Jump to content

meanmedianmode

Member
  • Content Count

    249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

meanmedianmode last won the day on October 30 2009

meanmedianmode had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

87 Excellent

About meanmedianmode

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 10/31/1981
  1. meanmedianmode

    Wilderson

    Question: Does Wilderson's rejection of civil society include rejecting the scientific method for knowledge production? For the demo in this thread, that could matter with the growth/modernity cards that Nathan was focusing on a while ago - in terms of stuff like medical advances that decrease infant mortality, etc, that may be a non-trivial impact? Question: How did Nathan start talking about Hitler? Is it ceding the political, or is it determinism, or something else, and what are the internal links?
  2. Regarding the 2x-bind perm, I always felt that it made sense if the aff is winning consequentialist impact framing (and any Role of the Ballot stuff that is prereq to consequentialist impact framing), but that it isn't responsive to other impact frames or roles of the ballot. Do folks agree or disagree here? For the OP, I found Mike Carlotti's original judgephilosophies page (he has since removed this section) a useful part of the 2ac checklist. He articulated "four Kritik cheapshots" that a policy aff absolutely needs to refute (if/when presented) if it wants to beat the K: - no value to life - alt solve case / floating PIK - K impact-turns case / root cause - role of the ballot & impact framework
  3. No one objects to analysis. The paradigm (ie, of offense-defense) subsumes the fundamental idea that "argument = claim + warrant" in decision-making, and that is bad. Consider my OP in this thread, and specifically Ankur's post there:
  4. Ditto disclaimer about being an outsider. I tend to agree with the assessment of "relatively mild" issues, except that I take serious pause over the stuff about assistant coaches. If people within the authority structure are directly involved in the preconditions to problematic behavior, eg providing alcohol to the social events that they also participate in, that definitely makes recourse much more complicated for anyone who feels uncomfortable. It is credible that victimizing behaviors are enabled by that environment. To the extent assistant coaches are now at greater social remove from the team, new charges/complaints of systemic problems are more dubious.
  5. fixed To specifically address the OP: This might be based on a model of debate called hypothesis testing, but it's not really coherent under that model either. Hypotesting said that if the debate is about whether or not the resolution is true, we need to consider more than one example of the rez to actually determine its truth. This is in contrast to the standard plan-focused model of debate, in which the aff parametricizes the resolution, ie picks one example and only has to defend that example. This AJAC that you propose is some 2ar's incoherent fantasy combination of those models, though - the aff gets to discuss several different plans, because debate is about the rez, but in the end can lose all but one as long as it wins one of the plans, because the plan is key. Between the incoherence and the problem of counter-warrants, this is not only an obnoxious strategy but a foolish one. Counter-warrants were the negative's sensible deduction from affirmative resolution focus arguments - if debate is about the rez, the negative can attack any examples of the rez, and should win if they prove such examples to be bad. Theoretical approaches that result in counter-warrants are bad because a) if the negative doesn't have to interact with the 1ac, the structural advantage of the neg block is insurmountable and the aff almost always loses, and there is minimal clash, so debate is boring. tl;dr - The neg can win much more easily by accepting your AJAC theory, so don't read an AJAC. As far as lay judges, an AJAC is a bad idea for the same reason (but probably with greater intensity) that the 1NC reading multiple conditional CPs and reading lots of disads with the plan to kick most of them are bad ideas. The ethos of throwing the kitchen sink is not very good, and that matters more in front of lay judges than experienced judges. Most lay judges will believe the 2nr who says that this is not what normally happens.
  6. In general, I think debaters don't offend lay judges by asking, eg, 'what kinds of arguments happen in your ideal debate round', unless they present as disrespectful or arrogant while asking/listening to the answer. Some judges will take offense to any question, but they are few enough and the answers from the rest are valuable enough that you get best results by asking and adapting. If you doubt the judging experience of your judge, I agree you should not read a kritik. However, some forms of CP should be okay. Avoid PICs or mechanism/agent CPs; certainly anything more complicated like a delay or a conditioning CP is too unwieldy. Advantage CPs that are germane to the topic probably work best. And you do need to explain the basics of what a CP is ("we have a different idea. if it leads to better results, you should vote for us") and the basics of CP legitimacy ("the aff has to defend the resolution, so we get to disprove them by advocating outside the rez"). As you have already noticed, the 2ar is an extraordinary advantage in front of lay judges. Although you can and should explain that new arguments in the 2ar are unfair and shouldn't count, because you never get a chance to respond to them, you can never rely on a lay judge to identify and reject new arguments. You should work at predicting what new arguments the 2ar might make so that you can explicitly preempt them as new (ie, "he might think this is clever, but you'll recognize it as a new argument") and also preemptively refute the warrant. Even in circuit debate we talk about the 2nr as a speech that "either closes doors or leaves them open"; that is especially true in front of lay judges.
