Jump to content

Eebster the Great

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

54 Excellent

About Eebster the Great

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  1. FireballChannel Black lotus Mountain QED There is a reason there is a minimum deck size. But seriously, if I needed three cards: Cathedral of Serra Sorrow's Path Pale Moon Best three cards in existence.
  2. This would be better as an agent CP than consult. Huge solvency deficit and good answers to perm (it would break wizard law). Plus, then you don't have to run consult. But what are your answers to the "all persons fictitious" disclaimer solvency takeout? The Ministry of Magic is fictitious Rowling (Their source) 97, etc. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
  3. Usually when I hear "There's a block for that," I think "I know people will read this argument but I figure I can get them to drop it if I spread enough shit on the flow and sound prepared." Just because you prepare responses doesn't mean they are good. Well, yeah, just like 10 sec Ts, I just hate teams that care more about sticking random strategical blips into their speeches than making coherent arguments.
  4. Um, Cross-x checks? Seriously, these arguments are fucking terrible. If you're that concerned about the aff spiking your DA links because they insist they use a magic wand to do their plan, you can read your theory shell AFTER they do it, and I might be a bit more sympathetic. These arguments all tell the judge, "Judge, with this plan text, the aff can do shifty things. They should be forced to read plan texts with which it is harder to do shifty things." God I hate SPECs.
  5. Cool, thanks. I thought about language-focus turns, but didn't really know where to find it. The SDI cards are actually pretty good; there are at least three files with decent aff answers including turns and a DA. This is exactly what I needed. Northwestern has a file on the CP but no aff for it. A few K files have defense against the claims, which is OK, but not really helpful given the time tradeoff. Not sure what UM stuff you were referring to. I can probably also just go for 2AC framework if there's time.
  6. I'm wondering if anybody knows any time-efficient offense I could read on the poverty PIC. I usually don't want to spend more than 30s on this shitty arg in the 2AC unless the neg makes it a big deal, but theory seems to be the only offense I can read in that time. Should I just stick to the theory debate? To be clear, I'm talking about a PIC (or sometimes PIK) out of the word "poverty," that does not functionally compete with the plan at all.
  7. I have a pretty big file with pol cap links, no links, link turns, pol cap exists, doesn't exist, winners win, etc. It's also got pop/unpop and some old-ish U and non-U, as well as some other generic tix stuff. What do you have to trade for it?
  8. I need some evidence that foreign countries will model a U.S. shift away from capitalism (or one towards socialism). Also, some good ev. to counter the "state can't solve cap" argument would be nice. Also, if anybody has good cap bad blocks/files (not just camp crap), I can work out a trade. Best to email me at michaeleby@roadrunner.com
  9. Do you have any ideas as to how to structure the plan text to fit Marxism while still remaining topical? As I said, I'm not too familiar with it. My idea right now is along the lines of a Robin Hood aff that literally taxes the rich and pays the poor. It also socializes a lot of essential services and markets (healthcare, education, insurance, , etc.). It's pretty crude, though, and does seem totally unrealistic. Unfortunately I don't have this, but I definitely could use it. I'll probably hit up the evidence trading thread. It's bound to be out there.
  10. It depends on what the impacts are predicated off of. Post-plan you don't have classes or a market driven by greed. That's going to solve most cap impacts. The fact that people still have property shouldn't really change this. Just because their impact is tagged "cap leads to nuke war" or "cap turns case" doesn't mean it isn't actually the class hierarchy or the greed-driven market that is ultimately causing these. At best, the Ks will have some sort of retarded "only our alt can solve" evidence, which is always weak. They won't have stuff spec to our plan. (They might say states can't solve, but I still think that's status quo descriptive; no reason my legislation isn't sufficient. Plus, I don't have to solve the alt to solve its impacts.) I just took a look at an ADI cap K from last year. Nearly every impact in the file was predicated either off income disparity or off people doing anything to protect or expand their economic interests. Our aff should solve these. Oh, there's also something about the comodification of life (because the market determines who gets basic resources), but we solve that, too. Santos crept in there, but that's an impact to neoliberalism, not cap. Admittedly, we probably won't solve for international trade impacts, but we shouldn't link to those, either. On a second glance, we might lead to the zero point of the holocaust. Damn.
