Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 Good

About bigsham411

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 11/28/1990

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. at the end of the 2AR on Edelman... "seriously judge, fuck the social order."
  2. Obviously a huge Topicality problem, just off the Top of the bat: Guidelines, Pre-Existing, ***Extra-T***, and kinda-sorta Effects-T. I star Extra because the way plan text is worded it's pretty obvious. you say create AND fund - multiple plan planks. It's an easy story - i'd expect it nested on the Pre-Existing T flows. However, I like the Idea of case - I hit one at UGA this weekend that was similar. It was mostly Giroux. If I was to write you're plan text it would go something like this, "Resolved; my partner and I urge the USFG to establish a National Citizen Debate Organization centered in areas with low percentages of political participation. We reserve the right to clarify" Sure it doesn't say 'POVERTY', but in your old plan text it was an afterthought anyways. Regardless, I think there is one surefire way to get some traction against Topicality: 1AC Framework. Perhaps, but I'd also expect a lot of case presses against biopower (it's enevitable etc. etc.), policy-making frameworks, and K's like Lacan (HUGE link), Biopower K's, Speaking for Others, Democracy K's, and obviously things like poverty rhetoric and cap... but I'm not much of a CP/DA sorta guy anyways... that being said I don't think you're really going to see that scenario as much - the link to politics is shady. There's not any reason to assume Republicans or Democrats are against debate or citizen debate - and there's especially no reason to assume backlash. Also, The spending trade-off is a horrible story and I wouldn't expect case specific disads because well... your case is a bit unpredictable and I can't think of many... This needs to be articulated to the Judge in the 1AC, maybe it is - but there's a greater story of abuse for the NEGs if they run arguments and don't know all this until the block... Also, be careful about how you word what you're willing to defend. It's a personal opinion of mine that it's best to have a some-what overlimiting framework in the 1AC and make strategic concessions to get the 'best of both worlds' argument so that the NEG never ends up winning you can't get you're biopower impacts at all... but again, that's just me. Also, if it goes conceded then you have the ability to leverage it against any of those pesky CP's and DA's. When I say overlimiting, I don't mean explicitly, but saying 'all that matters is discourse' is a strong position which can develop more into what you're describing. Authors for such a framework that work BEAUTIFULLY with your case: Butler, Giroux, Dillion, Kulynich, Blieker, Dauber, etc. Even if you don't go for the type of discourse framework I've mention, I still think you need to give context to your argument with framework. I also don't think your partisanship advantage is as strategic as you'd like it to be. I can only assume it's being set up to be one big kritik of politics disads, but I think that work is best set up on the framework flow. Not to mention I think there's a pretty big burden of proof that partisanship would be solved by DEBATE - an activity that purposefully pits two sides against each other. Also, I can think of several kritiks specific to how if it leads to everyone agreeing it's bad (especially for democracy). I think it would be more strategic to make an advantage entirely about Political Nihilism - debate incorporates individuals into politics, not being involved in politics/political apathy empirically leads to war/genocide, its essential for value to life, boom... then you can use that on all their flows as well as LEVERAGE on the framework debate. I'd also change your democracy advantage to straight biopower w/ democracy as the internal link. The story wouldn't be incorporating voices so much as it would be 'democracy solves state violence' or something to that effect. This gives a larger distinction between the two and gives you something to go for if they turn one of the advantages. It also can give you reasons why state politics are bad for offense on framework and against Cap/Statism K's. I'd also make sure that you find some evidence that talks about how debate is essential for post-highschool students on all these fronts. And while I'm thinking about it, it might be better to have plan establish a citizens debate organization for ALL citizens or atleast not limit anyone out (this may be untopical, but it's very easily kritik'd). Just some thoughts - maybe not the most organized, maybe not what your looking for. I still think its a good idea for a case. If you want/need any cards/help, just PM me - I'd like to see it.
