Jump to content

DebateScholar

Member
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About DebateScholar

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 02/15/1994

Profile Information

  • Name
    You won't forget it....
  • School
    Airline High School
  • Biography
    How does this relate to debate?
  • Location
    Bossier City, LA
  • Interests
    Debate... of course
  • Occupation
    I wish.
  1. Alright, so I have an extremely big question to know if anyone is willing to take the time to answer in depth and exactly as I ask. Not trying to be rude or anything, but please don't post shit like, "oh, that's so stupid", or "you will never win with this argument." Anybody with a specific expertise on this would be greatly appreciated if you answer. Question 1: How do you structure a performance aff? When I say this, I mean like, can I give my own analysis in my 1AC? Do I claim advantages? Question 2: Could you post a link up to Towson CL's Black Aesthetic aff they ran at CEDA? I want to know how theirs was structured. Don't try to look for other threads, because I can almost guarantee you that it is not up there. Anyways, all help is greatly appreciated, so anybody willing to answer or anybody with a good knowledge, please help. Thanks.
  2. Regardless of whether or not you are talking about military operations in other countries, the affirmative that I am dealing primarily with says "should we allow persons in poverty to enroll into the military and allow them to participate in our GED or College Plus program?" This is to an extent something that NATO should be Consulted on, seeing as how they may have a better solution, or maybe they don't think that the persons in poverty should not be enrolled, seeing as how some of them do not have above a 2 grade education. Just think a little bit. It might work
  3. Well see, I was thinking about using it as a strategy against those stupid military affirmatives that somehow get ran every year although there are new topics. P.S. - It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and they are comprised of some 20 or so nations who deal primarily with Military Affairs. I think it would be good to run against a military affirmative, because it after all deals with military operations.
  4. Hey, just wondering if anybody could post up a link to this counterplan, extensions and all, or email it to me at ryan.lindsey54@yahoo.com. Spammers will be blocked, so please keep it contained to debate. If you absolutely need a file to trade, tell me what you need, and I will see if I have it. If I don't, could I just ask someone out of generosity to give it to me? Thanks to anybody.
  5. I think that the Military Deployment resolution is probably the best one, next in line being China, then Latin America, then Russia, then the United Nations. I think the reason that Military deployment sparked my interest is that, I don't think that the American population seriously knows enough about the war over in the Middle East/South-Central Asian region. I think that what we do have, however, is alot of biased education, and not enough of a critical analysis of the controversy, which is probably the thing that fuels so much American Nationalism. Don't get me wrong, I think that what we are fighting for is (sort of) a good cause, but this will have a large amount of literature on the Critical side of the debate as well as the political side. A large education on al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc., will make this resolution worth it. I seriously would like to learn more on this, and that may just be me, but there is probably a crap load more of literature on this topic than many others. It is also much more revolutionary, per se, part in because alot of us think that we should not reduce military deployment, and that the terrorists are always the "bad guys", and you will hear alot of people saying stuff like "the only good muslim is a dead one." We will probably come to gain an understanding of why they do what they do, and not just because they are blood thirsty Islams who will try and dictate the world. I am not sure if any of you have checked out the pdf's that are on the NFHS website, but the military one impresses me alot. There is just so much you could do, and I can already think of a few good affirmatives for it too. Disadvantages would be constantly made, kritiks will have alot of good otherization arguments, objectivism, Lacan/Zizek, Representations, CRT, CLS, Libertarianism, Standpoint/Epistemology, etc.
  6. That is why you can do the following: A) Read solvency turns or no solvency arguments, or Make sure that the counterplan outweights. C) Read 4 disads that don't link to the cp but to the plan D) Diversify your arguments so that they spend less time on the counterplan and more time answering other things like T, K, DA, or Case. Not sure about any of ya'll, but I would never run a counterplan on its own; that would just never work out. At least run a disad or two, that way you can have some other NB's besides doing the Counterplan itself. Ah yes, and to the CP doesn't solve case thing; Just read solvency turns that don't apply to funding That way not only do you solve the counterplan, but you don't even have to read evidence saying that the counterplan solves the case; the SQ takes care of that. Just be sure that you have some decent case turns, otherwise it would come down to whose impacs outweigh whose. But impact calculus debate would be a breeze for the neg; the disads usually always going to have bigger impacts than the affs.
