Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Friedrich_Nietzsche last won the day on September 12 2011

Friedrich_Nietzsche had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

38 Good

About Friedrich_Nietzsche

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday February 8

Profile Information

  • Name
  1. Yeah, that would be me. We actually didn't end up going to Silver and Black because I had to take SAT Subject Tests that weekend, so I just came to the tournament and did research/coached our teams before rounds.
  2. I'm from Utah, and debate here is a pretty mixed bag. We have several fairly competitive local programs (Andrew Arsht who just won the NDT went to Rowland Hall). I'd say the biggest problem with debate in Utah is it's fairly isolated. Anyone who wants to debate in college typically goes out of state (unless they go to Weber), and as such they don't stick around to help coach or improve the judging in the area.
  3. The distinction would be it's not a theoretical argument, but an implication of the advocacy's solvency. Not true, the utility of the argument is that it's a solvency deficit to the Word PIC. The argument amounts to a claim that the contradictory nature of the representations within the 1NC mean the Word PIC as an advocacy can't encapsulate the whole advocacy of the aff. Looking at the example I cited, an aff would frame their response as something along the lines of, "you cannot compartmentalize your representations - the securitizing construction of the politics disad they read in the 1NC has an inextricable effect on the formation of their advocacies because representations shape reality [X evidence], their Word PIC can't solve for the securitization we criticize because their rhetoric has tainted their advocacy with part of the problem." It's also probably important (at least in front of some judges) to distinguish the argument from a theoretical one. You do not need to win that conditionality or performative contradictions are theoretically illegitimate to win a solvency deficit off of their representations. Just because the practice is theoretically defensible in debate does not mean it doesn't have implications for how effective the advocacy is (this is where real world examples are helpful).
  4. There are other ways to handle word PICs as well when reading a K aff: 1. Enframing arguments - this would probably be something you'd tack on to the bottom of your 1AC. The argument here is that an attempt to co-opt the entirety of the 1AC speech act can't encompass the affirmative's solvency because it footnotes the criticism the affirmative brings to light in favor of a small net-benefit - this works best if you have a representations component in your 1AC. It's most useful versus Process CPs, but can be effective vs. certain word PICs. There is evidence out there that makes this argument, and if you don't have any feel free to shoot me a PM and I can send you some cites. 2. Reps compartmentalization solvency deficits - again, these are only useful if you have a representations component to your 1AC. The argument would be that even though the nature of conditionality legitimizes kicking advocacies to go for another one, the contradictory nature of the representations within the negative strategy taint the ability for their advocacy to actually solve parts of the affirmative. Say you read an aff with a securitization portion and their neg strat includes a K, word PIC, Process CP, T, a politics DA with a standard impact, and case takeouts, and they go for the word PIC. Your argument would be a cross-application of any impact K/analysis you did on the politics DA (or the Process CP if you K process CPs with stuff like the above enframing argument) and a strong forwarding of the argument that representations shape the outcome of policies. An analogy that works well for when explaining this is that if a lawyer did something ridiculous in a courtroom it would leave an impression in the mind of the jury that would affect their ability to reach a verdict - whether conscious or subconscious, and regardless of if it is legitimate for them to do so. In much the same way, the negative's attempts to isolate their representations based on individual contradicting advocacies damages the ability of their speech act to encapsulate the 1AC. Hopefully that wasn't just a stream of consciousness. I'm running on around 2 hours of sleep at the moment.
  5. If you're only going to a three week camp you would probably get more out of SDI than MNDI. Standard MNDI tends to be much more intro-level with the things they cover, unlike the other University of Michigan debate camps.
  6. There are plenty of reasons why debate as an activity is uniquely productive. Debate fosters many important skills necessary for political activism (http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202513655786 - a quick Google search should pull up a fulltext copy of the article). Most of the reasons debate is useful are fairly intuitive - improved research skills, confidence, understanding key points in arguments, etc.
  7. Since during this time of the year the next topic has yet to develop at all in terms of debate, I'd recommend that you work on prepping and cutting updates to generic impacts (i.e. hegemony, prolif, etc.), prepping out impact turn files, and organizing/fully highlighting your impact defense work if you haven't already. These things are pretty standard and are guaranteed to get some use, whereas any topic-specific work you may start doing could become null and void either because the topic takes a different direction or camps produce massive files on what you've already done.
