Jump to content

Vincent7

Member
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Vincent7

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 09/01/1995
  1. I'm glad we were able to resolve the hostility in this thread without having to resort to a fistfight in the JC Penny parking lot. That would have been unfortunate.
  2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Virilio say that speeding up capitalism is bad? How does that relate to spreading? I don't think spreading speeds up capitalism.
  3. Obviously the qualifiers deserve to be congratulated for doing well at the tournament, it's a difficult tournament and no one wants to take away from their success. I don't think anyone can deny that there is a bit of an issue when the best team in the state doesn't qualify. No one will deny that Blue Valley West Birzer/Yeamans is the best team in Kansas and one of the top teams in the nation. The fact that they are not representing Kansas at the NFL national tournament is a shame and reflects a problem with the way the national qualifiers work in Kansas. And also, your adaptation concern is cute, but I think everyone knows parents with little to no debate experience will NOT be judging at the national tournament. Judges flow at NFL Nationals.
  4. Uninstall debate synergy and download Verbatim, it is a lot more helpful and efficient and will allow you to avoid these problems.
  5. It doesn't matter, even the most topical affirmatives that are grounded deep into the literature will get hit by topicality. HSR is the aff that fits the resolution best probably, but teams are still going to run Topicality on it. Doesn't matter what the community thinks is topical. x-Factor - Keystone could be justified as being "In the United States" because the investment is what occurs in the United States.That's why Space Elevators is topical. But if one wants to look and see which affirmatives deserve to get Topicality run on them, I would say T-Subs could be prominent against Military Bases, New Orleans, and Port Maintenance. T - Transportation Infrastructure against Hydrogen Fuel Stations, Dams, etc.
  6. Brian Rubaie gave TOC Teach his flow of the quarters round at the TOC between ICW DH (neg) and Woodward SS (aff). ICW won on a 2-1 and Rubaie sat. Might be helpful to look at his flow here. You can also watch Jeffrey Ding's 2NR and Jason Sigalos' 2AR here to compare with Rubaie's flow.
  7. Really? I would have thought that the best excuse for losing a round would be dropping ASPEC in the 2AC...
  8. In those peoples' defense, this actually was relevant at 6A 2-Speaker State, all of the top teams were at the top of the schedule.
  9. Sems for 6A 2Speaker was definitely loaded, I wish I could have stayed and watched. Does anyone know the complete result for 6A Quarters, I know the following: WaRu KS def. WEast SV SME CH def. SMNW BC Manhattan PW def. ??? BVW BS def. ??? I believe that Manhattan defeated BVW MN and BVW defeated T-High MR. Is this correct?
  10. All right, that makes sense, thanks. In the context of a DA like SKFTA, would you use the term brink or threshold? Yeah, I assume he meant the comparison of impacts between the disad and the turn when he said the interaction is messy. By having defense, it would make it easier to compare the impacts. And I agree with you there. My partner and I generally prefer much more offense than defense, but we do both.
  11. Yeah, I usually prefer Impact turns with Impact Defense. This puts pressure on the Negative to have to respond to a disadvantage they don't really want to defend (as it seems to be prevalent in the areas I've debated in). This also avoids what Habler said about messiness because the impact comparison is so much smoother when you have offense on your impact turns and defense on their impacts giving you a fair advantage. JonathanChou - I agree with you in the defense is important, however I'm not sure as to how much defense is appropriate. I usually get by with Impact turns and Impact defense. Jgorman - I've always considered the example that you brought up about how much polcap Obama needs as a brink argument. What is the difference between a threshold argument and a brink argument?
  12. Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. So should I always be reading NU and No link with an impact turn?
  13. 1. Hold on, doesn't NU with no link and impact turn cause the aff to double turn (I believe that's the term) themselves? Take SKFTA for example: The Aff says: A. Non-Uq - SKFTA won't pass B. No link - Plan Popular C. Impact turn - SKFTA passage leads to South Korean overconfidence and nuclear war It wouldn't be hard for the Neg to spin that Plan popular means that SKFTA will pass, then they just have to concede those three arguments and show that the aff just read a different version of SKFTA on themselves. I know that some people on the 3NR said that it's illegit, but the debate community seems split about this (the neg changing the SKFTA argument), and any bad Aff debater will lose to the double turn theory. 2. So Internal link like in the example of SKFTA again, where the internal link is alliance collapse, the threshold argument is defense to the alliance collapse argument? That makes sense, thanks.
  14. Nice, this is very helpful, thanks. I have 2 questions on Disadvantages though: 1) In your opinion, is it better to have 2 impact turns on a Disadvantage than Non-Uq, No link, and Link turn? Are impact turns more or less strategic straight turns than link turns? 2) Could you elaborate one argument 5, the threshold thing. I've never heard that terminology actually being used, but that doesn't mean I haven't heard the argument. I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.
×
×
  • Create New...