Jump to content

poor.yorick

Member
  • Content Count

    208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

90 Excellent

About poor.yorick

  • Rank
    Free and Open Source
  1. Do any Utah teams need a judge for USC? Or for any other Southern California tournaments. I would like to judge. PM me if you're interested. Ellie
  2. Great Salt Lake District (UT): West - Ellie Cawthon/Andrew Hayes Lone Peak - Max Chaffetz/Kyrsten Woolstenhulme
  3. It's less than 1000, but I don't know what it is. Less than 224.
  4. can we please change the thread title? I ignored it twice before clicking on it.
  5. Excuse me, I've been away from cross-x for awhile and forgot one is expected to act like an egotistical prick. In the real world, you may find better results by politely asking for clarification when you don't understand something someone else has said. I thought the argument I was referring to was intuitive enough that it did not require extensive explanation, but since it has confused you, I will try to be more clear. The first time the neg gets up to speak in the round, they have two different arguments: one that has a "standing above" ontology, and one that has a "floating above it and playing" ontology. The first time the aff gets up to speak, they have one ontology: the bad ontology that they use to justify the plan. All justifications for the plan stem from this bad ontology. First about the theory justification: When the neg picks its strategy later in the round, the aff knows it will be advocating one of the two ontologies presented in the 1NC. The neg might drop one of those ontologies, but it won't try to introduce a new one later in the round. This is fair because the 2AC can base its strategy on this knowledge, and answer all of the ontologies. If the aff tries to change its ontology later in the round, it is not only dropping an ontology it earlier presented (shedding a skin), but it is introducing a brand new advocacy after their first speech. The neg isn't expecting this - it spent its 1NC answering one case, and now the 2AC is a completely different advocacy. The entire 1NC is wasted, and the block is forced to read an entirely new neg strat to answer the entirely new aff advocacy. This is very different from the burden placed on the 2AC by the neg being conditional, because the aff knows from cross-x of the 1NC that the neg can drop one, so they should structure their 2AC accordingly. Next about the framework justification: The neg's framework is that debate should be an agonistic confrontation between two ontologies, and the judge should vote for the team that advocates the best ontology. If the aff decides an ontology proposed by the neg is better than the ontology proposed by the aff, that's effectively conceding the round under this framework. Keep in mind that there's no reason to do the plan without the aff's ontology. That means there's no net benefit to the perm, and you vote neg on presumption even if you don't hold them to their 1AC ontology. If any part of that is unclear, I will be happy to explain further.
  6. ywvm, Chaos! It's a new arg in the 2ac or the rebuttal, which is cheating and kills fairness. Cheating is slave mentality because they're trying to cheat to avoid a fair confrontation of wills. Also, that's great that they learned from it, but they should still lose. We presented the better ontology, and if they decide our ontology is better after all, that means our ontology won. Our framework is that the team with the best ontology should win. Perm do the plan while severing out of the rest of the 1AC makes no sense. There's no reason to do the plan if you take away the ontology.
  7. I agree with what others have said about conditional worlds/neg flex being sufficient justification for running Nietzsche with a counterplan. It's normally an ontology K, not a representations K, so there's no reason you should be held to the entire 1NC. But there are also some Nietzsche-specific reasons other conditional advocacies should be ok. Some cards: On one flow, you are standing above morality/truth/the other bad stuff the aff does and critiquing it. On another flow, you are floating above it and playing - you keep playing the debate game to win because it's fun. Next, Running things conditionally is necessary and good. You ran your disad way back in the 1NC, when you were a different person. Now you have learned from it, and shed that "skin" to go for Nietzsche. But you wouldn't understand Nietzsche as much if you hadn't read the disad, so it's a good thing you did.
  8. Really? Where are there free Thursday files (other than cutting one's own)? I would think this could continue to be a major source of revenue. </unqualified opinion>
  9. Quitting debate and explaining to your friends why you did. Anything short of that is either insincere (you're doing it to win a round) or will fail (others will want to understand it so they can beat it, but you won't change the system).
  10. Double Octafinal Pairing (Seeds are posted, but I don't have them, sorry. These are in alphabetical order. All rounds are flip for sides unless otherwise noted.) Bellarmine AS vs. West High School Slc LS (Padrta, Siddiqui, Hidalgo) Bingham GT vs. St. Vincent De Paul FS (Magallon, Hernandez, Walton) Brophy MS Advances without debating Notre Dame DS vs. C.K. McClatchy GS (Schultz, Bettilyon, Cooper) College Prep GL vs. Notre Dame DM (Ehrlich-Quinn, Bentley, Meagher) College Prep PT vs. College Prep AP College Prep PY Advances without debating Damien FG Advances without debating Head Royce School KR vs. Bellarmine LV (Shackelford, Sharp, Bato) Head Royce School MS vs. Menlo-atherton RR (Gray, Maycock, Coskey) Juan Diego Catholic BS Advances without debating Juan Diego Catholic IR (aff) vs. Notre Dame GM (neg) 3-0 (Hines, Groves, McClay) La Costa Canyon BL vs. Saint Francis CR (Gannon, Alderete, Lippman) Notre Dame DT vs. Loyola High School OP (Ewing, Kim, Shackelford) Saint Francis AP Advances without debating The Meadows SW vs. Damien MM (Lucas-boli, Lemuel, Aust)
  11. Would you mind making the individual files available again instead of just having the MSI file, please? I'm trying to run it in wine and having some trouble, and it would help to work with individual files. Thanks for all your contributions.
  12. I renamed all files on openevidence in the format name@CAMP#lab .doc(x). They are sorted by argument type instead of camp, so that it's easy to see all Afghanistan Aff files in one place, instead of having to deal with weird filenames (no more "202 XDI XX lab wave 3: Afghanistan Aff.doc"), but you can still tell what camp it's from. It wouldn't be that hard to sort it by camp from this format, and if anyone wants it sorted by camp I could upload that too. Sorry for using rapidshare - mediafire wasn't working for some reason when I tried to upload. All open evidence files + SCFI in one file: http://rapidshare.com/files/418528654/Camps.rar
×
×
  • Create New...