Jump to content

OGRawrcat

Member
  • Content Count

    2142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    109

OGRawrcat last won the day on June 4

OGRawrcat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1425 Excellent

About OGRawrcat

Profile Information

  • Name
    Colin
  • School
    GMU

Recent Profile Visitors

30047 profile views
  1. You should look for interps that describe specific actions that are minimally required to be substantial in context of topic specific phrases. This can be numerical, but cards that describe specific portions of FMS or DCS(?) as significant, such as particular weapons systems, countries, international agreements, etc etc etc. This establishes a clearer baseline for a) what the best neg ground looks like/gives a clearer story for WHY your minimal action is necessary for core topic discussions and core ground, b) makes it easier to sidestep the overlimits debate by saying "we could do the aff so long as this action is also done" (which makes your TVA debate simple as well). You should otherwise set up your limits DA with cards that outline the number of countries we deal with, number of agreements we have with individual countries (giving one country as an example is fine, the point is showing that we have a variety of overlapping arms deals with each country), and number of items considered arms for arms sales. I want to specify that the best/most contextual "substantially" cards are actually specific topic phrase interps like "x agreement is the core of foreign military sales, necessary for a substantial reduction."
  2. 2 things: 1- You shouldn't strive to design T arguments on the negative to be accommodating to the aff. Your framing argument for T on the neg is competing interpretations. By definition your goal is to provide the most limited interpretation of a word or phrase in the resolution to provide the best predictable limits for a topic. An important thing to remember is that while yes, the aff will have some kind of aff education good argument, your impact on the negative is fairness. So even if the aff wins some risk of offense from an education-based standard, you can win that debate with impact framing/comparison between fairness and education. 2- substantially violations aren't usually persuasive unless you have topic-specific interp/violation cards. Otherwise the aff saying "this is arbitrary, here's a card saying substantially means x%" is pretty easy to listen to. So this will either be a matter of research for you or a waiting game to see what debate camps put out (though typically words that aren't topic specific just get copy/pasted backfile cards from college debaters/coaches doing camp assignments).
  3. Quick distinction in mod v admin powers. Mods can only manage content on the front end of the website (within whatever allowed permissions). Stuff like forum creation is all admin control panel stuff. David can't hand out those powers without also enabling a user to be able to basically control the entire site. That said, topic came out around the new year and he's been active since. For the sake of this topic's request, @David should be tagged.
  4. OGRawrcat

    I'm sorry.

    I like how the topic title says that you're sorry and the topic content is finger wagging. I say this as someone who didn't participate in that thread at all.
  5. If your parents are still a hard no, ask your coach if it would be acceptable if you got direct instruction from someone with college coaching experience throughout the summer. I'd be happy to help and try to rally a couple of people to pitch in. While a) it would be virtual, b) you wouldn't really be able to do practice debates (unless we could specially arrange something), and c) not be constantly engaged (I work and have kids, so definitely some lag in response/aid outside of video chat practice speeches), it's worth noting that almost no one at the collegiate level does camp and somehow many manage to have big gains in skill over the summer doing functionally what I'm offering (meaning cutting cards with oversight+direction, doing practice speeches/drills, watching debates/lectures online and discussing them with someone, and talking/thinking about debate generally.). Sidenote: kind of crappy and elitist that you HAVE to spend a big chunk of money over the summer in order to travel. That's pretty unfair and why I'm offering. Sidenote #2: I'm not asking for money, seems like a just cause. Also why I can't offer to be fully engaged. Sidenote #3: This past season was my third season coaching college. Not way out of the activity or anything.
  6. 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).
  7. 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. 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. 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. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...