Jump to content

c0smic hipp0

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Good

About c0smic hipp0

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 12/16/1978

Profile Information

  • Name
    Christian Jones
  • School
    Charles Page High School
  • Location
    Tulsa, OK
  • Occupation
    Debate Coach
  1. First, it seems there is a lot of hate on this thread, and that doesn't help anyone become a better debater. Second, giving a double loss is a cop out, even for a vdebate. This also does not advance anyone's ability to debate. But, if you are just out for ego, then by all means double down people and argue with your judges. Here is my RFD: I vote aff The choices offered at the end of the round are plan, perm, or counterplan. All three access the morality argument. Perm the most followed by plan then counterplan. Obesity is a net benefit to the perm and the counterplan. It is unclear whether it is a DA to the plan or not, but for the sake of argument, I will assume that growing a garden is better for your health than free reign on the snack aisle at Wal-mart. Even still, there is a moral responsibility to feed people anyway. Net Widening is a net benefit to the counterplan, and a DA to the perm and plan as the round stands. (the aff should have pointed out that in order to set up these farms, the government has to take a big role in making sure the funding goes to the right place, land is set aside, training is provided, etc. in this sense, a card or two could have turned this and made it a DA to the CP and a net benefit to the aff.) However, the uniqueness is questionable at best, and the impact, while I do give it weight, is never compared to the morality impact which it is agreed that this is the biggest impact and should be evaluated first. Dependency is a net benefit to the counterplan, and a DA to the perm and plan. However, the impact is extremely unclear, there is not internal link between someone being about to buy food and being able to survive a natural disaster. Remember, the DA is not saying "plan = natural disaster" so that is not the impact. DA says, "plan makes people dependent on government therefore they can not survive a natural disaster." (the aff should have a card here that says FEMA, or any of the other numerous government agencies, helps people after natural disasters). Additionally, even if I give full weight of this to the negative, which I don't think the flow indicates, I still have to evaluate morality first. In conclusion, I vote on the perm because it feeds the greatest amount of people, and it is agreed that this is the most important impact in the round. DAs to the perm are muted by doing the counterplan and simply the weakness of the positions.
  2. Charles Page has been added.
  3. congrats to westin and sierra! you forgot charles page was there also.
  4. Has Cameron responded to your application?

