Jump to content

Lt. Dan

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Lt. Dan

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/21/1992
  1. No, you can't "reasonably" meet an interpretation, you either meet or you don't meet. Most people consider reasonability to be that if the aff's counter interp is reasonably fair and educational, T shouldn't be an issue. To win T with a reasonability f/w, the neg has to prove that debate is functionally impossible with the aff's counter interp. If they don't have a counter interp, they pretty much have to win either a we meet, or no case meets...
  2. I'm willing to bet the "XO bypasses Congress" cards are pretty good...
  3. That's not what he's saying. Even if there is no violation, the K still has a link.
  4. No, the XO cp is based around this concept. Shree, spend 5 minutes and cut your own ev if you're not satisfied with a camp file.
  5. Lt. Dan

    Dropped Arguments

    It's really 34 seconds per page, not 3.4 seconds.
  6. Lt. Dan


    Ok... the neg can cp out of an extra topical advantage. EASY WIN!!!12!1! Assuming you at least have some 2ac add ons that talk about why your actual plan mechanism is good, this cp just gets the neg back to where they started, by solving unfair advantages... No, the perm would solve any "better link" to the advantage. Yeah... you cp out of a heg advantage, and you have a "shitty" econ disad to weigh against all the other shit normal plans solve for... Yeah, that's why they're going to lose on T every round - trust me. I'm going to explain this one more time - I doubt I'll find it worth my time to repeat this explanation again. If you still don’t agree with me, ask around. The rez is verbatim "The United States federal government should substantially increase social services to persons living in poverty in the United States". The aff can claim advantages from a plan that takes a resolution action. The action of "cutting military spending" MAY BE a real world part of what giving social services ENTAILS, but it makes you extra topical if you MANDATE or try to fiat something that isn't part of the resolution. You can claim your shitty trade off advantage, but you have to prove that normal means is for Congress to cut military spending... otherwise, you can't claim that ground. And to the OP – this convo probably explains why even claiming trade off advantages without being extra topical isn’t strategic. The neg can cp out of the advantage with a zero risk of a solvency deficit by just cutting the budget…
  7. The answer to this is 99% of the other literature says people are people.
  8. Lt. Dan


    That cp wouldn't be an easy neg ballot, it would just get the neg back to where they started - squo (econ disad) vs the actual resolution (stuff about giving social services to people in poverty). Specifying funding is unstrategic because it makes funding pics competitive (like when the neg does the plan except trades off with a different budget). Specifying funding makes them extra topical because they mandate an action other than the resolution. Even if in the real world trade offs occur, the resolution doesn't specify a particular budget that we should trade off with - that means that the aff has to defend normal means, not define normal means in their plan text.
  9. dude... c'mon now, let's get real... this aff doesn't solve shit
  10. Yeah, you should number the 1nc case arguments and 2ac frontlines to off case arguments. From then on, you can describe arguments as "the 1nc #3", or "the 2ac #2". Line by line is just when you answer each argument down the flow in the same order as the other team made the argument.
  • Create New...