Jump to content

Comp_XPS_001

Member
  • Content Count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Comp_XPS_001 last won the day on July 6 2010

Comp_XPS_001 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

32 Good

About Comp_XPS_001

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 10/26/1992

Profile Information

  • Name
    Ravi
  • School
    Pennsbury High School
  1. ...with less than 24 hours to go. Best of luck to all.
  2. You've always got words of wisdom to say Jeff. Nonetheless, congrats to NFA for a good round and good tournament.
  3. Well that's what I meant, hopefully you do get to judge me...although I'm all the way in Pennsylvania, which may explain my bias toward the side I support. Sure, both sides of this argument may have merit, and yes, judges and debaters will be predisposed toward one side of the equation [with yourself on the divert presence side, and myself, Jeff, and James(bond1) on the limited side], but in the end, what matters most is how those answers play out in a round and how they clash. Disappointingly, it becomes ever and ever more common that camps define the topic by putting out these affs, and individuals follow the camp affs as the "core affs." This is why I find these discussions to be quite productive because they have if at all, some impact on the community before the affs are mass produced.
  4. I agree, to an extent. The aff must reduce military presence [let's stick to this term over "troops"]. The plantext is a policy based assessment of the resolution. Since the resolution SOLELY mandates a reduction, the plantext can ONLY speak to a reduction. When the plantext claims a reduction of presence, whether or not the presence is diverted or not is a question that becomes of debate, not what the resolution asks. But if you want an ignorant free plan, why not only say where the presence, in this case "troops," are being diverted to, but also let's have the DOD fund this, the House Subcommittee can oversee it, NASA can ensure it's satellite communications remain, the president can ensure no reaction with the local public by coordinating responses with the target country's rulers, oh and let's say McChrystal adds some of his insight, and the CBO will follow up with some audits. Oh and Soldier #1 will go to Sarajevo, while Soldier #9838 will be working at NORAD. When you claim ignorance as a reason to identify the NON-resolution action, you justify all this. Look, it is simple. And when is just speaking to the resolution gamesplayer? How is it not real world? If you want real world, go to Washington. This isn't real, it's a game. Policy is a mechanism for education enrichment. When we try to talk about everything, a resolution becomes meaningless. If they need solvency evidence, why have it in the plantext? It isn't resolutionally based and isn't topical. Besides, predictive evidence would be better, more real world, and more educational. Isn't that what you were going for against gamesplayer...? When you have no predictive evidence, you have no solvency advocate. Have you taken a look at the literature? I think that you are skipping the majority of it, that say reduce presence from X. Even if there is evidence, it doesn't mean we should debate it. Just because it exists, doesn't means it's allowed in debate. And how are there only five aff plans? It seems like you are crafting some numbers here. You can reduce any variety of military presence from the SIX countries on the list. You can reduce telecom, air power, naval power, etc... Besides, overlimiting is going to be better anyway; depth of education and policy, which incorporates case-specific clash, and the REAL WORLD education you so dearly advocate, is much better than superficial discussion. But you need evidence for that! First, think to yourself. Are the following two lines any different? 1) "withdraw and immediate redeployment" 2) "direct movement from one place to another" I would beg to disagree, they are essentially the same. The resolution doesn't make the assumption "withdraw to US." That is an assumption that you are making, an assumption that needs to be debated over evidence, not through tyrannical fiat. Is that a reduction in presence in the 1st location? Yes. Is there a plan plan that is untopical? Technically, no, but that depends on what you mean by plan plank. The movement of presence is partially topical because it says that there is an increase in presence in some location. Is this real world, that's arguable. Is real world more important than fairness? I'll let you answer that one. Let's talk about the Africa topic. The resolution was to increase public health assistance. But wait? Does that mean increasing doctors, as a case for example, in SSA but actually reducing them somewhere else? Maybe in the US? You don't claim that in the plantext - that is a question of evidence. Whether it's a positive or negative increase, it's an increase/reduction no matter what - you're example is not topical. It isn't topical because YOU ARE FIATING A SOLVENCY MECHANISM. Solvency mechanisms are evidence based, you debate the evidence and talk about the warrants in those, rather than claiming "oh well, even if my evidence is bad, my plantext says it so ha." You are deviating from the resolution. According to you, reducing troops in Iraq and then putting them in Micronesia, or in New Zealand, or even on a space shuttle to Mars would be topical, as long as you had some evidence for that. That doesn't explode limiits or decrease predictability... Yes, this debate will procure itself in rounds of the upcoming season, but I stand resolved that such is a violation of the resolution and that T, as always, will be an A strat in a majority of my rounds. Best we don't catch paths at tournament, or rather, best we do.
