Jump to content

Tinkenator

Member
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tinkenator

  1. As part of my research for my history major I'm trying to ground the emergence of kritikal debate historically in the context of the wider United States. How much discussion of the history of the K is there present in this handbook? If not much, are there other written records you could perhaps point me to?
  2. The UTNIF files from that year seem to be corrupted, and I can't tell just from looking at the names. whether or not the file is there. Thanks for trying though!
  3. Hello! I'm looking for an old aff from the social services topic 2009-2010, produced by UTNIF. It was called by the people on my team at the time "the Notorious B.I.G." aff because it provided a basic income guarantee. It discussed at length the differences between welfare and what it dubbed "workfare" after the 1996 Republican revolution in the House of Representatives. I've done some searching, but I remember that it wasn't available on Planet Debate, though they do have some weird counterplan that's similar. If anyone in the community has such a file, I'd love to have it. I have some good files on hand for trading if you want, but ideally I'd just like a copy emailed to me. I'm sure something can be arranged. Thanks in advance!
  4. Hello! I'm looking for an old aff from the social services topic 2009-2010, produced by UTNIF. It was called by the people on my team at the time "the Notorious B.I.G." aff because it provided a basic income guarantee. It discussed at length the differences between welfare and what it dubbed "workfare" after the 1996 Republican revolution in the House of Representatives. I've done some searching, but I remember that it wasn't available on Planet Debate, though they do have some weird counterplan that's similar. If anyone in the community has such a file, I'd love to have it. I have some good files on hand for trading if you want, but ideally I'd just like a copy emailed to me. I'm sure something can be arranged. Thanks in advance!
  5. That would be a debate I'd like to see.
  6. Austin and Paige are good, yes, but I don't know if they can be declared the absolute best in the state. There are other good debaters in their circuit - Dallas Nan and Jeremy Feldman in particular - who have done quite well this year. All in all, it's a good crop of senior debaters this year, and it's only halfway through the year.
  7. So, why is it okay for teams to run the Cap K and advocate Marxism, a communist revolution, and complete upheaval of society as we know it, which has historically lead to the Gulags and other horrors worse than lynchings, but not racism good? Even if not all out communist in the alternatives, many Cap K's endorse the destruction of capitalism, which necessarily entails something more strongly socialist arising. People have strong feelings against communism, too; American society can barely stand the concept or brand of socialism today, let alone full on communist thought. One is commonly advocated, though, and one isn't. Why?
  8. Not having gone to Gonzaga, I'm unqualified to speak for them or compare them directly. That said... 4. Whitman's college debate team is policy oriented. As a good number of the lab leaders are recruited directly from the team, this means that you will have lab leaders who are equally as policy oriented. However, Whitman makes an effort to get lab leaders from outside of the immediate confines of their team, which means you have a good injection of kritikal debating as well. The lab leaders all produce an equal number of each type of argument (DA, CP, K, Aff, etc.) for the camp, so it's not biased. Furthermore, since lab leaders lecture about the aspects of debate that form their strengths, you don't have to worry about your education on K's or policy being skewed. 5. My own personal experience on this is the most helpful I can give. I went to Whitman last year with one goal, and that was to learn how to be a K-hack. By the end of the camp, I was thinking kritikally, successfully going for the K in 2NR's, and fully understanding the K's I learned at camp. The skills I learned there weren't just specific to K's, either; I was able to start debating on military presence being able to fully understand, and even research and personally compile, K's of all sorts.
  9. Whitman and Gonzaga both have very good three week programs that I would recommend looking into. I don't know personally when the Gonzaga camp is, but Whitman seems to fit your schedule requirements perfectly.
  10. Followed by some arguments that that makes nations more willing to use nukes... I doubt Brilliant Pebbles would be able to catch all of them.
  11. tinkenator [at] gmail [dot] com This.
  12. In addition, that camp is probably the cheapest you're going to find. I've heard about the Rebel Debate Institute in Las Vegas, but I can't really say I've heard anything good or bad about it. California has some debate camps, too, if you're willing to do some traveling - SCFI and Berkeley, specifically. The one I can attest to personally is Whitman, though. As an Idaho debater, I found a good mix of other Idahoans and people from other states.
  13. Tinkenator

    Schmitt K

    As a basic summary, yes. The way the kritik is structured most of the time is that the aff is trying to create peace, which gives them the moral authority to wage total wars to create that peace. However, if we fight for tangible gains only, we aren't going to feel motivated to carpetbomb hospitals and destroy evil nations, only defeat them in battle, so we can get that gain.
  14. Tinkenator

