Jump to content

OGRawrcat

Member
  • Content Count

    2134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    103

OGRawrcat last won the day on February 6

OGRawrcat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1414 Excellent

About OGRawrcat

  • Rank
    grrrrrrrr
  • Birthday 05/25/1994

Profile Information

  • Name
    Colin
  • School
    GMU

Recent Profile Visitors

29668 profile views
  1. OGRawrcat

    This site

    .
  2. OGRawrcat

    This site

    .
  3. OGRawrcat

    This site

    .
  4. OGRawrcat

    This site

    .
  5. OGRawrcat

    This site

    .
  6. OGRawrcat

    [NVM Resolved]

    .
  7. OGRawrcat

    Never seen Kritiks

    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.
  8. OGRawrcat

    Never seen Kritiks

    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.
  9. OGRawrcat

    I dont understand Baudrillard

    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.
  10. OGRawrcat

    How do I run a plan specification argument?

    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.
  11. OGRawrcat

    Need a specific card

    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.
  12. OGRawrcat

    What arguments go best against T

    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
  13. OGRawrcat

    Need a specific card

    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.
  14. OGRawrcat

    The Debatercast

    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).
×