  3. Alright - you guys are STILL arguing over this? Didn't this thread start in like 2004? It's been said before, but the safety of marijuana (medical or otherwise) is completely irrelevant to the discussion of it's legality. Why don't we legislate that people can't eat fast food? It's linked to heart disease, obesity, high blood pressure, etc. It seems like the statisitics on that outweigh (no pun intended) ANY extrapolation of marijuanas impact on society - shouldn't that come first then? Hell, why don't we just legislate that everyone has to be productive? YEAH! That's what we need. Oh, and maybe while we're at it we can make everyone beautiful too - productive and beautiul. Yes! It's a genius idea! Too bad nazi germany beat you to the punch. Read some Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and get back to me on the purpose of law; the theoretical guidelines which dictate the morals of society define what will and won't be tolerated (i.e. Popular Soverignty). And Morality = defined by the Church. Jump forward around a hundred years to Nietzsche - God's dead so bury your hatchet. All this neo-liberal morality (the value of LIFE!!!) is going to bring is more Laws regulating the social order; it's so obviously an attempt to manipulate the popular Soverign. Same thing with gay marriage, same thing with abortion, same thing with marijuana, and the same thing with war (we have to kill them to protect our way of life!). Honestly, who gives a damn if someone smokes pot - who gives a damn if you just sit on your couch all day? No one. Not me - if you do it sounds like you have personal issues with the drug and we really shouldn't be legislating federal/state law based on a personal issue, but maybe that's just me... Plus, I don't think god has an affront with marijuana smoking - and don't give me any crap about marijuana smoking leading to traffic deaths. Driving to fucking church kills people - should I get the statistics on that? How about ambulance related accidents? That data is always correlative (at best) and entirely dependant on the DRIVER and the OUTSIDE variables - marijuana only being one of them. All the statistical data in those finding have a common independant variable: DEATH. No wonder the results support the hypothesis, huh-duh! Same thing goes for 2nd-hand medical studies... It's all irrelevant - it's ILLEGAL. And I'm not willing to break the social contract i've established with the state to break it. There's no fiat in this question.
  4. Off your first point, I made sure that there was an argument to check back the whole 'excluding the Hegemon is still exclusion' argument (which I think is what your making). So if this were INROUND - I'd extend that Fairness isn't 100% and make the argument that it's irrelevant whether or not SOME voices are excluded under our interpretation - it's protecting the voice of DISSENT that is key. In the AFF/NEG paradigm, establishing who is the voice of dissent is difficult because it depend on what the NEG argues (if they defend the SQUO-only the AFF becomes the voice of dissent AGAINST the squo). My argument on framework is that BECAUSE they say that plan comes before ALL ELSE they are effectively the Hegemon reaching out and labeling all those who speak out against plan as unworthy of listening to. Remember, they ran this framework in the 1AC - they never listened to a SINGLE negative argument and instead labeled them all unworthy of being evaluated (i.e. the 'uninhabitable identification' butler talks about). Off your second point, I think it's mostly irrelevant. 'Ranking' and 'exclusion' aren't mutually exclusive - the ranking creates the hierarchy necessary for exclusion (as such it is in the biopower paradigm). When 'push-comes-to-shove' those on the lower end of the hierarchy are sacrificed, plain and simple. The 'push-comes-to-shove' moment happened when the AFF ran the 1AC framework. The AFF has moved past counting black votes as 1/3 or 1/5 of an anglo vote - they're moved into the terrain where the black vote means NOTHING in the face of what the anglo vote wants. This is why Butler has teeth. Off your third point, EXACTLY - that's what I say on the "100% Fairness is Impossible" standard. ALL rules are exclusionary by nature - that's why the above Shell is carefully worded. The debate has been refocused on creating rules that are INCLUSIONARY - the only percentage loss of fairness for the Negatives is the exclusion of the AFF with Butler. On the Otherhand, if the AFF is losing even ONE reason they're unfair (which they will, there's like 10 of them) the Judge can resolved Fairness for the Negatives which should also resolve Education and thusly the whole of Framework for the NEG. From here it depends on how well the team has impacted the offense on framework as to if it's a reason to reject by itself, but even if the judge says that frameworks not a standalone voter - Butler is still a seperate issue which garners round-winning offense for the NEG. Not to mention the Neg wins that they're Disads, Counter-plans, and K's are still weighed. All the AFF gets is chronologic analysis of their impacts - which means they still have to win sometype of timeframe argument to be weighed ABOVE neg arguments. And they also have to win that timeframe outweighs the magnitude of the DISAD/K's impacts.