  7. That is why you can do the following: A) Read solvency turns or no solvency arguments, or Make sure that the counterplan outweights. C) Read 4 disads that don't link to the cp but to the plan D) Diversify your arguments so that they spend less time on the counterplan and more time answering other things like T, K, DA, or Case. Not sure about any of ya'll, but I would never run a counterplan on its own; that would just never work out. At least run a disad or two, that way you can have some other NB's besides doing the Counterplan itself. Ah yes, and to the CP doesn't solve case thing; Just read solvency turns that don't apply to funding That way not only do you solve the counterplan, but you don't even have to read evidence saying that the counterplan solves the case; the SQ takes care of that. Just be sure that you have some decent case turns, otherwise it would come down to whose impacs outweigh whose. But impact calculus debate would be a breeze for the neg; the disads usually always going to have bigger impacts than the affs.
  8. Quote completion: 6) Perms check abuse: a permutation is the one argument that they don't have to prepare; they can spend 2 seconds making one and we have to spend 15 seconds explaining why it doesn't solve. Well, i would have to say that that would be a debate. The Negative could also get up their and read OSPEC, although not that great of an argument, and claim that they should not get any intrinsic or severance perms because they have already spiked out of all of our spending DA ground. And, although it may seem not so, theory debate is just that; it depends on who debates it better. As with the permutation deal specifically, they could get perm: do the plan and the counterplan. Split the funding for both of them. That way, it wouldn't be intrinsic or severance either way, and would ensure a good debate on what is enough funding and what is not. In all of my debate years (just 1.5 lol) I have never won on an intrinsic permutation. So while it may come down to the theory debate, the aff would probably wind up losing out on anything intrinsic or severance. That theory was made to be read in the 2NC anyways, so if they permed in the 2AC, we probably wouldn't run that; if they didn't, we would. If they tried to perm in the 1AR, we would say that this justifies new arguments in the 2NR, so that would check back any time skews. So in the end, it would actually be harder to win on something like that more than you think. Let Me Explain The CP: This is to be ran if the affirmative specifies where their funding comes from in their plan text. For instance, say you have the following plan: The DEA (drug enforcement administration) should extend its authority to Mexico and Canada, and fund programs that teach Drug Education in schools on continental North America. Stupid plan? Maybe so. But they specify who funds their plan. This means that the money will already be set aside, so you cannot get any spending DA ground. So instead, you read Steal the Funding CP. This simply says that the DEA should instead fund some other program of your choice. So over all, it is a pretty good counterplan, but I am not sure where to start.
  9. Yes, but it would be intrinsic. You have to add more funding than you all ready are using, and thus, you would probably not get the perm. The theory debate would go to the neg on this one if they actually caught it.
