Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


OGRawrcat last won the day on April 25

OGRawrcat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1416 Excellent

About OGRawrcat

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/25/1994

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School

Recent Profile Visitors

29784 profile views
  1. Typically domain registrars give grace periods reserving the domain for a handful of months to whomever purchased the domain if a payment isn't made. Though service would be down during that period. Also, decent chance that any kind of IP civil suit would go David's way. Domain squatting has been legally dealt with a good while ago and while I don't think that the name cross-x is trademarked or anything, there's definitely some basic legal protection given that the site has been firmly established for 2 decades. Basically, this is not a very pragmatic idea that could stand to turn out bad for whomever tries it. Looked into this. Didn't come to an agreement at this point. Though I won't go into more detail because I and the others who were talking with him agreed not to (a stipulation we offered).
  2. Mostly strategic purposes. More often than not, a critical plan aff is intended to be in the direction of progressive critical literature with its big distinction being a state based mechanism, so perm solvency arguments are intuitive. Moreover, some offense like impact turns that open up different strategic avenues may have too much tension with the aff (like if they read a cap k and you make some root cause arguments for cap in your 1ac). Beyond that, most strategies outside of the perm involve heavier clash on the impact framing debate. For instance if you impact turn or go for case outweighs, it's easier to delineate clash when you're comparing big stick util impacts to structural impacts. A notable exception is pessimism K's. Just got for the impact turn for state action good, progress possible/optimism good, and alt offense. An important distinction I should say is that the perm doesnt have to be the a strat, going for offense to the alt is just as viable, BUT that jives well with a perm debate anyway, the perm also giving you wiggle room to mitigate neg links/impacts.
  3. A policy aff with a critical advantage almost always is locked into the perm. What you should keep in mind are the parts you need to win for the perm: 1- extend the exact perm you want and explain how it works 2- perm solves. The perm solving needs to explain why it resolves the various links to the k, not necessarily do exactly what the alt is. If there are some links you can never solve (like a state action bad link), flag that you're impact turning them and flag that impact turn as a net benefit 3- net benefits to the perm- offensive reasons why the perm should be preferred over the k alt. So with this in mind, consider the generic arguments that you can make to support your aff against the k. A generic frontline would look like: - plan action does something critical to challenge power generally OR what your plan resolves spills over into challenging general social problems, should have a built in state action key warrant - perm solvency - should be built into your 1ac advantage internal links - articulate why the k alt cant solve it - also makes your advantage a net benefit to the perm - state action key to solve - generic - state action good turn - can be something like "cede the political" - generic alt offense - this takes reading into how their alt works. If at the basic level they make ontology arguments, say ontological focus bad. If they say they're a movement, movements bad. Etc etc. All alt offense can be framed as net benefits to the perm AND has the dual effect of tanking alt solvency. Taking out alt solvency means even if they win a link to the perm, they cant uniquely leverage that as offense because THEY don't solve the link. - generic alt solvency answers - prioritize alt offense because it can also take out alt solvency as well, thus is more multipurpose. Other notes: - making "no k's allowed" framework args are hokey and not persuasive unless you have a traditionally minded judge. Making "we should get to weigh the aff" framework arguments are still kind of pointless. When teams make the argument that we shouldn't evaluate if the plan happens, they're making an argument about the education or framing of the aff being bad. So the right answer is to have "our epistemology good" arguments like "scenario planning good" or even use of the state is good sort of works here. This is much more directly engaging and persuasive than a theory argument. - always look for how a new k ties into other critiques. Chances are they are not totally new and are tied into some vein of thought debate has already done to death. Cross x is a good place to parse out links to find a path back to pulling answers from your a2 cap k, a2 whiteness k, etc files. - lastly, explanation trumps cards. Detailing how the perm works and how it can resolve links to the k requires detail and thought, not evidence from authors. Btw, answering specific links with the perm should be in the 1ar, not the 2ac. It's a little pointless in the 2ac when the block will make new link args.
  4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/baudrillard/#2 More on point explanation of Symbolic Exchange and Death. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a solid go to.