  7. 1. "Substantially = Without Material Qualifications" periodically reemerges, usually to force concession that PIC is competitive, and/or reclaim PIC ground from an aff that is already a PIC out of itself. Eg, if the aff lifts the embargo, they have to commit to that without qualifying, so they can't leave tourism restrictions in place to spike out of tourism turns, they can't leave restrictions on food imports to spike out of "unsanitary food facilities" turns, etc. 2. "Substantially >= Y percentage" is never well-grounded in literature (the %age is always drawn from a court case but the case is never in the context of the resolution), but it is the historical basis of that word in the rez (prevents minor repairs). 3. "Substantially = materially or tangibly, excludes symbolic actions" might be better grounds (than a non-exclusive definition of "economic engagement") for "QPQs are untopical". A QPQ that gets rejected by the target country is clearly only a symbolic action, which isn't a material change. There are strong standards arguments to support this - if the aff doesn't have to win that their QPQ will be accepted, the plan really can be any unpredictable condition that the aff wants to gain offense for advancing even without enactment. And of course even if the aff isn't doing that [This basically says "substantially" is the adverbial inflection of the noun "substance".] It sounds like you might be looking for something to read as a counter-interpretation? If so, and if you meet, I would try #3. You can win a huge advantage to your 2ac interp (strong brightline, genuinely preserves negative ability to compete). Of course this isn't a direct refutation of the 1nc interp, but your interp accounts for the entire meaning of the word in the rez, so you can make decent refutation against the inevitable 2nc "permutation of interpretations".
  8. For the vice-versa, ie why kritiks "preclude" theory - they don't. - you generally should not claim your K as a gateway issue relative to theory, because theory is more "meta" to the debate - you should not assume that a judge will care that you have made this claim - it is frequently appropriate to point out that the theory argument is a link / an example of the aff doing what you are K'ing - you must answer the theory argument anyway. If you say the theory argument is a link, but don't otherwise answer the warrants, you risk those conceded warrants being hyper-local impact turns to your kritik. If you insist on theory, you probably should contain the K rather than excluding it. I think this is what Nathan means by "Other stuff that would be filed under K theory", eg floating PIKs bad, utopian / mindset fiat bad, plan focus good (interacts with "discourse/representation focus bad" to allow you to kick your representations), etc. Also, you can articulate impact framework discussions like "consequentialism good" to be offense in role of the ballot debates if you read a decent "role-playing good" warrant. The negative role of the ballot probably won't allow genuine consequentialism, so reasons that consequentialism is good for decision-making are reasons to prefer your RoB.
  9. I have never heard this term before. While we wait for someone else to answer, could the OP explain her/his understanding of this term? "Justification" has had a few uses over time. Right now its meaning is centered around the Harms/Significance/Advantages, and refers to some aspect of the logic the 1ac offers for desirability of the plan. Could be the ethical system, eg consequentialism; could be a specific system of representations, eg orientalism, etc. In the past, the negative challenged the "justification" of specific words in the rez - I don't remember these arguments but I think they could be described as proto-kritiks. None of this history helps me figure out what an "alternative justification" would mean on the affirmative.
  10. Frankly, I think you are asking the wrong question. Apologies if I am reading you wrong, but my impression is "It will take a long time to give answers to every last little thing the 2ac said; I won't get to read my impact overview." The purpose of line-by-line isn't time efficiency. The purpose of line-by-line is thoroughness, with a little bit of communicative organization thrown in. True, it is easier for me to judge when you signpost your arguments and have a predictable order to them; mostly, though, it is easier for you to win when you answer all of your opponents' arguments. That takes more time, because your opponent gets to talk for as long as you do; however, it is a better use of time than any "more efficient" debate style that results in you dropping arguments. On a related note, blocks optimize your prep time and your argument quality; there is no inherent reason for them to optimize your speech time except that you should be mindful of that when you write them. In additional to the general format offered above, you can: - use an regional overview to articulate a key argument or distinction that you will refer to frequently on a given flow - group consecutive arguments to which you will make the same answer - "cross-apply" arguments you have previously articulated to non-consecutive lines Eventually you will look into using "embedded clash", which essentially means doing only #2 & #3 from Franzy's list above, but you should get your judges/coach confirming that you are doing line-by-line expertly before you shift your focus to that.