  8. I feel like massive 2NC overviews for critiques are becoming a bit asinine, though I understand your viewpoint. I think the ultimate purpose for a critique overview should be to explain the impact level of the critique, flag any structural flaws with the 2AC's answer to the critique (i.e. "they have not made a permutation argument on the critique, that means I only have to win a risk of a link and an impact and that should be sufficient to vote negative"), and maybe have a very small amount of explanation on the thesis of the critique if it is a more dense philosophy (i.e. Lacanian psychoanalysis - you won't find many well-versed in that...). Arguably a Floating PIK falls into one of these categories, but I think for the sake of strategic utility it is better to embed the argument in the line-by-line in another place that makes sense - most aff teams will be paying their closest attention during the overview anyhow. I'm also a proponent of the standard "as per the 1NC we've not made a claim to be a Floating PIK," answer to any questions regarding the mutual exclusivity of the affirmative's action and the alternative. If they read Floating PIKs bad in the 2AC as a pre-empt so be it, just don't make one in the block and point out how there was no abuse since no argument was made. And I agree with your last statement completely, there is definitely a risk the 1AR could capitalize on a floating PIK as either another reason conditionality is abusive, or to supercharge any vague alternative theory arguments. For any 1As looking for some smart answers to add to their repertoire of K responses you should also say that Floating PIKs justify the new 1AR permutation - perm do the alternative - which is justified because the affirmative can happen in a world of the alt. If the 2N made a Floating PIK argument only hoping you'd drop it, chances are they stopped flowing after you made a theoretical objection to it, and they may drop an argument that can be pretty devastating.
  9. PIC stands for Plan Inclusive Counterplan - these are counterplans that, as the name states, include most of the plan. There are two types of these: 1. Functional PICs - these exclude a part of the aff's mandate - i.e. say the aff plan is "The USFG should deploy space solar power in Geosynchronous Orbit," the neg could read a PIC that says "The USFG should deploy space solar power in Low Earth Orbit." Obviously, the net benefit is based off of whatever you are excluding being bad. 2. Word PICs - these exclude a word from the plan text on the grounds that it is bad for X reason (typically critical) - i.e. aff is "The USFG should deploy space solar power." One common word PIC (and terrible one, mind you) is to PIC out of "the" and say it is statist, etc. - the text would be "A USFG should deploy space solar power." Functional PICs are generally only strategic against teams that specify what they do in their plan text, otherwise the aff could get away with saying perm do the CP because the aff doesn't specifically mandate X in its plan text. A floating PIK deals with a critique. A critique that is 'turned into a floating PIK' does not necessarily lack an alternative text - a floating PIK is typically an analytical argument made in the 2NC that amounts to, "the alternative isn't preclusive with the act of [PLAN], but the way the affirmative's representations shape their policy makes it bad for X" (that's how most phrase it for representations-based critiques anyhow). This does not necessarily change your alternative, it is just a vague claim to try and skirt any link-turns or aff-specific offense they may have. Often times a 1A that is paying attention will hear you say something along the lines of what a Floating PIK sounds like, and just read theory in the 1AR - your 2NR will likely have to just go for the standard alternative at that point, floating PIKs are pretty theoretically indefensible because of their very nature - the word "floating" is included in the name for a reason - they are horrendously vague. So really a floating PIK is a no-risk option that you might as well deploy... Unless you have a judge who doesn't think "reject the argument, not the team," is the appropriate answer to any theoretical objection with it (most judges will buy that, however). Then the question becomes where one should deploy a floating PIK. There seems to be a bit of a divide when it comes to this, and that's mostly because there are two types of critique debaters: The type that like to muddle the flow and make debates confusing hoping the aff drops something, and the kind that like to crystallize and make a clear, well-defended and explained argument, at the risk that the aff may understand it better and respond more effectively. I tend to fall in the latter group, and as such, I'd recommend deploying a floating PIK argument when doing the alternative solvency debate (wherever that may be) because it keeps things coherent. I like to introduce a floating PIK argument after explaining the mechanism of the alternative/what the alternative's worldview would look like, and it tends to make debates much clearer because a floating PIK as an argument creates a locus for what the standard for the alt's competition is i.e. is it based off of representations or an element of plan action? There is also the added benefit that the aff may not pick up on what you are doing because they may just be pulling cards or assuming you are blindly ranting about the alternative.
  10. I'm still convinced that the staff at 7 Week seniors is pretty solid. I know several people who had a great experience going to DDI and doing the Senior Assistants and 5 week program, and others that either did the MSU-Georgetown 7 week combination, or went to one or the other. The staff at all of those camps is solid as well. I know a lot of people say "oh go to X camp if you're a K debater and Y camp if you're policy," but I think that's a poor way to view camp choice. Flexibility is an important quality in a debater, and whether you're a K debater or a policy debater, going to camp to garner an in-depth knowledge of the topic is very beneficial. It is also becoming increasingly irrelevant to pick a camp based on what files they churn out thanks to the Open Evidence project. So I'd say you should wait for the finalized list of staff for each camp you may be thinking about for your senior year, and take it from there. It also may be useful to pick a camp that is known for having access to good research tools, as one of the most important skills you can gain from camp is improved research skills both in-general and topic-specific.
