Jump to content

Kingofsoda

Member
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Good

About Kingofsoda

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 05/16/1993
  1. The broader point stands. Predicating an award in which being at the TOC is a criteria of eligibility rewards those who are lucky and talented enough to be at the TOC in the same way predicating a gold medal on being present in London in 2012 rewards those who are lucky and talented enough to compete at the Olympics.
  2. did you really write them Ward? We had issues with this before...
  3. Bump... I know yall are leaving for the RR soon... if you could post it before you take off that would be super! Thanks!
  4. Just from looking at both Towson CK and Beacon DFs affs I would think their 2ACs are more than a little different...
  5. Not sure if yall read this but I know people that go to Beacon do so if you could let them know I'd appreciate it. Could you please update your wiki before Harvard. Specifically new aff arguments you are reading since September and your answers to common 1NCs like Topicality, Micro politics bad (Boggs stuff), and Capitalism K. Much appreciated and congrats on the season so far!
  6. haha, I'll let you know on Sunday, but probably not much. I would bet decent money @ 20-1 that somewhere between 68-70 teams end up with 2 or more bids. I do not think all 70 will attend the TOC. But I also don't think characterizing it as nearly impossible is incredibly accurate.
  7. Kingofsoda

    Wipeout

    a wipeout expert such as yourself should be more than capable of identifying the meta issue...
  8. Mainstream policy affs include: End COIN Remove Korea troops Withdraw Japan Marines Close Okinawa base End cooperation on Missile Defense with Japan Ban Drone warfare End PMC use in Afghanistan Withdraw TNWs from Turkey
  9. If I may recap: madc0de8: grrrrrr some kid in an online forum makes me angry... Why doesn't the website ban all people who make me angry?! LordAuch: Well, because it's arbitrary and very extreme. There are better ways to remedy the problem like an ignore list. madc0de8: Ok, compromise, put someone in charge of banning trolls Anyone follow the logic? Seriously dude, the guy made a joke about your grammar, and he was right. You got angry and basically called the people who run this website incompetent and then qualified it even further by saying, in so many words, that you know incompetence because you are an expert in the internets. Grow up.
  10. There are 49 teams now According to my numbers from last year the following tournaments gave out a teams second bid Emory - 2 Berkley - 3 Desert - 3 Stanford = 5 Vestavia = 1 Gonzaga = 3 That doesn't include these two tournaments: HF Lakeland So without including two late season semi final bids (8 potential bids) that brings my number to 66. If they each give out 1, that's 68. Now while this doesn't include fully qualified teams dropping out, my point is to claim EVERY 1 bid team has to beat a RR team TWICE in the doubles was too much hyperbole. Or at least open the discussion back up to explain why it is not hyperbole. btw, idk why it matters if a team gets their second bid at Desert and their 3rd at Gonzaga. As long as the number of teams with 1 bid (44) increases by similar numbers as it did last year, does it not still get us closer to 70 (even if they later get a third bid)
  11. there are 49 fully qualified teams and 44 1 bid teams. Lets say 12 of those teams represent teams that won't come (they have another partner with multiple bids, or they just can't go for various reasons) Lets say no one gets a ghost bid Lets say at Emory, 4 teams get their second bid At Harvard, 6 teams At Berkley, 8 teams Lets say: Golden Desert = 2 teams get their second bid Colleyville = 1 Pennsbury = 1 Stanford = 2 Vestavia = 1 Homewood Flossmoor = 1 Georgia = 1 Gonzaga = 2 Lakeland = 3 By my math 68 teams with 2 or more bids. If those numbers go up even a tad, 2 bid teams could be left out, couldn't they? This does not seem nearly mathematically impossible...
  12. Kingofsoda

    Wipeout

    It's more of a compliment than you think. The argument that you are most wrong about when reading wipeout, and thus why it a terrible strategy, you only have three pages dedicated to, all in random parts of the file. Despite that you still manage to win rounds.
  13. PM if you need his 2NR versus Barack Hebrew where he went for reverse spending and a diplomatic capital DA
  14. I don't believe I said "always superior"... in fact Example #1 was a case against the O/D paradigm. Suppose aff answered DA by saying "X...Y...Z" Fill in X...Y...Z to be three arguments you find persuasive, but would not put the risk of the DA at zero, in other words, three arguments that while may be more likely than not, still don't mean NO scenario for the disad materializing. I don't really care what the specific arguments are, it is irrelevant to this example in every conceivable way. O/D taken to its extreme is illogical. Rejecting it in every scenario is illogical. That is my point. Logical policymakers both reject and accept the O/D paradigm as a model for cost-benefit analysis (CBA). CBA training is one of debates greatest educational tools.
  15. This is a direct quote from you: "These are all defensive arguments and would mitigate the DA. If the aff "successfully mitigates" that could mean there is still risk of the DA or there is not risk of the DA" In my scenario I am going with the former. "Successfully mitigates" means there is still a risk. So despite the GREATER risk of truth being on the side of the affirmative, you still vote negative. It's funny how you backtrack so much when I call you out on using the O/D model. It's almost like you'd rather not be tagged with that label, even if its logical and true in this sense, just to avoid admitting there are instances where you use it. I agree there is such a scenario when a judge should assign no risk... see the first example in my original O/D post. But in THIS scenario, as the judge you believe there is a risk (for the purpose of the exercise). You thought the aff was winning a lot of defensive mitigation to the point where the disad is MORE unlikely than likely (but still possible), yet you voted negative (which YOU said you would).
×
×
  • Create New...