  5. This assertion is quite repulsive and just not true. Since case debate requires more preparation and more research, it is more likely that those teams tend to be better. Teams like La Salle are solely case debaters - they don't read generics. Though these teams may be in lower numbers, it doesn't mean that they do tend to be worse. Oh and besides, as much as I hate to admit it and as many times I go for these arguments, there are judges that dislike inherency arguments and just will not vote on them, at least without being interventionist and defaulting to a round's actual interpretation of inherency that isn't "the plan didn't happen." But that's another thread. This is not only trivial and blatantly crafted from nowhere, but it also serves no "illustrative" benefit. I have no idea what a "unit of value" is and most probably no one else does - it's an arbitrary description of education, and your formulaic representation is not only not grounded in mathematics, but also not in logic. And in no way does this prove or "represent" that LD is of equal or greater value than policy. You assume (1) they have the same arguments, (2) the rounds and structure is similar, (3) judging and analysis is similar, (4) time spent on one event produces the same benefit in the other benefit, (5) education product is a real concept and objectively described, among others. As per the substance of this thread, I'd listen to Les and Jeff, but that's my opinion.
  6. Sorry Pacheco, but since I am tied to Jeff, I will be defending CFLs ways. Codes don't necessarily slow down the tournament - just because they messed up codes in round, doesn't necessarily deem codes as all in all bad. As well, the alternative may be worse - with some judges offering a bias in their paradigm and decision toward a certain school, codes may prove to be beneficial. Besides, debate it self is just a game. After seriously thinking about the event I've done for the almost three years so far, I've come to realize it's not winning that matters - sure it may be fun to win, and I personally do love to win, but it isn't a resounding variable; rather the benefit from debate comes how applicable the skills acquired apply to the future. If codes necessitate a greater team responsibility, so be it - I agree with them. If not, well the former warrant prevails. It's a skill that's worth while - efficiency is one of the most important skills in debate. 5 minutes prep further helps discern the better debaters from the less experienced ones. Critical thinking comes from less prep. If I could have my way, less prep would be better; 5 minutes is a good amount, and even if rounds would be better with 8 minutes prep, think to debater's future career - it's efficiency that matters. Besides that point, think logistics - much more time; this tournament is one of the roughest logistically and it doesn't need to be anymore. But since logistics is a futile point in your world, we'll prefer the better debater argument. I agree with this - there needs to be a change with reading important pieces of texts. Ankur is correct in deeming that no reading is not necessarily a good rule. 2AR exaggerations happen. Often. It is through the reading of evidence that can check back this. HOWEVER, there needs to be a distinction between the intervention that Ankur identifies, which in and of itself encourages lazy debaters who don't debate warrants of cards, and the ethics of debate. A balance is needed, not an outright change. Calling out the evidence in round is important. Better debaters will do that; La Salle did that in the final round with a lot of BCC's evidence. And that's how they win rounds. Judge inequities exist - there are bound to be bad judges, and there will be good ones. Trying to check back against the bad judges skews the whole game of CFLs - judge adaptation is a skill that is unnecessary on the national circuit, yet vital during CFLs and NFLs. If you check it back, where else will you get this? Unless you debate in Pennsylvania, you won't. Admirable, yes. You yourself did well during the tournament, mainly by embodying most of the principles I identified above. But it is those principles and precepts that make the tournament what it is - unique and distinct from national circuit policy. It allows a different kind of debater to be a winner - it requires a plethora of abilities, rather than the narrowed skills that lets Westminster succeed on the national circuit. Not saying that they wouldn't succeed here, it is the idea that it is harder to do well in this type of tournament. You need efficiency, diligence, determination, persuasion, and resolution. This tournament, yes, may be representative of the tournaments years ago, but it is a tournament that is unmatched in its standard. It's a different being, a different manifestation. Changing it will only change what is CFLs. Oh and ignoring comments is also not a good thing, and neither are straw man arguments. Discussion is the basis for introduction of new ideas. If Pacheco wants to express his opinions, he has the right to do so. There are some problems, yes, that many agree on, including Ankur. Hiding away from politics is common to Washington. And I despise Washington - Jeff will tell you all about that.