  5. bigsham411

    Irony Aff

    I really expected to see some of Baudrillards key arguments run more this year, but yeah - nuclear war remains the bread and butter of debate. And you're totally right - Baudrillard does say that Rupture is a Good thing and it's not a stretch to say irony creates rupture. Of course, his warrants are better than most of the Irony AFF's framework authors I've seen. I hit an Irony Aff at my third or fourth tournament ever and ended up losing because of a failed attempt to run Neoism against it. Nowadays I'd attack it just a BIT differently. It depends on if they come out with the Irony part of case in the 1AC or 2AC. If they disclosed from the 1AC I'd probably do something like this: ----------------------------------------- *T - Resolved w/ Colon def. - can't shift advocacies *T - 'Should' is Not Mandatory (violation: the AFF enacts Irony in round which nullifies the question of whether plan SHOULD pass or not by enacting it in round) *FRMK - C/A the Interpretations from the T flows, add CP/K specific analysis, and put Irony Bad at the bottom. *THEORY - Impact all the Nested Arguments on the Above three flows with specific theory dumps: ExtraT Bad, EffectsT Bad, AFF Condo Bad, Vague Plans Bad, Textual Advocacy Key, NEG presumption, etc. And finally - put a CLEAR role of the ballot at the bottom. Follow all that with a fairly short, cohesive Neg Strat. The "CP/K specific analysis" on framework would depend on what K or CP I was running. If I didn't run off-case, I'd at least run solvency turns (kritikal or not). -------------------------------------------- I was a bit vague about what framework would actually say, but regardless of what it would I'd make sure to REALLY flesh out the issue of Fiat and it's role in the Affirmatives advocacy. The spinning of the story of what the AFF actually does starts in the cross-x of the 1AC and continues in the 1NC. Key Questions Include: Does congress actually promote the ironic policy and enact the performance so that the entire USFG gets solvency for the Ironic performance? (if they say no) - So you're the only one performing the Irony - Are you claiming spill-over outside this round? So what is the benefit of the Judge voting AFF - hasn't your performance already been done? Does that mean your case is terminally non-inherent past the 1AC? Doesn't any beneficial reason result in a Negative ballot? How does the judge evaluate ironic solvency, can we be more Ironic than the 1AC and win the round? What about Kritik and Disad impacts, how are they weighed against it? Is there anything that can be evaluated as offense against your performance? Do you think that's fair? (if they say yes) - So you fiat Congress into doing your performance - does this mean I could fiat Congress to do anything? Is there any brightline for what is too much fiat? Speaking of Brightlines, how do we know that you're not going to say the 1AC's so-called REAL PURPOSE isn't only another set up for irony in the 2AC? What do we get our links off of? So the purpose of the 1AC is to use Irony to make an important point, right? Regardless of if it's effective or not, why is Irony essential? You've brought the discussion to life, now what? Doesn't the importance of the subject mean we should actually discuss action on it? --------------------------- Obviously, Framework and T can be a slam-dunk against this type of AFF because well... 1.) It is completely unpredictable, regardless if it's on purpose 2.) It Completely Unlimits the Topic 3.) It destroys almost ALL negative ground 4.) It eliminates every LINK the NEG has by allowing the AFF to spike out 5.) It has no Brightline over what IS and what ISN'T ironic 6.) It's Generally unfair because Ironic advocacy/solvency isn't reciprocal 7.) It's Bad for Education because it deshevles topic focus The most important thing to remember is to not get freaked out - it's really not that strong of a position unless the team is uber dedicated or knows the literature REALLY well, but you should fear/respect a team thats dedicated/prepared regardless of if they run Irony or not... Also, it's important that no one underestimate this position either. There are some GREAT authors on the subject (other than Baudrillard). Finally, to continue to beat the dead horse, the best GENERAL strategy (in my opinion) is to drop all the 'A Priori' crap and go hard for how the JUDGE is actually supposed to evaluate the round. Both T's I listed above are more Theory arguments than Topicality arguments - it's simply easier to label them that way. On those flows, I'm not going to say vote on Topicality because it's an A priori issue - I'm going to tell the Judge to vote on them because they offensively engage with their framework of Irony which is the central voting issue in the round. Either their performance was a good thing or a bad thing - the standards debate on T and FRMK determine that (as well as any off-case positions, of course). Case in point: Everytime I win that their performance is Bad (as a policy or for the world of debate) on any of those flows, I also win a reason to reject the AFF and to vote NEG.
