order value debate. I mean, sure. All CPs, regardless of event, are simply "not-aff". While topical CPs havent really come into play in LD yet (well topical PICs kinda have, but PICs have been viewed as legitimate in LD for a while), it is still the same as in policy. The aff defends a topical advocacy, and the negative presents a competitive alternative. What parts of a CX debate does it not deal with? There are rounds where the judge just uses a net benefits calculus and uses some form of risk analysis to render a decision. Yes, progressive LD is focusing on pragmatic considerations, but I wonder, why does this make it distinct from policy? What, in your mind, is the distinction between a value debate, and a policy debate?
  15. Both of these statements are (to some extent) correct. Presumption does not exist as a norm in LD. However, depending on the circuit/judge, presumption does come into play. Under a paradigm of LD where the judge evaluates the truth of the resolution, presumption only comes into play when the side of the resolution worded in the negative/the neg attempts to prove why their opponent cannot prove their side of the resolution true (a la skepticism/solipism) or only goes for defense (ie taking out their opponents arguments) in their final speech. In this case, some judges will "presume" one way or another (some presume neg because the aff has the burden of proof in their paradigm, some presume in favor of the negatively worded side of the resolution and treat it as if the sides are flipped, some presume aff because they feel negs win too many rounds). Under some sort of comparing worlds paradigm (for those who keep up with the paradigm war going on in LD i don't use it to refer to a specific paradigm a la Adam Nelson, but rather to refer to any paradigm where debaters compare the desirability of their advocacies), it gets pretty messy. For the most part, even if they don't call it presumption, if one of the debaters is defending the squo, the other debater has to prove that change is desirable. However, the issue brought up by some is that the idea of presumption doesn't really make sense (this is the view held by, amongst others, Neil Conrad). There is always a risk of offense, so to say that presumption is a different ballot story than "the negative showed their advocacy to be more desirable" is irrational. All that presumption really means in this paradigm is that if the negative (or potentially the aff) is defending the squo, and they win that hte squo is the best world, they win. RE: tpeters This seems to imply that simply defending that coercion is bad (no value to life, leads to tyranny, justifies genocide, etc) is not only "shallow" but would not factor into play in a standard net benefits calculus. First of all, why aren't these arguments going to to end? Why can't we say that bad stuff happen in a world where the govt violates our rights? Additionally, there are other reasons why compulsory immunization is bad - some people argue it will result in backlash, some say it infringes on religious freedom (which depends on the aff), some say voluntary results in higher vaccination rates, amongst other reasons.
×
×
  • Create New...