Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About countersmash

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 04/14/1994

Profile Information

  • School
    not Edina
  • Biography
    oh hai
  • Location
  • Interests
  1. Name and location - Oliver He Berkeley, CA Years out of High School -1 Summary of debate experience - Debated 4 years policy at wayzata Willing to cut cards/reasearch (Y/N) No Is transportation needed? (Y/N) No Is housing needed? (Y/N) No Time(s) available/Tournaments available - Just the Berkeley tournament Contact Information heliuchuan (at) gmail.com
  2. lol there are like 4-5 on youtube if you search WGLF.
  3. That's impressive. Although I though MBK sat out for Mtn Bk with another guy?
  4. Where do I claim that GW is dumb or in "inferior" to fast debaters? GW did a great job and in the end convinced a majority of judges to write a ballot their way. I think its agreed that if we were to examine the flow argument by argument, Greenhill won the debate, but not all of the judges judge that way. As TheGreatInstigator said, GW put the emphasis on rhetoric and persuasiveness because they knew that was their best shot to win. I was not "shunning" them, rather I was congratulating them on being successful in their style of debate (which caters to non-circuit judges). However, the win would have been infinitely more impressive had they gotten a ballot from someone like Tara Tate or Greenstein as it would have proved that GW could compete with Greenhill at a national circuit level, which they are probably are not able to without completely revamping their style of debate.
  5. lol, and as expected, the 4 big name policy coaches vote for greenhill. congrats to GW on the win and being absolutely ridiculous at persuading non-policy judges to vote for them.
  6. I know the panel, but who voted for who?
  7. Wake Forest always seems to produce a relatively high number of one bid teams for its quarters bid level
  8. If you need help on OBJ, please contact either Kentucky Morrow or Michael Mcgrath, aka el capitan from Blake. They read OBJ at DDI and just DOMINATED teams on it.
  9. "GNS SS over GBN BH"? i thought it was vice versa
  10. in the prisons anology....its not "captivity" that is the issue. in your amended analogy, you assume that people in labor camps and criminals are the same thing, if this was true, i agree that the plan and cplan are mutually exclusive now, i don't think you are answering the scenario where the affirmative wins that the plan affects only people who are criminals, and that criminals are distinct from people in labor camps, and that since the cp makes it so those people get the new label of laborers and they are not considered criminals anymore, in the world of do both....the plan, which is predicated off the status quo of there being criminals in captivity, does nothing because there are no more criminals in captivity since they are all now laborers. i think the big issue here is that you are answering my analogies by pointing out flaws that aren't relavant to the question i'm asking, so like its clear that a laborer probably still is a criminal, but making that argument isn't disproving my initial thesis, i must ask you to assume that a criminal and laborer cannot be referred to by a single term "The analogous affirmative would be "release the criminals from captivity."" this is not anymore analogous...in context of this year im saying the plan is "reduce all troops assigned to coin" the cplan is "end the coin mission and switch to ct strategy" in your anology the plan would be "reduce the military presence from afghanistan" both CT and COIN would fall under this so in the perm, troops HAVE to leave afghanistan. which is the argument you make in the prisons analogy both laborers and criminals are in captivity, so in the perm people HAVE to leave captivity but the problem here is still is that you are mixing up the action of the plan and the subject of the plan. yes both are in captivity, but are both considered "criminals"? the plan mandates a subset of people, criminals, to freedom. what happens if the cp makes it so that subset of people doesn't exist anymore? and even we assume the plan was "reduce military presence", if the aff won the CT wasn't military presence, then the CP isn't competitive because in the perm no troops are removed it may be helpful if you persist in your prisons analogy to tell me what each part represents, it may allow me to make it more clear the argument im making i don't think we're making any progress in the analogy section so lets just go back to a realistic example of plan "reduce all troops assigned to coin in afghan" cplan "end the coin mission and switch to ct strategy in afghan" perm:do both the subject of the plan, "coin troops" is fiated away by the cp because there are no more "coin troops" post cp, there would only be "ct troops". its not a question of whether the actions are conflicting (redeploy or w/e, removing from captivity), it's a question of whether the subjects of the actions are conflicting (are ct troops different from coin troops? are laborers different from criminals or prisoners?) i agree perm is not topical but 1. whether perms have to be topical is a whole other question 2. do you really think offsets is a legit cp?
  11. how do you go all in on a trivialization argument, like the holocaust K or something.
  • Create New...