  6. In my mind, regardless of the counter-framework you advocate, you need to either: a.) Concede that Education is the most important standard and win that their interpretation of Decision Calculus is bad for Education for x,y, and z reasons. b.) Fairness is more Important than Education - prove how established rules are the only way we can ensure balanced, topic-specific education c.) Win that Fairness is essential to Education AND that their Education is Uniquely Bad for X, Y, and Z reasons Choice (c.) is my favorite against kritikal frameworks because it gives you a solid framework on one hand and on the other it gives you solid offense against their framework. You only have to prove that your IL to education gives you enough to outweigh the AFF’s education claims (the reasons you list about why their interpretation is ‘Uniquely Bad for Education’ act as net benefits to the Education you provide). ------------------------ This leads the question of what framework TO DEFEND. Shouting about a priori's is absolutely meaningless unless you're willing to defend the entirety of that policymaking paradigm (or the majority of it, at least). There's a lot of offense THEY can garner when you do this because there’s an abundance of literature about how policymaking rules quash dissent - which is probably how they're rationalize case coming first. So really decide your negative strategy and shape framework to it; either make it a specific battleground for the ability to voice your opinions elsewhere in the debate or make it the reason to reject the AFF. It’s easier to contextualize abuse and it keeps the debate from getting vague. Point is - there’s no reason why you need to defend policymaking unless you’re REALLY fond of counter-plans and DA’s – especially when there are so many great ways to turn their offense by running a kritikal framework back against it. Also – you don’t NEED T to win that their case is abusive, framework can operate as a voter without all the whining. If framework can win them the round, why can’t it win you the round? If they try to wiggle out of this, say reciprocity demands we get Topicality and clarification justifies new arguments in the block – then run 5 Topicality violations. Needless to say, I think operating WITHIN their framework to DISPROVE their framework gets you further with more judges. In most cases, this type of AFF framework is somehow intrinsic to plan solvency. You need to re-frame the question of framework as a question of SOLVENCY to get at some REAL offense. It would be a lot easier if I knew who they’re major offensive author was – Blieker, Butler, Shlag, Dillion, Foucault, etc.? If it’s some other author talking about how some policy issues are so important they have to jump to the forefront then it’s a lot easier, but I’ll address that at the bottom. Anyways, here’s a rough kritikal response shell I put together to illustrate my point, feel free to comment/edit as needed (it’s long and wordy, but it’s a first draft): ------------------------ 1.) Counter-Interpretation – framework is an offensive reason to reject because fairnessmust be ensured before the discussion can begin – it’s the only thing that comes before all other issues, even T. After that, the Affirmatives still have to persuade us that plan is a good idea before the judge can vote AFF. Sub-Point a.) Resolved means an individual or group of persons are settled or fixed. Oxford English Dictionary 89 (2nd Edition, 1989) resolved, ppl. a. 1. Of persons: Determined, decided, settled in purpose. Sub-Point b.) It’s what comes before the colon that matters. Peck 96 “The colon focuses the reader’s attention on what to follow, and as a result, you should use it to introduce an idea that somehow completes the introductory idea.” Sub-Point c.) Resolved comes before the resolution meaning the framing of debate is evaluated before plan Sub-Point d.) Should is permissive—the rest of the resolution is only a recommendation that the Affirmative’s have to persuade the judge to vote for. Words and Phrases 02 (“Words and Phrases: Permanent Edition” Vol. 39, Thomson West, pg370) The term “should,” as used in statutory provision that motion to suppress search warrant should first be heard by magistrate who issued warrant, is used in regular, persuasive sense, as recommendation, and is thus not mandatory but permissive. West’s Ann.Pen Code, § 1538.5(.---Cuevas v. Superior Court, 130 Cal. Rptr. 238, 58 Cal.App.3d 406. Sub-Point e.) The Affirmatives are Mixed Up – no one ever said that plan has to pass. It’s only after the framework of the debate is resolved that it becomes a question of if plan SHOULD pass. 2.) We Meet – plan can come before all negative arguments except framework so long as negative arguments are still evaluated fairly afterwards. Framework is a question that comes before fiat. 3.) They’re Interpretation is Bad for Education - a.) It’s just BAD Education - allowing the AFF case to come above all else ensures that we ALWAYS have to accept the validity of plan. Under their framework, if the AFF reads a card that says shouting the N-word for 8 minutes leads to world peace you'd have to vote AFF regardless of the rhetorical impacts on the debate b.) Completely Arbitrary – there’s