    Schmitt K

    Both Hillman and Schmitt claim that war/violence is gonna happen. What Schmitt says is that wars nowadays are waged in the name of peace - the US is the leader of the free world, leading humanity towards peace and stability. Any nation that creates trouble, therefore, is seen as outside of the order of humanity and its goals - they are dehumanized, and wars against them are crusades of the good against the evil. Complete annihilation is justified. The alternative is a return to the friend/enemy dichotomy, back when wars waged between nations were destructive, yes, but limited.
  15. Aside from switch side debate good arguments being used against affs that aren't affirming the resolution (often times, kritikal affs), it's also used in debates against topical counterplans, because in those instances the neg is just debating the aff side of things. The most interesting answer to switch side debate good I've seen is from a team that claimed they only ran topical counterplans on the neg, and a kritik of the resolution on the aff. Switch side, sure, but definitely the wrong side.
  16. An advocacy is a proposed change. So, the Plan is an advocacy, as are kritik alts and counterplans. However, a perm isn't a new advocacy, merely a test of competition to see whether doing the plan excludes the counterplan or kritik. You can't actually tell the judge to vote on the perm alone, though, just use the perm to show the counterplan or kritik isn't a reason to vote against the aff. As for abusive perms, there are a few, and they work slightly different for kritiks or counterplans. As an example, let's consider the resolution has something to do with getting food. Plan: Buy pizza and a soda, solves for hunger Counterplan: Buy salad, solves for hunger, vegetarianism, and health The first type of abusive perm is severance, in which the aff does all or part of the counterplan and part of the plan. For example, "Perm: Buy pizza and salad" is severance because it severs out of the soda, allowing the Plan to not be as unhealthy and thus more attractive. These perms are considered abusive due to the fact they aren't testing whether the counterplan is actually competitive with the Plan, and they make the aff a moving target. The second type of abusive perm is intrinsic, which adds a new element that wasn't in either the plan or counterplan. "Perm: Buy pizza, a soda, a salad, and start taking vitamins" is intrinsic, because it adds in taking vitamins to solve for the health net benefit. Intrinsicness is considered abusive because it's completely unpredictable, and thus makes for bad debate because the aff can just add an intrinsic element to any perm to defeat any counterplan, drastically shrinking neg ground. Another type of perm is timeframe, which adds the element of time into the perm. These aren't universally considered abusive, but they're not necessarily legit either. "Perm: Buy pizza and a soda, and buy salad next week" is an example. A general rule of thumb for making timeframe perms is that it's not abusive if you have the Plan first and the counterplan later, but if you have the counterplan first that merits voting neg. The universally recognized legitimate perm, though, is to do both the plan and the counterplan, or all of the plan and part of the counterplan. "Perm: Buy pizza, soda, and salad" is an example of this. A last word on kritiks. Perms generally work the exact same with kritiks as they do with counterplans, however the kritik will often force the aff to defend their discourse as well as their plantext.
  17. Though I completely agree that biopower links are screwy this year and not worth it, there is a K out there - the Velvet Glove K - that has its basis in biopower. What it says, more or less, is that by withdrawing we'll increase our soft power, which will increase our ability to manipulate the nations we were in more than just brute military occupation, and that's biopower in nature.
  18. Nah, man, that's just Inception.
  19. You have to work outside of the systems of oppression to solve!
  20. This specific point I'm going to have to contend with. Often times when I've had lay judges, they appreciate the K as interesting, deep, and fresh, as opposed to contrived DAs and case turns, CPs and Plans with sketchy solvency, etc. As long as one can run the K competently, which includes an understandable overview/underview, I don't think there's anything at all wrong with debating it in front of a lay judge. In fact, though I know this may be extreme, I would suggest that if one doesn't feel comfortable explaining the K to a lay judge, then one shouldn't be running the K.
  21. I'm interested in this, as well. I usually spend post-season time cutting preliminary stuff for next year, so this will give me a chance to multiple the amount of usefulness that provides.
  22. Well, with some K's, but not all, they'll be formatted to directly attack the solvency of a case. For instance, with the Terror Talk K, the terrorist rhetoric of the SQ actually increases terrorism instead of effectively combating it. That means that the affirmative can't solve for terrorism, because the rhetoric still breeds more terrorism. Even if we don't have an alt to solve this rhetoric, there's still the fact that they can't solve for what is usually a big advantage.
  23. Inherency is the status quo in relation to the 1AC. For many affs, that will just be the fact that there are troops in a country, and we're planning on keeping them there.
  24. The problem, as I see it, is culture shock. When my school's varsity policy debaters teach the novices, we have to make sure we don't teach them the ridiculous stuff first. After all, if novices see that debate is an activity of talking faster than they ever thought they'd want to be able to talk, why would they do it? Especially when such speed isn't necessary in novice division. Basically, showing movies like Resolved and exposing kids to spreading, kritiks, and nuclear war from the get-go isn't the way you're SUPPOSED to teach policy debate. It is necessary to ease the novices in before you show them the scary stuff.
×
×
  • Create New...