  5. allowing laptops in round makes everyone's flow better. and cheaters will cheat. whether its communicating with a coach during the round or stealing files, those who want to cheat, will. and by the way, any coach who tries to communicate with his/her debater during the round should not be a debate coach. if ossaa had that rule, they wouldn't have to worry about allowing laptops. as far as the classist stuff, i've seen used laptops advertised on the bulletin board at my college for $150. when i debated in high school (when no one would have thought to bring a laptop into the round), i spent more than that in one year on paper, pens, files, tubs, etc. laptops actually make it cheaper to carry around large amounts of evidence. its better on your back too. also, hartney, i appreciate your lobbying on behalf of better debate.
  6. the only theoretical justification for this would be a whole resolution hypotesting paradigm. however, “do X,” and “do the opposite of X” would prove the resolution a tautology and therefore an aff can not win under this paradigm (or at least not by holding both plans topical). also, no matter what your paradigm, running contradictory positions is not advisable. even if you can justify it theoretically, you begin the debate at a deficit because you have to explain that theory. the strategic advantage gained is not as great as the looking like a fool to most judges.
  7. how plan comes into existence (i.e. plan passage) is a crucial question of solvency. a bill that is passed and signed by the president is different than an executive order. also, funding and enforcement mechanisms can differ. these distinctions determine plan success as well as the consequences thereof (advs and das). if we assume plan exists, then these questions become moot. the amount of political capital required for a particular plan speaks directly to the desirability of plan. some plans require more effort on the part of the government in order to be successful, and if political capital theory is true, then pol. cap. is finite and has to come from somewhere. this is like saying spending lots of money is not a reason to reject plan. ultimately, if neg wins a da and that said da outweighs case, then plan should be rejected, vote neg. therefore, fiat does not include enforcement? if i grant your above interpretation that aff gets to fiat plan exists, then enforcement exists as well because it is part of aff plan. if we are to reject arguments that point out the adverse consequences of plan passage, then we must also reject arguments that point out the adverse consequences of plan enforcement as well. you cant have it both ways. i completely agree that aff can specify delayed passage to avoid das or for some other reason. policy resolutions (that is "should" resolutions) only imply that something should be done in the future. it doesnt matter when, as long as it is in the future. from a policy making standpoint this is problematic because advantages become more difficult to prove as well as das. i dont outright reject your notion that fiat means plan exists, but what happens in order for it to exist is a crucial question. without that ability of the negative to take up this question we not only throw out political capital das, but also spending das, court das (i.e. hollow hope), critiques of government (i.e. cls), enforcement solvency, implementation solvency, and many others. all of these are important to whether or not plan should be adopted.
  8. i agree with most of what has been posted above me. first of all, you can not ask this question and expect to ignore theory. second, there are two ways in which to run multiple affs in the 1ac and "get away with it." under policy making it is reasonable to run multiple affs, but you are required to advocate them throughout the round and that means lots of links (see above posters). under hypotesting it is also reasonable to run multiple affs, but there are two primary ways h/t deals with this. one is whole res which requires the aff to defend the entire resolution. this allows what hartney talked about above (i.e. neg runs counterwarrants to what ever topical case they feel like and aff must defend). the other is parametrics which requires aff to defend the resolution, but allows aff to define which parts they wish to defend in this round (this means no counterwarrants). this interpretation still gives neg more links because of multiple affs (as in policy making), but parametrics was postulated to allow hypotesters to defend the "one round, one plan" philosophy above. so this seems inconsistent with this branch of hypotesting. if it could be proved that "multiple plans" does not contradict this line of thinking, then the next consideration is conditionality. under hypotesting, all policy options are conditional. so, aff can read two plans and kick one later, but neg can do the same with counterplans. there is one other wrench to throw into this discussion: bidirectional resolutions. one of the topics i debated on in high school was, Resolved: that the USfg should substantially strengthen the regulation of immigration to the U.S. this topic allows affs to choose to allow more people into the country or less people. all three theories above would all have problems with an aff saying, "plan 1: increase border patrol; plan 2: decrease border partrol," even though both are arguably topical because of the bidirectional word, "strengthen." policy makers would say it is contradictory advocacy; whole res would say both can not be true, therefore the res can not be true; and parametrics would say pick one or i sign the ballot neg. therefore, i can not say this is good strategy, unless your strategy is confuse and conquer. and such a strategy only works if you are smarter than your opponent in which case you should win a straight up debate anyway.
