Jump to content

pooper

Member
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-12 Bad

About pooper

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 08/27/1990
  1. pooper

    Impacts to Ks

    Unless you have case D, or some type of impact-framework that excludes aff offense, case turns are pretty much neccessary to win. But you still should have an external impact that's seperate from the case.
  2. pooper

    Writing my Plan Text

    I have no idea what this means. The little theory block you posted earlier was explaining why textual comp is good, not functional comp. What you say in CX is irrelevant. My argument is that the IMPACT to my K proves that your plan is different than my cp. You'd have to answer the substance to the K to beat that. That's the 2ac #1 (functional competition good). Think of it as a "we meet". It's definitely strategic to say text comp is best, I'm just saying that the pic is arguably functionally comp too. This is just the definition of functional comp. You look at the actual effects, or function of the plan. The way the plan is phrased or worded simply doesn't matter. Each word is meaningless - only complete sentences create an actual thought. If the cp changes something that's in the plan, it isn't functionally plan plus. What??? What's your definition of functional competition? Do we at least agree that all word pics are textually competitive? Imagine this: Plan: give poor people X type of health care. CP: give people Y type of health care. Do we agree that the cp is both textually and functionally competitive? If the way that the social services is implemented toward people in poverty CHANGES with the cp, then it's non functionally plan plus. My example is imperfect because I changed the word X to Y. But it doesn't matter what words the plan uses if the function is different.
  3. Yeah, except this argument doesn't make zero sense. Condo is ok, but KICKING your condo alt is suddenly abusive? Give me a break.
  4. pooper

    Writing my Plan Text

    Dude, logic for the win. People don't go around at camp and say "hey guys, this really cool guy, Ankur, judged me!!!". People only bring up rounds that were particularly memorable. That usually means shitty judges.
  5. pooper

    Writing my Plan Text

    You'd be surprised the stuff we talk about at camp. And no, I'm not about to give the names of the people who think you suck. It's not for me to say.
  6. pooper

    Writing my Plan Text

    The "mandates" of the cp don't neccessarily determine the concrete, functional "effects" of the plan. If the mandates are performed with a stigma toward poor people, the effects, or function of the plan is radically different. It's not that the cp changes the way *we* view the plan, it's that it changes the way people give and receive social services. This doesn't make sense. Under no conditions should the words in the plan text be used to determine the function of the plan. My argument isn't that if the plan used a racist word that the racist word in the PLAN TEXT would change the effects of the plan, it's that the EFFECT of the cp (or the group of people that the cp effects) changes the way the people who the plan effects (people in poverty) are effected by the plan itself. I think it can be argued that word pics that ALSO effect the function of the plan to some people CAN be both textually and functionally competitive. Dude, this is the warrant to why functional comp is BAD. If you made this arg against my word pic, I'd concede that it's not functionally comp, and just say text comp is best... that's what you just explained above. Not if the cp effects people in poverty differently than the plan effects people in poverty... Without getting into a big offense/ defense good/ bad debate, in case anybody who's reading this thread is confused, you should never, under any circumstances, take advice from Ankur on debate theory. I've talked to many people who have had him as a judge, and the concensus is that he's terrible. Even if some of his arguments might be more "real world", that doesn't mean he can just assert that they are. 99% of judges agree that you need offense to win. I'm not going to respond to Ankur's vacuous and patronizing response. Just want to let you know that not many people agree with him. I pretty much agree with this. The concensus at my camp (at the moment) is that if your plan COULD effect people not in poverty, you need to either win an interp that says homeless people by definition are poor (because a lack of material conditions), or you need to specificy people living in poverty in your plan text.
  7. pooper

    Writing my Plan Text

    The "function of it's mandates" isn't relevant when determining functional competition. That's why it's different than textual comp - the way the plan is phrased, worded, or mandated doesn't matter - only the actual function/ implementation/ effect of the plan should be evaluated. You may be right about the non-objective/ arbitrary thing. The arg isn't that the reps are a function of the plan, it's that the reps and assumptions that real politicians/ people use effects the way we treat poor people. If the plan was to give social services to everyone, there wouldn't be the same stigma about signaling poor people out. The whole point of the K is that the words and effects of the plan change the way the plan functions *for poor people.*
  8. pooper

    Writing my Plan Text

    I think this is the more realist arg. No, I don't think a solvency deficit based on the implementation is the *net benefit*, it just means that the function of the cp and the plan towards people in poverty is probably different. The net benefit is a disad to representing people in poverty as needy or somehow subordinate to everyone else. The perm (do both) still links to that, and can't access double solvency.
  9. I've heard other people make this argument before, but I'm still not sure if I agree. The reason (I think) condo is bad is that it screws the 2AC's strategy - it makes it so the best 2ac offense is unstrategic to read. For example, if your best strategy against a spending disad is to read an economy link turn, that strategy becomes unstrategic if the neg also reads a states counter plan, assuming the cp solves the link turn to the disad. It seems to me that the level of abuse increases with each condo cp. For example, if you read just one condo cp (states) that tests the desirability of USfg action, it is still very strategic to answer spending disads with reasons why federal spending is good for the econ, while state spending is bad. You're link turn is both offense against the status quo AND offense against the conditional cp. However, if the neg also read a pic out of a social service, the pic would solve the link turn to econ. Assuming spending is also a net benefit to the pic, the 2nc can kick states, and the pic solves the link turn to the disad. Game over. The point is, if you're allowed to make 20 condo cps, sure you're winning a good "forces 2ac strategic thinking" link, but you're going to have a hard time proving it's not impossible to deliver an effective 2AC.
  10. pooper

    Writing my Plan Text

    Yeah, this is why if you don't know much about debate you should keep your thoughts to yourself. Too vague (unless your solvency evidence never gets more specific than "social services". Either way, you probably need a better defense of pics. At first I thought it wasn't functionally competitive too. But consider this: if your net benefit it a K that says that by only targeting poor people, the plan creates a stigma surrounding our policies that effect the impoverished, this implicates the IMPLEMENTATION of the plan. Because the cp effects everyone, it changes the way we implement social services to the people who are IN POVERTY - meaning it's arguably functionally competitive as well. Yeah, fuck strategy and intelligent plan writing. Let's add 20 planks to our plan text so we can predict all 20 actions the 1nc will pic out of!!! I'll save my 40 best cards for the 1AR!!! a) false. Or, post a card that defends using the word "poverty". you still can't beat it. The neg get's the block. They just need a risk of offense. The K. You're right, solvency can never be a net benefit. I doubt that one. Something tells me giving social services to every single person in the U.S. wouldn't go down well with everyone in Congress.
×
×
  • Create New...