no reason why the AFF should come above everything else – it’s arbitrary that they tell you to evaluate ONLY the benefits of plan. This type of debate always already creates a substantial risk that the AFF could be untopical, violent, racist, or worse and justifies vague AFF plans c.) Any Risk of Poor Education proves Fairness Essential - any risk that the AFF could justify violently exclusionary arguments means you should vote them down in favor of establishing a paradigm of inclusionary rules. The efficacy of that world can only be evaluated on the fairness debate, which is most predictable. d.) It’s not about Quantity of Education - Even if they win that they somehow provide more education if it’s violent education by foreclosing on all opinions it should be rejected. e.) Kills Discussion and Clash – the affirmatives attempt to have plan evaluated above everything is just a shady attempt to get out of the discussion. This type of strategy kills clash and turns education. 4.) Reject their Violent Education – they say that plan should be evaluated above and beyond all other arguments, but this uniquely silences the voices of the dissenting opinion – also known as the negatives. Only our Framework attempts to form a safe sphere of discussion for the AFF and NEG. Any attempt by the Affirmatives’ to put limits on our discourse causes violent power politics and is an INDEPENDANT reason to reject. Butler 04 (Judith Butler, Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature, University of California - Berkeley, PRECARIOUS LIFE, 2004, xix) Dissent and debate depend upon the inclusion of those who maintain critical views of state policy and civic culture remaining part of a larger public discussion of the value of policies and politics. To charge those who voice critical views with treason, terrorist sympathizing, anti-Semitism, moral relativism, postmodernism, juvenile behavior, collaboration, anachronistic Leftism, is to seek to destroy the credibility not of the views that are held, but of the very persons who hold them. It produces the climate of fear in which to voice a certain view is to risk being branded and shamed with heinous appellation. To continue to voice one's views under those conditions is not easy, since one must not only discount the truth of appellation, but brave the stigma that seizes up from the public domain. Dissent is quelled, in part, through threatening the speaking subject with an uninhabitable identification. Because it would be heinous to identify as treasonous, as a collaborator, one fails to speak, or one speaks in throttled ways, in order to sidestep the terrorizing identification that threatens to take hold. This strategy for quelling dissent and limiting the reach of critical debate happens not only through a series of shaming tactics which have a certain psychological terrorizations as their effect, but they work as well by producing what will and will not count as a viable speaking subject and a reasonable opinion within the public domain. It is precisely because one does not want to lose one's status as a viable speaking being that one does not say what one thinks. Under social conditions that regulate identifications and the sense of viability to this degree, censorship operates implicitly and forcefully. The line that circumscribes what is speakable and what is livable also function as an instrument of censorship. To decide what views will count as reasonable within the public domain, however, is to decide what will and will not count as the public sphere of debate. And if someone holds views that are not in line with the nationalist norm, that person comes to lack credibility as a speaking person, and the media is not open to him or her (though the internet, interestingly, is). The foreclosure of critique empties the public domain of debate and democratic contestation itself, so that debate becomes the exchange of views among the likeminded, and criticism, which ought to be central to any democracy, becomes a fugitive and suspect activity. Public policy, including foreign policy, often seeks to restrain the public sphere from being open to certain forms of debate and the circulation of media coverage. One way a hegemonic understanding of politics is achieved is through circumscribing what will and will not be admissible as part of the public sphere itself. Without disposing populations in such a way that war seems good and right and true, no war can claim popular consent, and no administration can maintain popularity. To produce what will constitute the public sphere, however, it is necessary to control the way in which people see, how they hear, what they see. The constraints are not only on content-certain images of dead bodies in Iraq, for instance, are considered unacceptable for public visual consumption - but on what "can" be heard, read, seen, felt, and known. The public sphere of appearance is one way to establish what will count as reality, and what will not. It is also a way of establishing whose lives can be marked as lives, and whose deaths will count as deaths. Our capacity to feel and to apprehend hangs in the balance. 