Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About Zeno

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 07/21/1989

Profile Information

  • Location
    Evanston, IL
  1. Gates is awesome..... so much better than any BBQ, period.
  2. Why would the UN be good at microloans? there is almost no evidence that is credible for that. A better CP would just be private actors, have Grameen or FINCA do the case themselves as they are already doing in New York City.
  3. There is a good case debate to be had on microloans, we ran it as an admittedly nontopical aff and paired it with public health services on the africa topic. I love this case idea as I have researched it pretty thouroughly (500pages+ of cut material). However, be careful with this aff, as governments do not usually administer the program themselves, might be non-t and there actually is a lot of litterature about how the effects are not significant. The literature that is annecdotal and more generic analysis supports microloans, but some of the actual studies using statisitical analysis have proven no significant effect on a number of issues. This is a problem since most of the impacts are linear and solvency evidence like that really kills your impact calculus. Explaining the specifics of the payback and the timeframe is also a problem for some judges that see the evidence, but just don't get how it works specifically. I agree, the US is tricky as well, as the literature is relatively poor surrounding microloans in the US.
  4. good lay case, hard sell to a flow judge though...
  5. I think that politics violates fiat: 1) it forces the aff to be more significant than every policy passable by congress; that can be impossible when put up against the stimulus or likewise bills that have more weight in our current economic status 2) the calculations involing other policies o/w the significance of the plan belong to the status quo. these are the congressmen and women's reasons for not voting for the plan and are their attitude on the plan. this is inherency or the flaw in the current approach, not a disadvantage to the aff, but one to the squo 3) fiat does not imply passage, it implies existence; politics is a critique of the act of policymaking in the current status quo or the disadvantages that result from this political calculative thought, not a reflector on the desirability of the plan. thus politics is not germane to the debate of whether or not the policy is desirable. But, I do like politics DAs and think they, for some reason, bring out better analysis of DAs on the part of debaters.
  6. Zeno

    Computer games

    fallout 3 is a sweet game, i wish it had more quests though
  7. the government crowds out businesses when they invest in programs 1) they tax to get the money they spend, which comes from corporations 2) the government steals credit when they spend by buying up securities to finance its spending and making it hard for businesses to get loans i don't necessarily buy these on a large scale level, but they are argument to make that there is literature for.
  8. They are just misinterpretting/overstating the uniqueness of parametrics. The common theory argument against Alternative justification, counterwarrants, and theories about debate where the aff has to defend / uphold the entire resolutional area is that when the aff chooses their case, they parametricize the resolution down onto the aff. All ground for the aff is only their aff, neg gets everything else. This has sort have been referred to as Aff choice lately. On T, to talk of t as a juridictional issue is a little shallow. For instance, when a debater proves a violation of their interpretation, to say it is then out of the jurisdiction of the judge lets the neg off easy. They should have to prove why the discussion the aff is having distracts from the resolution as a whole and why that is bad for the goal of solving the resolution. Rather than run off the same voters every time, the neg should be asked why the distraction that is the aff's non-topical element / aff itself is bad for the resolution. The weakness of this approach is some extra t cases, but I think it explains FX relatively well. Jurisdictional arguments ignore the power of the ballot, where a judge can intellectually endorse the best advocacy. After all, the ballot does say a win goes to the best debaters, not always the best policy. T instructions might be like: Is the aff staying on the topic of [insert resolution] and not straying off, and does such straying in some hurt the overall goal of the topic? Is there anything in the aff's discussion that is extra, not on topic? Just a simple set of questions for the judge, rather than some theory that someone might not understand.
  9. Zeno


    yeah but that is generally not relevant in a round where the aff could just use the specifics of there case to justify immediate change instead of generic cards
  10. Competition means that the neg's Counterplan cannot be combined with the aff plan This is proven in several ways: 1)through net benefits or arguments that are: a) a disadvantage to the plan that the counterplan avoids an advantage to the counteplan that only the counterplan alone can solve a states counterplan with a federal spending disadvantage 2)through textual competition or logical competition the counteplan and the plan have different texts or functionally do things so differently that it makes it impossible to do the plan and counterplan together or make a net beneifit for the neg an easy example of this is a counterplan that bans the action the plan takes the aff can argue that both can be done at once, or that all of the plan and some or part of the counterplan can be done together this is called a permutation (perm) essentially competition is anything that prevents the two from being done together, or is an argument against the possibility of the perm
  11. Zeno

    Socialism aff

    to whoever neg repped me can we please take a joke? not everything is an argument....
  12. i agree the aff has to be founded on an assumption to kritik it for reps
  13. the idea with an advantage counterplan is that if the aff's advantages can be solved in a better way (proved by the net benefit as to how it is better) that there is no real unique reason to vote for the aff that is an aff with a bunch of weird advantages might be solved better through other means, totally taking away all of the aff's significance in the round for uniqueness outstrips the link it is a defensive argument that says that says the uniqueness scenario in the da proves that the brink is so large, the plan's not going to trigger it it is mostly used in politics, but might be used on another da type don't make this your sole defensive reponse, as this is usually pretty blippy, with a few warrants to justify it, generally cards aren't read for this as they would risk helping the neg.
  14. Zeno


    Exactly right, however, a lot of judges don't consider presumption in debates. Ideally, a judge would revert negative based on presumption in certain cases.
  15. Zeno

    Socialism aff

    correction communism=poverty for all - whoever gets to manage the resources
  • Create New...