  11. This is a reasonably good card. Can you check against the original text to fix the typos / mis-scans? The card is criminally un-underlined. The claim is expressed but the warrants are all left out, eg the section in the middle about mobilizing stakeholders and the section at the end about bureaucratization of the policy. Warrants or no, the card should be tagged for "Can't sever representations", not for "AIKs good". While you won't win an AIK without forcing the aff to defend reps, the arguments are not the same. This card only speaks to the effect of a particular story (ie, "representation") winning the narrative, not to how a story can win nor what happens when stories compete. (Other parts of the article or the book might make those arguments, but this card doesn't.) Good conceptual explanation. The key point is the lack of a text. I would draw a contrast between a floating PIK and a 1nc strategy that reads a kritik with a normal CP text as its alternative. (Concrete example - Teams sometimes make specific reference to international law in their plan texts, so the 1nc Ks international law and reads the plan referring to some relevant domestic law rather than international law.) In the K+CP example, the neg tells you how they do the plan, and the aff can read disads to that. In a floating PIK scenario, the neg isn't bound to a specific text and can often "clarify" the PIK so that it doesn't link to a disad that the aff reads against it. Aside from general whiny reasons about PICs being strategic, that is the reason floating PIKs are bad - they allow the negative to change their advocacy to avoid links, and often are probably too vague to actually deserve any solvency evidence. EDIT - original question: The neg generally won't characterize themselves as a floating PIK, they will just talk about "still doing the plan in the world of the alt". The aff would read theory against a floating PIK to force the neg to defend: a specific text and then a train of evidence from that text to any other stuff they want to solve for.
  12. James, I could have said "Others would say extending the original dropped warrant is sufficient." I felt it was implied by "some" and by not disagreeing with the prior response, but we should certainly be as specific and precise as possible in this forum, so thank you for correcting the omission. I wouldn't necessarily advise this myself, but the Duck often included that scenario in his Talk, so it is advice with a substantial pedigree. I agree that the strategic implications you raise are valid disadvantages to the idea, although I don't reach your conclusion as decisively. Even without 'allowing responses to a dropped argument', there are ways the 1ac could weaken the link, so strengthening it may still be desirable. I don't put much stock in this model of credibility; in fact, I think you are talking about "face" rather than credibility. I will expand this post later when I have more time.
  13. Very good explanation above. I would just add a few things. 1) Some would say you should read the link wall even if there isn't a link press by the 2ac, because you need to make the link more persuasive regardless. 2) The link wall often requires some new internal link evidence as well. 3) In the ideal scenario, you have a similar uniqueness wall, and the warrants from your uniqueness and link walls match up. IE, for each link claim that you make, you can defend that that warrant is unique. This is particularly important when your link evidence talks about particular warrants being more key than others. EG, above, the 2nc #2 evidence may say or rely on some reasoning like "this large group of reps will follow boehner regardless of their individual preferences" or "boehner as speaker will block the bill if he doesn't like it". In that case, you absolutely must be able to win that boehner is on board with the disad scenario now; the warrant of that link, if non-unique, can swamp your other uniqueness warrants.
  14. I have no idea what I'm talking about, however, speculatively, "economic engagement" means that a lot of affirmatives will directly advocate 'welcoming' the people of <C, M, V> as economic instruments and not as ethical beings. EG, if a team reads an economy advantage based on promoting industry in <C, M, V>, small disads to case like environmental degradation, interference in indigenous lifestyles, etc, are suddenly evidence that the aff is not recognizing the citizens of <> as having ethical worth. Could this interact usefully with some sort of consult the citizens or collaborate with local citizens organizations CP? The aff could win by arguing institutional incrementalism > essentialism, etc, and the K doesn't have the easiest inroads to aff advantage scenarios whether offensively or defensively. But I don't think the link is more forced for the neg than any other representational/discursive argument.
  15. Are people saying Obama needs capital with particular negotiators, or just to generally twist arms for yay votes? Particularly if the former, at this point it's not clear that Obama is actually investing capital - negotiations are in the Senate. It seems probable that once something is agreed, 1) in the Senate it will be whipped (or not) just within the chamber, without Obama, and 2) in the House, Boehner will either ignore the Hastert rule or not. I recall there were various possibilities for L --> I/L blunting last time this happened, eg president could unilaterally resolve the controversy between appropriations and debt ceiling in favor of appropriations, president could order the mint to cast an arbitrarily-large-denomination coin, TresSec can prioritize certain payments in a way that avoids default on T-bonds. Somebody must be writing about how the treasury would handle it? You might even make the mint-a-coin arg analytically, because it might be the only solution that doesn't violate any acts of Congress and therefore, arguably, the president's constitutional obligation.
×
×
  • Create New...