5.) On the Fairness Standard - a.) Fairness is Essential – fairness is the only way we can ensure equal ACCESS to education and that’s why it’s important. American schools may have been fine when they we’re segregated, but they were still Racist. Ensuring fairness is essential to overcoming issues of exclusion. CX-Apply our Resolved and Colon definitions. b.) They Skew All Ground – if we get no Topicality, no Disads, no Counter-Plans, and no Kritiks then what do we get? Solvency? There’s always a small risk of solvency regardless of whatever the Negatives say and they can always leverage that against us – we need external reasons to reject to debate PERIOD. This turns fairness. c.) They’re Completely Unpredictable – having a plan that is supposedly so important that it jumps before everything else is impossible to predict. It would be great to prepare for every important issue in the world, but it’s a uniquely unfair burden to place on the negatives. d.) The worst case of Over-limiting EVER – they are literally telling you that their case is more important than EVERYTHING else - this means that ALL teams SHOULD run it and the topic should be limited to one case. And remember - it’s not what they argue, it’s what it justifies. e.) 100% Fairness is Impossible – so long as there are rules, there will be exclusion. The role of debate isn’t to create exclusionary rules, but find ways to create rules that are INCLUSIVE of dissenting opinions. CX-apply Butler in 04. f.) We’re the most Fair – the AFF can meet our framework easily – by defending the speech act put forth in the 1AC and answering our arguments. Having plan come above any other arguments is unfair to the negatives and allows for the worst forms of violent education. 6.) Our Interpretation Rocks – a.) Best for both Education and Fairness - by allowing the framework to be evaluated before plan we can ensure their education isn’t uniquely bad, resolve our advocacies, AND case still is evaluated above any DA’s, CP’s and theory besides framework. This checks back any offense. b.) Fiat is Illusory – we’re more ‘real world’ because we most likely will never BE in congress, and plan doesn’t actually pass if you sign the ballot AFF. Allowing fiat to mean that plan outweighs everything is bad because we surrender our political subjectivity and foreclose on the possibilities of the here and now. c.) Resolved refers to Fairness – we must stand firm about the rules of debate. d.) It Refocuses Debate – by actually having to argue and defend the rules of debate we use and how they impact the community we specifically deal with our own position in the community e.) Checks back Vague Plans – by having to have a resolved action of plan, vagueness is a none issue. 7.) Their Offense is Hogwash – a.) Switch Side means nothing – I don’t even WANT to option to run an exclusionary framework, and I don’t think the judge should vote based on letting abuse happen to everyone – vote NEG and stop it short. b.) “Coming First” means nothing – being evaluated first is fundamentally different than being evaluated exclusively – make them give specific reasons why the negatives arguments aren’t being evaluated c.) Potential Abuse MUST be weighed – evaluating the potential positive and negative consequences of any proposition is necessary for finding the best solution; potential abuse is the only way to evaluate whether a framework for debate is Fair or Educational. 8.) The Role of the Ballot – the judge should vote for the framework which provides the fairest view of debate and exclusively vote down interpretations that abet violent education. 9.) Framework is a Voter for reasons of Fairness and Education. -------------------------------- If they’re just some wonky team running a non-Kritikal AFF and are saying plan should come before all else because some issues are JUST that important then this is where some good ‘ole fashioned preparedness comes in handy. They have a HUGE burden of proof as to WHY the 1AC uniquely needs to jump the docket. Having a list of all the pieces of legislation slated for congress would make the Cross-X pretty damning. Read them all the policy proposals they’d be jumping and make them justify themselves over each existing one. Then use that as a reason why DA’s, especially politics, are essential to debate.
  7. I disagree, but only because your thinking of inherency WAY too much like solvency. If the NEG wins that the AFF case is 97% uninherent (whatever that even means) it still proves the SQUO insuffcient which meets the AFF burden. It could be abusive, but inherency is rarely framed that way (in my experience). not to mention that the AFF DOES still get full weight of their impacts to weigh against any disads because the neg still has to prove that the 3% change in the SQUO doesn't SOLVE for those impacts that's why inherency is really a Yes/No question. Now if you win a substantial Solvency Deficit, *most* of inherency, and a disad then your in good shape on the decision calculus end. However, you were already in pretty good shape with the Solvency-D and the Disad impact... inherency is just another disad flow you could put out...
  8. tl;dr Literally translates to: That was too long to read. Really translates to: I'm too lazy to read the entirety of what you said, but I still want to say something. --- Also, agreed.
