Jump to content

zeeman48

Member
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

zeeman48 last won the day on January 18 2010

zeeman48 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

17 Good

About zeeman48

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 09/10/1993
  1. Care to give a more detailed explanation?
  2. I noticed that and I didn't even know who Baudrillard was.
  3. If you know how to write a T shell, then you know how to write framework, because T is a kind of framework. What are you writing the framework for? If you're writing it to tell the judge how to weigh the round ("discourse first", "real-world impacts", etc.), then you need your interpretation to tell the judge what they should weigh. Usually you have a tagline version of the Interp ("Interpretation: Vote for the team with the best discourse.") followed by a card ("Discourse shapes reality, racism is bad, postmodern rambling, etc."). You generally don't need a violation unless the framework is deliberately targeting a certain argument. For example, if you were to read a framework argument which says that kritiks shouldn't be weighed, then you would read a violation which shows how the negative's argument is a kritik and why it's bad in the context of your specific Ks bad framework (ex. "Their argument is a red herring which forces us to defend the ontological implications of our plan instead of focusing on the actual policy benefits of the plan in the real world.") Standards are important because (just like with T) they tell the judge why your framework is preferable ("Weighing only policy options prevents us from kritiking a team that says, 'Provide universal healthcare, except to niggers.'"). I personally think there's a really blurry line between standards and voters on a non-offensive framework. Even if you're using a framework as an offensive attack on your opponents (policy-first against a kritikal aff, for example), I think this belongs more on the relevant flow than the framework flow. In the aforementioned example of reading a policy-first framework against a kritkal aff, I would read the framework and then go to case and explain exactly why the 1AC can't be weighed under the framework, rather than framing it as a voter. You don't vote neg because a policy-maker framework is better, you vote neg because the aff doesn't have any impacts under such a framework. On the whole, if your framework argument needs voters, then it's more abuse than general framework. I'd advise downloading an existing framework file from a camp and reading through it to see what a typical framework shell looks like.
  4. Okay, so let's say the plan is just straight-up give medicaid to all poor people. The stigma argument is that poor people are seen as lazy and living off the system and, by further expanding services which only apply to the impoverished, you continue to perpetuate the view that the government is just handing billions away to lazy poor people (who are probably illegal mexicans stealing all our jobs, anyway) who never do anything and just serve as a drain on the system. The idea of the counterplan is that, by giving services to everyone, regardless of income, the service still gets to the intended recipients, but without right-wingers thinking that the government is robbing them blind. Or, at least, that's how I've generally seen it run. Another net benefit sometimes used is a discourse K that says using the word "poverty" is bad (because it has negative perceptions or something), and gives the service to all people regardless of income, but that's a stupid way to run it. The main reason this CP sucks is because there is one simple answer: "Perm: do the plan and give Medicaid [or whatever your service is] to all persons regardless of income." You don't link to any stigma DA or non-discourse K and suddenly you have the additional advantage of solving for universal healthcare (or whatever you do with the plan). Oh, sometimes it's run even retarded-er and they just say give the aff service to all people regardless of income because then it helps even more people. Again, a simple perm pretty much wipes out almost any variation of this CP, and means the aff sucks up even more solvency. Basically, DO NOT run this counterplan. It's stupid and easily answered and is actually more of a timesuck for you than for the affirmative because they can perm it and get even greater solvency with a minimum of effort.
  5. A word made up by debaters so they can call the neg abusive without indicting all Ks.
  6. Neg overlimits resolution, prevents teams from truly engaging the topic; don't vote on potential abuse, make the neg prove exactly how you've harmed them.
  7. "YOU SHOULD ALL STOP BEING SUCH DICKS"
  8. This sounds like a not-so-clever attempt to find a name for a debate website. (No, seriously, http://www.thissoundslikeanot-so-cleverattempttofindanameforadebatewebsite.com/.)
×
×
  • Create New...