  7. Well NDCAs nor NFLs doesn't have Jeff in tab. Enough said. Besides that, CFLs is a tournament that requires not just technical skill, but also persuasion, adaptation, and even some luck. The fact that there is less prep time [to you; in PA, five is the norm], more active days, and a higher burden on the debaters makes it a more important tournament, requiring a stronger debater to do well, producing stronger winners. La Salle can do that. They have done it. Congrats to them - I know they deserved it.
  8. Are you seriously kidding me? Yes, the resolution does say one or more, but it precedes it with the verb phrase "substantially reduce in." Even if the resolution doesn't include "'restrict'", it doesn't mean that the aff can go around increasing military and/or police presence in x country while decreasing in y. Would decreasing troops in Iraq but increasing F22 bombers in South Korea, Kuwait, Japan, and Turkey be topical? Under your interpretation, yes it would. Let's take it into the context of the national service topic [Res: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, and/or the Armed Forces]. Under your interp, increasing persons in LSA while decreasing persons in every other area and claiming offense on decreases in everything else, which encroaches neg ground by the way, would be topical. The same thing applies to this topic, except switch the increase and reduce. Not much sense there, right? What you claim for completely explodes limits because you allow for those cases that just decrease in one area and increase in others. It's neg ground, and against the resolution, to increase military and/or police presence. At best you'd be extra T, but that's in and of itself bad. Guaranteeing a decrease in one will enable the aff to spike out of generic DA links, and ruin predictability. Oh and transferring isn't topical because you still have an increase in one area. Even if the net is a decrease, you aren't topical still because 1) you mix burdens, destroying the distinction between solvency and topicality, and 2) you're only topical effectually. And that's why it would justify bidirectional cases, which are terrible for neg ground and predictability.
  9. http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=995946 http://pennsburyfalcon.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/cxteamlist.pdf
  10. Two days away! Team list above. If you feel like not scrolling up, http://pennsburyfalcon.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/cxteamlist.pdf.
  11. Pennsbury Falcon Invitational, aka PFI or Pennsbury. Finals Bid.
  12. Hopefully everything turns out great for the new date.
  13. What an insightful claim... As to quote yourself, "I ask you not to make assumptions..."
  14. I agree with you there - but it all comes down to how well the negative team sells the argument. Sure, they will vote on it but undoubtedly some will have a higher threshold for it than others. But, offense/defense is inherently flawed anyways...you can look to a thread that Ankur valiantly responded a couple weeks(?) ago. Right - but most of the teams that run broadband say not current funding doesn't solve because there isn't enough funding, which shows no attitudinal or structural barrier. But, if teams have some restriction or stigma blocking the funding and the plan breaks that, then that team would be inherent, assuming their evidence is good [which usually isn't the case].
  15. Not necessarily - at the point where the status quo is already solving for the plan in the status quo, even if the harms do exist, the sheer fact that the plan is being done dictates 1) the affirmative hasn't upheld presumption 2) the affirmative's harms are being solved for in the status quo, even if not solved wholely yet 3) the affirmative is at best a minor repair, an extension of status quo policies. And, there is no reason why inherency doesn't provide an easy win strategy, when compared to the DA, CP couplet or the Kritik; inherency is a lost art in debate which makes it such an easy win for the negative -- you can win inherency from old school judges to national circuit TOC judges; there is no predisposition against inherency, except the fact that it is against the norm [all assuming that the negative adequately explains the argument and why the judge should vote negative]. Besides, what you are talking about is that of the stock issue significance. Even with your 97% analysis [which I don't understand because 97% is such an arbitrary number anyways...], the plan would be a multiplication of the status quo; it would pose no significant change to the status quo. Just adding money wouldn't be inherency because it would in effect add a coefficient to status quo policies. And this would a such a horrible standard for debate because it would allow cases to increase 1$ and say they are inherency by solving say one instance of some genocidal dehumanization of patriarchy or some obscure thing. On top of that, the justification for the affirmative ballot would be weak anyways - saying the plan is an alright idea so why not... Oh...I'm sure a lot of judges will vote on inherency...they wouldn't mind going to tab. It's an argument like anything else, just more discrete. To the original poster, I don't see why not running inherency/minor repair on broadband; just be sure to articulate why the judge should vote on inherency and impact the argument in the world of debate. Ravi
×
×
  • Create New...