  11. Thanks. I don't know much about Marxism (actually, I think The Communist Manifesto is the only Marx work I've ever read), but this is definitely what I had in mind. I think Scandinavia is a pretty good empirical example that such a government is not only possible, but can be efficient and can better distribute wealth. I might not achieve the ideal of removing ALL class barriers, but that shouldn't ruin the aff. And it honestly would solve a lot better than any cap alts. As for statism, oppression, etc., yes that is a possibility, but I haven't ever lost to one of those Ks before (and every case links to these anyways, so there's no way around them). I'm not trying to come up with an aff that spikes all links, just one that turns cap. As for fiat theory . . . really? The plan seems pretty simple from an enforcement standpoint. Obviously the legislation needs to actually be passed, but if I can't fiat that, than the aff will never win. After that, the enforcement should follow. If people don't pay their taxes, they will still get put in prison like they would in the status quo. And I guess the legislation could get repealed, but that's still true of every inherent case in my opinion. The biggest problem I see from a realistic standpoint (not a debate standpoint) is emigration. All the rich would almost certainly leave the country before giving up their money, so we're still going to be in poverty postplan, and the economy would get owned.. I'll have to think about that.
  12. Disagree. Even distribution of wealth at worst solves all the internals to cap, but I really think it solves the link, too. It in no way focuses on a single issue or solve the symptoms--it addresses the root cause, which is class divisions. We'll argue that even if the system is technically still capitalist under some definitions, this doesn't matter at the point that class divisions cease to exist. It might still link into statism links, but those are bullshit anyways, and we'll still control the internals. The "states can't solve cap" args are answered back by fiat and the fact that even if it's still cap, it still solves. This could perhaps be a virtue of the case. It doesn't mandate the government seizing private property, but it does solve the impacts of capitalism. We could just call it a socialism aff, then, if that's your only problem with it. This might to some extent avoid the problems of having a communist party that controls all the country's wealth, since the plan text guarantees equal distribution. Obviously we will have to fight cap good args, but I'm prepared to do that.
  13. Do you think it would be possible to write a topical communism aff for this year's topic that turns all cap Ks? Something that, for example, provide social services to those in poverty in the form of education, healthcare, etc., but most importantly income. This is scaled based on net worth such that the rich basically pay their way down to the middle class, and the poor, their way up. This essentially destroys cap and sets up a communist (or semicommunist) market in the U.S. Additional planks/restrictions could be added, I'm just asking about the general idea. The point is that you can get cap bad advantages and avoid all cap bad Ks. Solvency might be difficult or even impossible, though, so is there a way to make this work in a kritkal framework? Ideally, I want an aff in the policy realm, but I'm exploring all options.
  14. Once you can figure out how to answer "Perm: do both" in less than three words, I will agree that it is a bad strategy. Until then, I'm going to perm every K I come across. Perms: 1. are an absurdly good time trade-off for the aff. Even long, carded perms usually require much longer to answer than to make or extend. 2. can be scaled as necessary, from three words to eight minutes depending on the situation. 3. are an inherently conditional aff position that will never cause too many theory problems as long as they don't sever (although admittedly most perms of Ks do). 4. can sometimes lead to immediate neg losses if they are dropped, and greatly strengthen the aff position if they are undercovered. 5. usually force the neg to actually understand their K, because otherwise they can sound pretty convincing 6. are key to check intrinsic alts. If the K link is shady but the alt is much better than the plan, a perm is a much clearer demonstration of this than a mere "No link." 7. don't sound like cheating, as opposed to cheapshot theory or (God forbid) reverse voters. 8. stand for "permanent wave curls."
  15. Perm: Do both Offense to the extreme (obviously death and extinction. The rest depends on enforcement. Presumably everybody killing themselves has to be enforced by a central figure. I'm thinking of dehum, biopower, coercion, etc. it also turns case, so it might not satisfy moral imperatives) Defense on their completely retarded solvency mechanisms and explain why they don't access my impacts. Extend things they don't solve. Util good. Theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory, theory. I think I could get through that in less time than it would take just to answer the theory. If you were going to read this, why not read equally (actually, less) unlikely CPs like "Text: everybody worldwide stops committing the aff impacts?" Either way, you will always lose the theory debate and often the perm.
  • Create New...