Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Okay

About Arsht

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 09/01/1992
  1. Did you seriously ask if there would be any consult literature about the presence of American troops overseas? I'm pretty sure the host country is/was/must be consulted for that sort of thing to even occur in the first place, no? Otherwise, it's called occupation.
  2. Arsht


    Just reading a disad probably doesn't solve Hillman's criticism. The argument is not that war is good, but that war is a part of the human psychological condition that must be confronted instead of relegated to the realm of academic peace studies. There are two ways to make this relevant to the affirmative you're proposing. One is to include a representations 1st or a psychoanalysis framework in the 1AC. The other involves establishing an interpretation of fiat that makes questions of imagination more important than "real" depictions of a policymaking universe.
  3. why would you link turn a hard power advantage instead of impact turning? they'll wax you on the internal links (the timeframe for backlash by other countries undercutting our leadership is terrible. France much?)
  4. spending time on something doesn't make their arguments go away. if you use a federal spending mechanism to solve state spending then you link to net benefits with spending links. endo story.
  5. Arsht

    Mead 2004

    Mead 09 is an article about how the financial crisis has historically focused the power of developed nations, specifically the United States, and reinforced the status quo system of power between nations. In other words, the financial crisis has assisted unipolarity. The last paragraph says that the United States needs to be ready to maintain international stability just like it always has (according to Mead). Using the last section as an econ impact is silly. It doesn't even say nuclear.
  6. Counterplans are an opp. cost to the plan if the negative can establish that passing the plan precludes the possibility of enacting the counterplan. Permutations are the logical test of this theory. The neg answers the perm with a link to the net benefit (there is an opp. cost to the plan that does not apply to the counterplan by itself). Therefore, enacting the plan and the counterplan precludes the possibility of just enacting the counterplan. This means a model of "negative" intrinsicness would still allow advantage counterplans. However, actor counterplans, most alternatives, and several process counterplans, like consult, do not get evaluated. I agree that we shouldn't "necessarily" allow "negative" intrinsicness. That's why it gets debated out. I happen to believe that excluding actor CP's is a fine price to pay to get rid of politics DA's but plenty of people disagree with me. Sorry I wasn't very clear in the last sentence of my last post. The aff will usually say that we should evaluate opp. cost because it teaches us to separate avoidable and unavoidable costs to the plan. The neg will usually defend one or more of the arguments intrinsicness excludes. For instance, actor CP's good is responsive. The same goes for any advocacy that debaters talk about that doesn't use the USFG.
  7. "Negative" intrinsicness doesn't preclude the possibility of running advantage counterplans. If the counterplan is an opp. cost to the aff then it still would be evaluated. However, disads that do not test the opp. cost of the plan (politics) do not meet that burden. Would it really be good for debate if the neg had to defend their disad impacts against any adv. counterplan the aff could tack on to their plan text. Probably not. But adding the status quo to the plan leaves the neg with the vast majority of disads. The argument has very little to do with predictability. It usually comes down to a discussion of which things we should be talking about: questions of implementation or the consequences of plan action.
  8. Thanks Taylor. I thought NFL's was a blast and think the people who bash it all the time for not being the TOC should man up. But that's just me.
  9. On the contrary, there is every reason to "dislike" arguments based on plan passage. The losses to negative ground that Ankur's interpretation of fiat entails (obviously an incomplete list): Disads: politics - An argument I classify as terrible in every sense of the word. Debaters research the most unqualified material by staff writers in daily newspapers scouring for the words "political capital" with no regard for the actual workings of legislative process. The internal links and impacts are usually almost as bad. Counterplans: Process counterplans aren't competitive in Ankur's model because...well...they're based on process. If you want more explanation, I'd be happy to oblige.
  10. It's all good man. Are you going to any national tournaments this year? Don't mind my team. They're a little bored at their respective camps...
  11. The Tournament of Champions and Nationals are both tournaments with incredible prestige and national recognition within the insular confines of the debate community. While policy debate may attribute a higher level of competition to the TOC than NFL nats, it's a little harsh to call the latter the "farmhand's" TOC. As someone who's been to both I can attest with near certainty that there is rarely an easy round at either. Qualifying to any national tournament is something I think every up and coming debater is capable of and should aspire to, even if it's not the TOC.
  12. Arsht

    State Grants Aff

    The inherency evidence doesn't talk about the existence of local "anti-poverty" groups and as a result, doesn't talk about the status quo source of funding for those groups. To answer this question, which you need to resolve if you plan on running this affirmative, you need to do some research. The solvency cards included in the 1AC are pretty good. I only read the underlined portions, but all three advocates seem to agree that a local solution is necessary to make a national initiative to solve poverty feasible. You probably noticed that a large portion of the solvency cards was impossible to read. Six point font is considered illegitimate by many debate coaches and debaters, because it's impossible to determine what those solvency cards actually say when looking at the file, let alone in a round preparing for cross-ex. If you're really curious about the validity of the authors' claims, read the articles. If you're unsatified with their conclusions, do more research or pick a different affirmative. Or course the best thing to do would be to write your own affirmative. I cannot overstate the educational and debate benefits of this versus printing out a camp file. Finally, the solvency evidence is supposed to say that we "should" do something. The evidence isn't "empirical" because the policy hasn't been implemented yet.
  13. Arsht

    State Grants Aff

    what kind of grants and for what? the federal government doesn't just dump money for the hell of it. you need an aff first.
  14. I don't know what 2009 is going to look like but I'm surprised Mario didn't show up more in people's ranking of best 2A for 2008. He didn't lose an aff round in pre-lims of any tournament from the end of October to the end of March. Good luck picking a partner Clara. I hope it works out. Looking forward to seeing a bunch of you guys at nats.
  15. thanks for the incredible insight. two unlv debaters were the ones who picked up de paul, so your comment is irrelevant.
  • Create New...