  9. I think you guys are missing the point - it's never a matter of HOW inherent something is. Quantification of inherency is impossible and infinitely regressive - you're either inherent or your not. The only stock issue where percentage met even remotely matters is solvency, period. And that only matters in decision calculus... (The debate between quality/quantity on Harms/Signifigance is one to be had, but that's a seperate argument altogether) The justification for inherency stems from the word 'should' in the resolution. Should being the past tense of 'shall'. Should being past-tense implies that the status quo is held to be insuffcient in someway - if the USFG is already implementing the Affirmatives policy proposition then it negates the resolution because it violates the premise that the status quo is insuffcient. That is why it's an offense reason to reject - not the efficacy of the policy. Other offensive arguments include that it cuts into essential negative ground (squo) which is unfair, etc etc. Inherency should be treated as an a priori issue. Case-in-point: if the framers intended for the affirmatives to defend status quo policies they would have used the word 'is' or even 'shall'. This is why the most basic Affirmative burden is to create an alternative to status quo policy - the debate you guys are having is whether or not altering a status quo policy in some way is legit or not (such as increasing funding, changing a statute of a law, etc.). This brings me to an interesting question on THIS years topic. The word 'increase' has been the discussion of a lot of Topicality debates, but in my mind, Increase (as is used contextually) denotes something pre-existing. Otherwise the resolution would have been worded, "Resolved; the USFG should create substantial SS for..." I do not think this limits the AFF to status quo policies because the word 'should' is still used, but I do think this limits the AFF to increasing one of those policies in some way or increasing the total number of SS policies by implementing a new service. That being said, the issue of if FUNDING is an increase is a T question, and the issue of HOW MUCH is a T - substantial question (or a signifigance question). So to re-cap, Quantifying those questions in terms of Inherency is arbitrary at best and ultimately infinitely regressive. If you want to have a T-style debate on inherency, by all means, but the AFF burden is met simply by proposing an increase of SS in the squo - inherency is merely a guard against the AFF debating the SQUO and that's either a Yes/No question. For Example: No Child Left Behind is an Unfunded Mandate. If the AFF increased federal funding for those programs it would be inherent and topical because it alters the policy in some way. Increasing federal funds to Medicaid isn't inherent because the USFG has already increased funding to medicaid in the past. It may be TOPICAL (funding increase may be topical), but regardless of whether it is needed or not it's a part of the policy in the status quo.
  10. Well I can't speak for Capital (although I've never heard anything bad about the program) I'd advise you to go to UNT. Of course, this depends HIGHLY on style of debate you prefer, # of years debating, money willing to spend, etc. However... I couldn't give anything BUT rave reviews of the K lab - and (although I am not 100% sure of this) Nicole Richter should be returning this year as a lab leader. She is simply an endless wealth of knowledge and a fun person in general. Keith Wayne Brown gave an excellent lecture on Nietzsche and was a great resource to the wonders that are continential philosophy. I again can't speak to if he will resume that role in the Lab this coming year. All the campers I talked to in the Policy Labs were more than satisfied, and the out-of-lab lectures given by those lab leaders were all top-notch. I easily filled several black and white notebooks with the wealth of debate knowledge given out. The skills week is absolutely invaluable - I think the camper/lab leader ratio was something like 3:1, and under such guidence a week of 15 intense debates coming off the camp tournament is like a wet stone to a vorpal blade. Prepped me for the topic, improved my clarity, and got all my flows in ship-shape. Not to mention the rest of the staff consists of the friendliest bunch of people you'd ever meet. My plane was delayed due to mechanical errors and they came and got me no problem, I got sick during my stay and they came to check up on me, and the UNT debaters/RA's all hung around and chilled after lab... just easy going and accommodating. The UNT campus is nice, and I STILL miss the library. If you have the ability to, I'd urge you to seriously consider it - and if your interested in Kritiks there is simply no better place to fill your head up.
  11. there's a reason K's have a bad reputation... and there's a reason CP's have a bad reputation amongst K debaters. It's called ABUSE... I know, I know... I was begining to think the only thing that existed was potential abuse... saying/arguing one thing then switching it all up a speech later is just... dirty... especially if you keep saying, "they concede! they concede!" after every other point on the flow... BUT If your looking for a change up pitch - try kritikal counterplans... you can get some pretty awesome leverage on any theory and if your creative enough with the strat you could have some nice gooey kritikal disads as net benefits... (although you shouldn't need a net benefit other than not leading to eugenics/holocaust/ontological damnation/etc. via a standalone net benefit module or a K [sans alt] on solvency). I'd just caution you to make sure your CP solves. I mean, then your not NECESSARILY bastardizing the argument, your keeping the judge awake with something/slightly different, and your making the AFF go all, "wha... wha hahpun?"