  5. The 1nc is structured like a t violation: - interp - violation - standards - voters The interp should be "the aff should specify x" Usually the violation can be assumed but you can say it if you want to make if clear that you do not, in fact, think they specified. The standards are almost always going to be geared toward ground arguments, so something like neg ground loss, aff conditionality, etc. Always flag what arguments that they make problematic, what DAs you cant get, what CPs. Remember, you don't have to zero in on in round abuse, procedurals are establishing the best standard for what affs should do on this topic or generally, so justifying those arguments is bad enough. You can make other standards but a) you're less likely to win them (like limits is kind of more of an aff arg since specifying increases the number of aff cases), b) other standards args you make would really just be used to hedge against aff answers, so you can save time in your 1nc and just make those arguments in 2nc/1nr blocks. An exception to that is when you're reading a specification arg that is topic specific (like exact increase on visas), in which case you should make a topic education arg. This is really the only place you should need to use a card in a spec debate and evidence you read should be like "specification on x thing is important to the immigration discussion." For voters, fairness is the impact to ground. Topic education is a voter in and of itself. This is kind of rambling, I hammered it out on my phone.
  6. The first use/strike distinction is interesting but you would really really need a depth of evidence to back up that there is a large policy distinction. Most, if not all, aff solvency/internal link evidence on NFU will conflate the 2 terms, making aff answers fairly straightforward that there isn't much of distinction in how these terms are applied based on context in evidence. Another thing to consider is how this implicates aff advantages. NFU affs in broad strokes have both the straight up trump launches nukes advantages as well as perception/cred/miscalc advantages. So I can see this argument being an internal link take out to the former, but misses taking out how other international actors perceive US NFU policy, which you need specific evidence for. I think the best way to deploy this specific argument is as a supplement to circumvention arguments. So if you have arguments that trump will try to launch anyway and/or that he'll look for loopholes, you establish motive for him to try, this argument about technical distinctions between the two policies establishes means of circumventing.
  7. Typically an arbitrary interp, but T-substantial could be applicable. The un way to do T debates: combine all 3 of the above violations into one shell and then strategically choose interps to kick or extend based on how well the 2ac contextualizes their standards debate to your shell
  8. I feel like you're trying to make the argument that US first strike stops second strike capabilities, thus no retaliation and no extinction. Which I don't think will pan out as much of an argument. Do research into nuclear policy and nuclear security. Read some more into IR scholars and you just might find that, but eh. Russia definitely has effective second strike capabilities.
  9. Gotta say, I loved the Jeffery Lewis interview. It's nice to hear from former debaters in the professional world, especially ones who are highly reputable in their field (#nukes).
  10. @seanarchy I am with you ethically. Trump is awful, genocide is bad, racism is bad. All of these posts rise to the level of why you think ktyler is dealing in intolerant ideas, but are a) tinged with an aggressive and dismissive tone and b) don't really try to engage meaningfully with ktyler. Countering intolerance should go beyond just saying "this is racist or privileged" and aim to both understand why those beliefs are held and moving from there in the language of who you're talking to why those ideas are intolerant and should be rejected. Taking an empathetic approach to encountering intolerant ideas is a better method for fostering an inclusive community. Be mindful that the "exclusion" of ideas in aiming for a better society is what creates the victimized attitude of white identity politics that got Trump elected. Whether or not you think that's a good excuse for white identity politics is irrelevant because that's how they feel. An underlying goal of debate is effective communication. That's way the vast majority of college debate programs are housed in the Communications Department and the Directors are usually tenured comm professors (or at least policy, I'm not that aware of other college debate activities). Communication as a skill translates in a variety of ways: politics (at a variety of levels), law (ridic long list of former debaters practicing law, the USMA director writes for Lawfare), activism (The Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle grassroots think tank comes to mind), journalism (Nate Silver, Nate Cohn). All of those fields involve persuasion. On an interpersonal level, I think that the skill of being able to dissect ideas, understand them, and approach them in that language is a valuable approach to persuasion and most effective. I don't really know why ktyler would feel like he would need to be open to you changing his mind when this thread was created as a roast of him and I don't think you took a particularly passive stance yourself. I admittedly didn't as well when I quoted your post and I apologize for that. Public call outs with seeming little intention of trying to work with someone you disagree with come across that way to me, with a notable exception for public officials and celebrities who by nature operate in that sphere. That may not have been your intention and I'm sorry for mis-attributing it to you. But really, I'm not a 4channer saying feminism is a feel-good enterprise or conspiracy to take down men.
  • Create New...