  9. in regards to topicality, abuse means the aff has used some non-topical provision of plan to avoid/turn an argument that is relevant to the resolution. in round abuse means the aff did that in the present round. potential abuse means that aff could use plan to avoid/turn a relevant resolutional argument, but has not yet in the present round. ideally, that is what standards are for. if aff says china will fund the plan, then neg reads a usfg violation with cp gound as a standard. in this case the reason neg did not read china cp is because aff has taken resolutionally defined negative ground away. therefore, potential abuse is in round abuse because neg's decision not to read the china cp is a function of the present round, even though aff did not get a chance to make their expected logical argument that, "china is already in plan." this is why the distinction between potential and in round abuse is largely irrelevant when it comes to topicality. aff knew the resolution when they wrote their argument, and they are intentionally shifting that advocacy to gain a strategic advantage. that strategic advantage exists whether neg provides an occasion to use it or not. see above. it is abuse for the aff to shift their advocacy outside the resolution for strategic benefit. no. one liners are rarely good enough arguments to win a position on t or otherwise. personally, it is a pet peeve of mine to hear negatives read t and get to the bottom and say, "t is a voter for fairness, ground, and jurisdiction." this one liner is just as problematic. if the judge is stock issues, then fine, t is a voter and there is no reason to read the one liner. but, for those who ask me before the round, i am games. so if you want me to vote on t, then you have to give me a reason, and one word is not a reason, its a word.
  10. not true. anything you suggest i read re: debate i would in fact go over with a fine tooth comb i agree. fiat means, "if the plan passes, then X." that is what i said above, so this is in fact non-responsive. wrong. politics das don't say, "plan would not pass." on the contrary, they say, "plan should not be passed," which is inline with our agreed upon interpretation of fiat. if plan passes, then bush can't get law of the sea passed is a reason not to pass plan in the first place. that argument makes no pretense as to whether or not it would pass. any argument that does not involve attitude change necessary to implement plan does not violate the should/would fallacy. "if plan passes, then X happens reversing plan," is distinct from, "plan would not pass." political capital considerations are questions that policymakers have to deal with in the real world, so why are they invalid in a debate round. aff gets the power of the resolution to enact, implement, enforce, fund, etc. vis-a-vis fiat. however, they do not get the power to ensure its continued existence in the face of legitimate scenarios to the contrary.
  11. ok, so i've been on spring break and not paying any attention to this forum. i see now that i am needed. wow, where to begin... should implies future tense, not past tense. a better way to phrase that is, "if plan is implemented in the future, then X" (whereas X = some policy argument). the reason policy resolutions do not specify "pass a piece of legislation" is because executive orders and overturning court cases are also topical. counterfactual arguments, being past tense, are therefore negative ground. ok here's the deal... if your interpretation of fiat is correct, then you can also throw out all political das. your position eliminates political capital as being a policy consideration, and debate has moved past that. this is not a question of "should/would." if plan is "ban tobacco usage," then neg reads ev that indicates that big tobacco companies will shell out a few billion to get their supporters elected to overturn plan, that is a solvency argument (or a da depending on how you look at it). i agree that "plan gets immediately overturned" is overcome by fiat, but if neg can construct a scenario where implementation of plan is problematic, thats solvency.
  12. the analogy is simple, if a basketball player steps out of bounds then that player is attempting to abuse the rules. why are there rules in basketball? competitive equity. no got physically abused, and you know thats not what i'm talking about anyway. all of your above definitions of abuse fits within what i am arguing. indeed, i do understand inherency, and fiat only overcomes this in the immediate sense of plan passing. if fiat assumes now and forever the plan will function, then you have fiated past most solvency arguments and all political disadvantages. workability IS a solvency argument. the only thing aff gets to fiat is plan goes into effect (i.e. a bill gets passed, next court decision overturned, executive order is enacted, etc.) arguments that plan would immediately be reversed would be solvency arguments. the threshold for those arguments would be high however. neg would have to prove that, for instance, congress would change its mind about a bill it just signed which i dont think has ever happened. additionally, an election position could argue that plan will be overturned in the next congress/presidency and so plan only solves for another 9 months. on the other hand, aff could respond with, "your other das timeframe is after that so we dont cause any of those das" fiating beyond plan passage is an abuse of fiat. oh, man, i used that word again.
  13. admitedly, i used to run t all the time too. we would go for it 25-30% of the time, and usually we would win it. there is a degree to which the better debater is going to win t most of the time, but losing to a team that is not as good on t should make you at least consider your plan text. competitive equity = fair division of ground. that is the same standard and voter i used to run on t. the converse of that is, if a team is violating competitive equity, then they are abusing the standard, hence abuse. i dont understand why so many debaters reject the notion of abuse. all t stories are abuse stories. a good t violation should instill competitive equity (i.e. your case is not topical, but many others are. aff could have run a topical case, but instead they chose to be abusive). also, no argument is impossible. every argument has an answer, thats why we call them arguments. inherency-solvency double bind is ridiculous. just because plan isn't being done in status quo doesn't mean it couldn't. fiat doesn't assume workability, this is a solvency argument. not all cases are pie in the sky, some are bills that have been introduced in Congress. i agree. if a team choses a non topical case, they better get ready to argue t because they will be fighting uphill in a round on that issue.
  14. neal, freud might have something to say about that
  • Create New...