  10. Well, as of now, I am fixing to cut one. I have a general idea of what it would look like, so I am going to do it. The main argument that you would have to defend against is theory; it is practically the equivalent of a conditions cp. They are usually insanely unpredictable, but unlike a conditions cp, it could not be permeable. You probably understand why. Here is the structure of what mine will look like: Observation 1: Plan Plan Text: The funder should reallocate funding for the affirmative plan and be put towards funding for specific service or organization. We will clarify Observation 2: Procedurals Mutually exclusive: any permutation is either severance or instrinsic; you cannot have one actor fund both things at the same time; to do this would short-circuit aff solvency. Non - Topical: We fund programs and/or organizations that are not social services. NB: We yeild advantages such as those of the affirmative; if we win that funding for our specific organization or program solves for the impacts that we claim, that is the Net benefit. Observation 3: Solvency (in this case, you would want to read a specific card as to how what you are funding would substantially benefit from a good hefty fund such as that of the affirmative plan... Trust me, their should be some literature on this.) And you could read a disad of some sort to add an extra net benefit to doing that counterplan. And here is some theory that I made up that you could read against anything that they may come up with against this cp: Defense 1) Not Infinitely Regressive: We will always be bound by mutual exclusivity and competitiveness; this checks all of the abuse that they may claim. 2) Predictability is a practice, not a situation: We all have our own epistemelogical understandings of what could be done and what we open our self up for; some people will see it coming, others don't. 3) Shouldn't have SPEC'ed funding: That would have solved their entire problem, and we wouldn't have been able to run the counterplan. 4) There is always a chance of unpredictable CP's no matter what: we have to be non-topical to even run the counterplan in the first place. 5) Debates have changed: debate is an academic sport widely influenced by chronological and geographical aspects; certain things have been prioritized over others, like education over fairness. 6) Perms check abuse: a permutation is the one argument that they don't have to prepare; they can spend 2 seconds making one, and we have to spend 15 seconds explaining why it doesn't solve. 7) Aff gets presumption: a counterplan is presented in round; this means that if they win their impacts outweigh in the 2ar, they win the debate. Offense 8) Education: We learn about more than just social services and what happens when you fund them more; we have an entire year for that. The counterplan however, cannot wait. 9) Key to checking aff bias: The affirmative is always going to have an inherent advantage over us; they have a 68% win skew, the first and last speeches, and infinite prep time. 10) More real world: if congress feels that a certain budget should be allocated more efficiently and productively, they will do so. 11) Debate is a search for the best policy option: The affirmatives framework even agrees with us on this. 12) Under their definition, predictable means topical: we would be forced to defend non competitive PIC's that functionally do the same that the plan does; kills our education standards 13) Checks their specification: they have already murdered most of our spending DA ground by overspecifying; at least give us one good argument. You can just take and add to that as you please. Here are a few organizations/programs you could make substantial benefit off of funding, and I may actually do one. 1) Drug Trafficking Regulation 2) NAACP 3) Native American advancement 4) Modernization services. 5) Veterans (perhaps) 6) AIDS development research
  11. Yeah, Lafayette will hit us at Ruston if you all are going. I am also going to Newman Smith, just to get back into the way things used to. Umm, we have just one Novice NCX team; the others are doing LD. Yes, I know, LD. But they had no choice. One of the novices were already doing LD, so i guess she wasn't really novice, and then we had Sam, who is doing LD. The remainder had to, because his partner dropped at the expenses of the tournaments. I have a new partner, because Alex Robertson had to go to a physical the day of the tournament. FML. I have to go with Dalton Witte, the nerdy little white kid that acts like Steve Erkel. Although, that may not be a bad thing, because we recently had a practice debate in class, and Alex Robertson had no idea how slow he was. So we will see how things go. Healthcare and Welfare reform are going to be some common affs this year, we have them prepped out nicely. Believe it or not, Steven Taylor became a K debater. Not sure how. But it happened. They have some magic stuff going on over at his camp. Victoria is a pretty good debater. I heard she won against Clark in a round once. I was pretty impressed. Regardless if Clark went to 2 week, doesn't mean that the other debaters from Ruston won't teach him anything. I went to 3 week, and just going there was off the hook. They put out some of the best evidence this year, or at least I think. We are thinking about going to alot of Texas Tournaments this year, so we are going to be coughing up alot of money. The reason its going to be expensive as well is that Mrs. McCartney (our coach) wants to stay out of the 'ghetto' hotels that we used to stay in, although they were probably much more fun. Well, what are your goals? State, Nationals, TOC? Mine: all three. Utopian: Yes. Make me a better debater: definately. Could it happen? You know it. Although I think i might skim by with a winning record, it is always worth trying. I just wish that some of the people in my debate class would put forth more effort into their works in debate. At the UTNIF tournament, I might see some old friends that I made up their. Its a TOC qualifier, so it will be VERY competitive over there, like, i don't think I could be ready by this Winter to go. We shall see. Well, best of luck to all of you at LHS. I am sure you are all going to have a great year. I am sure Nick and Ian are going to kick our asses at the tournaments that we go to, but oh well. That was alot, but I had alot to say, so see ya.