  12. I think there is a rather large difference between dreams and aspirations... Frued probably (although admittedly I haven't read Frued's, On Dreams) drew this distinction at the borders of the concious. Wilkerson, who appears to be the Author Aburo is pointing you towards is a great place to start, but that's if your writing an entire K on the subject. (On a side note, looking at the man's bibliography is just awesome - gotta love anyone who uses the word 'deleuzioguattarian' in an essay title) From the way your post is worded, though, it seems your looking for an IL between aspirations and value to life - the basis for the now-common-sensical argument centering around the premise that happiness is acheived through the fulfillment of desire (as transfixed by your aspirations/dreams), etc. etc... and its those ASPIRATIONS that give a perceived sense of value to life. If that's the case you almost certainly want to SIDESTEP psychoanalysis - because Lacan and subsequent post-lacanians rip on that like there's no tomorrow (an Edelman joke, ha-ha!). Also, as a general rule of thumb - Frued was pretty well influenced by Nietzsche (see Zupancic, see Butler 97). If Nietzsche wouldn't touch it, then psychoanalysis may only be cursorily related... if it doesn't criticize it outright (whatever IT is). I can't speak for the D&G camp, but it's safe to say it's a much better route to take for things of this nature... they also criticize psychoanalytic conceptions of desire, so you might find some good stuff there... I would point you towards authors who are in support of Ayn Rand or Voltaire - the whole notion that we all tend our own gardens and what not... that might be closer to what your looking for, but I could be misreading your post. In that vein, I searched this years Objectivism files and found this card (props to DDW): Meaningful life must be grounded in personal choice Leonard Peikoff. 1993. Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Pg. 62 The choice to focus or not is man’s primary choice, but it is not his only choice. Man’s waking life involves a continual selection among alternatives. Aside from involuntary responses, such as bodily reflexes, all human actions, mental and physical, are chosen by the actor. The man who is completely out of focus has abdicated his power of choice; he is capable of nothing but passive reaction to stimuli. To the extent that a man is in focus, however, the world with all its possibilities opens up to him. Such a man must choose what to do with his consciousness. He must decide to what goal, intellectual or existential, to direct it and by what means to achieve this goal. Take in the context of this discussion, you should be able to eaily re-tag and powerword, and this should suffice. Hope this helps!
  13. bigsham411


    quick answer - don't. K's are your friend. :)
  14. I think nathan_debate is on the right track, but these are fairly generic points that any good K team can answer back with little to no trouble. They're still solid, but you might want to get creative to put the pressure on them... you should add some quote-unquote 'shady' points on the flow depending on what else is in the round, like these: - Grants equal Aff solvency Defecit - there is no way they can ensure a mindset shift being equivical or universal, reprocity demands that for every shred of doubt about the ALT being implemented the AFF gets leeway on solvency of advantages. - Cloaking Normativity is Bad - either they don't fiat enough mindsets to change the squo or they DO fiat that many mindsets and create a new order of normative, hegemonic domination (you might want to card the impact to this point with someone... foucault or Schlag come to mind...) - Fiat doesn't Exist - no one thinks that the AFF plan is actually going to happen, fiat is only a means to imagine a world where plan overcomes potential opposition in congress so as to discuss the functions and effectiveness of plan, rather than the ability of plan to be solved. - Subject Fiat is illegit - this is a uniquely bad form of fiat because they imagine society as something to act upon THEM as opposed to seeing themselves as a PART of society - this is bad for education because it disengages from reality, yadda yadda ---- You could also use the 'Fiat doesn't Exist' point to leverage the K against any potential Disads... because if they 'Get' fiat then you get to overcome the link on the Disad... Some of these points could contradict with case (depending on if its uber policy or kritikal), but in a world were they run multiple CP's and/or conflicting advocacies it might be best to concede multiple world theory and go for this type of theory over condo bad. sry for any spelling errors, Im in a bit of a rush - happy trails.
  • Create New...