  11. Your argument seems to be closer to an adaptation scenario than a warming one. In that case your argument would be structured as: 1. Warming is happening now - irrelevant if anthopogenic 2. Plan is key to building effective response measures to climate change 3. Preparation is key stop [impact] (I'm pretty sure there are several teams on the wiki reading hegemony and economy scenarios - you should comb it and find the cites) To win a normal warming scenario you generally need to win that warming is anthropogenic, otherwise the likelihood that you can overwhelm the environmental alt causes is slim since your internal link to stopping climate change would almost certainly be decreasing some form of emissions, unless you've found a space technology that would literally modify the climate of the Earth through its use. Here's a few teams whose affs may be useful to look at: http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2011-2012+-+College+Prep+%28CA%29+-+Joel+Lee+%26+Jordan+Trafton#Affirmative-1AC DSCOVR (USC) http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2011-2012+-+Bingham+%28UT%29+-+Jayden+Rasmussen+%26+Misty+Tippets#Affirmative-CLARREO 1AC - Berkeley http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2011-2012+-+Glenbrook+South+%28IL%29+-+Jacob+Hurwitz+%26+Marc+Jacome#Affirmative-Environmental Monitoring-1AC - Warming
  12. Camp is what you make of it. I think this general maxim holds true regardless of what camp you go to. When I went there were plenty of people who didn't take advantage of having some of the best debate minds in the country working with them for seven straight weeks, and they didn't improve nearly as much as those who did. The lab leaders tend to take notice of who consistently come to them for feedback, redos, and turn in good research - they'll be more motivated to work with those debaters. It doesn't matter whether you're from a debate powerhouse, are a stellar debater, or an average one - just be involved and no matter what camp you go to you'll find you'll have a better experience. Though honestly there were only two complaints I ever had about 7 Week after having gone there twice, 1. the dorms are pretty lousy, and 2. the cafeteria food gets old after a while (though that's remedied by eating elsewhere). If you have an opportunity to attend 7 Week, I say go for it.
  13. Issues of context and leading questions are two red flags that come to mind when thinking about the legitimacy of emailed evidence; as does the act of only informing the author after the fact that the conversation is intended to be posted/utilized to advance an argument in an academic debate. I can think of an instance last year in which Greenhill and Gulliver Prep had a bit of a conflict over emailed evidence - one side emailed an author asking for a brief explanation of their argument in X article, then quickly followed that up with an email "X squad is articulating your argument as X, is this accurate?" the author's response to the grossly simplified explanation of the other team's argument was, of course, negative. In repsonse the other team emailed the author asking them if the "evidence" (which had been posted on the wiki) was legitimately articulated by the tag, and questioned whether or not the author had given them written permission to "publish" the emails and cite them as evidence - the author's response carried a tone of equal frustration. It's an issue of brightline. Even if there may be some genuinely well-done email correspondences between debaters and authors for every one of those there will probably be at least 20 terrible ones. Analytics are all well and fine, but the distinction seems pretty clear - cited evidence is an attempt to build greater credibility for an argument, and show greater in-depth warranted analysis for why X position is true/false, they cite studies, or may even just be claims made by experts (and the occasional awful pieces of evidence *cough* Corsi *cough*) whereas analytics are arguments based primarily in the debater's logic. These arguments are perfectly fine, and should be encouraged, but they are/should be used in distinct ways from evidence - what you suggest is not only tantamount to plagiarism but is probably bad for debaters as a whole. Motivating debaters to make blanket analytical statements in lieu of evidence is a poor way to encourage greater critical thinking. Motivating students to research credible authors and draw logical arguments from those conclusions and use those to bolster their arguments likely leads to a better form of education in debate rounds. If the question posed was just about the credibility of blogs I don't understand its overall relevance. If a piece of evidence is from a blog and a random author it's probably easy for the other team to point that out and hurt the credibility of the evidence significantly - I don't endorse that type of research myself, and I don't understand why that matters. .... It's not a question of whether the debater has a right to see your research prior to the debate, that's dodging the issue entirely. And the posting of email "evidence" is not a legitimate argument to make until there are clear established norms for a practice like that in debate. There currently are none. Historically there have been instances where emailed evidence has been sandbagged and posted online just minutes before a round takes place. You think that is a sound and fair way to create 'availability'? Try pseudo-availability. Yes, the other debater had a chance to email the author. This does not mean the debater A. would have asked the same questions in the same manner or B. received the same response, if receiving one at all. The idea that debaters can legitimately solicit authors for "evidence" through email correspondence will just breed a culture where debaters badger and inconsiderately harass (and that's just the tip of the iceberg - there are plenty of other instances of this type of 'inquiry' emerging from a debater emailing an author) authors who, quite frankly, probably have something better to be doing than articulating their thoughts to someone who will likely butcher their argument anyway. There's also the issue I explained above with the lack of response a piece of evidence posted from an email would receive from the academic community. Debaters generally only email and attempt to gain evidence from authors in such a fashion when soliciting said author for a comment on something not clearly mentioned by them in past writings - meaning, the literature to respond to that argument is probably poor to nonexistent - otherwise the debater would likely just research what was already out there to find in the first place...
  • Create New...