  12. Kirsten moved from Haughton to Airline, so she is in our class now. Mrs. McCartney is also a pretty good teacher, so we lucked out. Note: Steven Taylor got pissed because I tried to make a joke. He thought it was really douche baggish, so he wanted me to tell Laffayette that we are not actually running those affs. Not sure why that was such a horrible thing, as if we didn't do it all last year, but it certainly doesn't make a difference. Newman Smith Tournament in 3 weeks.
  13. Hey, Ryan from Airline High School. Actually, Little Vandekamp and Clawson didn't go to a very great camp this summer. By far, I am not going to say that they are bad, but they went to LSUS, which only gave them some more evidence and background on stuff. But besides that, Vandekamp and Taylor are going to be great this year. They are actually teaching all the other teams who were not as lucky to go to camp. Me and Aleks Sepulvado went to a really good camp this year. We may or may not debate together. It depends, she is going to debate with a girl named Kirsten, from Haughton High School. They could do pretty good together, it is just I have never seen Kirsten debate before. Last year she did OO, and made it to finals. So that was good. Tip off on aff cases from Airline. Garrett & Stephen - Kritikal Abortion AFF Garrett and Hunter - Postal Service AFF Me and Alex - Food Stamps AFF Aleks and Kirsten - Iraq Refugee AFF That is about it really. We don't have nearly as many novices this year as we did last year, but I think that we could pull off a few good tournaments. Clark Pierce went to the same camp as Steven Taylor, so I know that he is going to be GOOD. Trace Hancock went to the same camp that I did, along with a girl named Rebecca. Trace is probably going to be debating with Josh Jackson though. Not sure where Greathouse and Griggs went to, but I know that they will make it to the TOC this year. No doubt in my mind at all. But don't forget to put Greathouse and Griggs on there. Over all though, people are going to be alot better. We are constantly working on arguments, and prepping out all sorts of stuff. I am sure that Ruston is doing the same. Oh yes, I forgot to introduce myself. I debated you once before, but I can't remember what tournament, and you were debating with Nina, and I was debating with Hunter. You pulled out like the GTMHR aff, which we had no idea what it was about, and you killed us. My name is Ryan Lindsey though. Well, I hope we hit you at a tournament. See how far we have progressed as debaters since last year. See ya!
  14. All that you would have to do is create your own framework. What you have to do in this case, is that discourse, in this case representations, shapes reality, and thus you could solve all of their consequentialism arguments. Simply do the following. I. Interpretation A. Our Interpretation of debate is that we should not only discuss the people whose lives we are affecting, but the way in which our rhetoric frames the way we make policy. II. Violation A. The affirmative thinks that they can help persons in poverty by just applying realistic thought to everyday reality. III. Fiat is Bad A. Ethically irresponsible - We as debaters must challenge the assumptions made by the opposing team if it is unethical and can cause harm B. Extra Topical - Fiat is extra topical, it takes the definition of should, and applies it to the federal government. The USFG is not people debating, we are. Should implies inround actions, while activism is taken outside of the round. C. Roleplaying bad - detatches us from our responsibility as debaters to take part in the policy making process. IV. Net Benefits - (what is so good about applying your framework instead of theirs?) V. Role of the ballot - (why should the judge accept your framework). And you can read a framework solvency card or something like that. You probably specifically need to say something like " Challenging representations is the only way that we can break the stereotypical barrier in which we deem the poor, poor for their own causes, and shape policies so that it benefits the poor, not punish them.
×
×
  • Create New...