Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by azstud

  1. azstud


    Neufer, I'm sorry if it came across that way, but I'm not saying that the round was illegit, there is obviously some stuff that I could have explained better to the judges. And I meant to say that inherency is underrated in my previous post, cause ya inherency can be pretty sweet at times although if that is ALL you go for it shouldn't be a reason to win the entire debate, but you're right we have proved that you CAN lose ot it. Random, but not random (you don't have to read this rambling part) One last thing. I believe everything on a K flow must be solved by the alternative and I will in no way evaluate arguments on flows which have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the flow, in other words I don't reward sloppy debates. In otherwords: A. Protectionism is high now. B. Boosting civil liberties derails protectionism. C. Bush will backlash the plan. D. Weakend protectionism causes terrorism. E. Terrorism will go nuclear. I will not grant the C argument whether it is answered or not, because I'm not going to do work for the negative team for making me puzzled over my DA flow or try to convince themselves that their only way they can win is by hoping the other team only answers the DA part on the DA flow. The only way I would ever grant this is if the neg said something like explicitly said: "Cross-apply that Bush will backlash against the plan that was stuck in the DA flow meaning the plan won't get rolled back even in the event of an affirmative ballot, plan doesn't happen so neg wins on presumption." Because if you want me to treat this as a solvency take out, then you better freaken lable it as such. Cause how the hell am I supposed to know Bush will backlash the plan (which is on the DA) is supposed to take out the entire of solvency. Cause I'm going to treat that as part of the DA, so unless you can make it somehow fit with the Disad, it doesn't work. The only reason I mention this is because Helepota tried to win rounds (and in some cases successful) off stupid "hidden solvency take-outs" stuck in between T violations and Kritiks which had nothing to do with either.
  2. azstud


    Are you kidding me Elliot? Ok 1) I was just kidding 2) Judge intervention is inevitable, whether you like it or not you will have to face the fact that EVERY single judge intervenes to some degree on arguments he or she doesn't like. Look I'd vote on stupid things like Consult NATO, that doesn't mean I like it, while at the same time if the aff makes what I THINK are the right arguments and argues them the right way I will probably vote aff (regardless if they are REALLY the right arguments). At the end of the round the judge is INTERVENING through choosing a reason for decision. Oh ya and JR Maycock is the coolest ever.
  3. azstud


    That's true, but sheesh that decision was harsh, yes while inherency is overrated I got the sense that the judges didn't quite understand the warrants in that card because it assumes your NAGPRA law argument on-face. The middle judge gave the words of reason on that. Besides any risk that the aff is inherent means the affirmative wins.
  4. I wonder why the entire state of Arizona only gets two slots to Nationals?
  5. Ya man if you want to stay interested you have to watch us when we are aff. Although sometimes Div's consult NATO 2NRs are freaken tight.
  6. azstud


    Dude, that's because I didn't care about the Mountain View tournament, I wanted CJ to get practice with his affirmative. In fact, you saw his plan text before I even did. But still there is no justification for plan flaws, like if you are really concerned about plan flaws, then why don't you point them out when the aff team hands you there plan text so the aff team can correct it??? Next Year You All Better Watch Out, You Will Hate Having Me Judge You... Paradigm: -Plan Flaw = No Vote (unless the plan is completely unreasonable and there is no way you can decipher what the plan is trying to do). -Spec Arguments = No Voter -Time Cube = I Sign Ballot Aff Right After the 1NC -Kritiks = No, unless it's the F word -Politics = Sweetness -Case Specific DAs = Sweetness -Theory = Trigger Vote -Inherency = Neg Biased -Perms = Aff Biased
  7. Charles, you are waaaaay too cocky.
  8. azstud


    Sliced bread without the crust is cool? Well...I guess if you think plan flaws are cool, you have a pretty low threshold for coolness, so I can't be too surprised
  9. azstud


    -Textual competition rocks. -Plan flaw arguments are bad and have absolutely no basis for them. Unfortunately, most teams don't know how to argue against them correctly. -Hypotesting should be refurbished (i wish it could be run for this topic although the freaken framers changed the rez, so its not a hypothesis anymore . ) -Spec arguments suck and deserve to be spit on. -I love case specific disads. -Kritiks rock on this topic...This topic rocks period and my condolences to all those who have to debate on next years topic (it was cool before the revision). -Inherency is underrated and has less credit than it deserves. -Narratives are cool, and not n00b like most people think. -Not having a plan is stupid and is like saying "hi everybody i'm a moving target." -If you're the only one timing don't be a dick and accidently stop the timer during your speech or prep time and be like "let's just say I have four minutes left" -Consult CPs are about the stupidest thing ever to happen to policy debate. In addition to being flat-out not competitive, they are extremely abusive and ALWAYS conditional. -Genetics plays very little of a role on the strength of a debater. -Arguing with the judge when you know you have an illegit decision is stupid, what the hell are you trying to prove? Asking questions with legit judges is smart, because it shows you where you could have improved and possibly picked up the ballot.
  10. I normally hate impact turning but on the Christmas DA, impact turning is definitely the way to go. With our aff, I would have just said that Christmas is ethnocentric.
  11. Ya and that is excluding the Meadows +5 Bobby Kim bonus points
  12. Here is JV Policy (please fill in all the info I'm missing and I'll try to update it) Octos: Brophy KL (12) d. St. Francis (5) Arroyo Grande (4) d. ? (13) Claremont (9)(NEG) d. Mountain Home BC (8) 3-0 Rolland Hall St. Marks (1) d. ? (16) St. Francis (15) d. ? (2) Mountain Home MR (6)(NEG) d. Coppel CR (11) 2-1 Mountain Home MP (7)(NEG) d. Chamaid College Prep 2-1 (10) Kent Denver (14) d. Boise High (3) Quarters: Brophy KL d. Arroyo Grande Claremont d. Rolland Hall - Saint Marks St. Francis d. Mountain Home MP 2-1 Kent Denver def d. Mountain Home MR 2-1 Semis: Brophy KL d. Claremont St. Francis d. Kent Denver Finals: Brophy KL d. St. Francis Varsity: Congrats to College Prep and Kincaid! Domination. Brophy MM lowest seeded 7-1 possible, I'm curious what our speaks were like
  13. While the resolution has a few benefits with the revised edition and i can see why nfhs did that. I still like the old one better. Oh well. I'm not debating so i could care less. At least Biopower and the Voluntary CP won't be such a neg advantage as it would of with the original rez.
  14. Hey hey, no cheating, you can't count rounds with our weaker teams, those rounds don't count until next year otherwise we would get a point for beating one of your teams round 2 at USC. It's me and div & logan and fadok rounds against your top 3 (or however many competitive varsity teams) teams. Oh ya, and Nick, you totally stole my pun
  15. Ya, I totally understand your concern, I think there is an easy way to defeat this though. If someone tries to pull this off that only topical case is "military draft" all you need is ONE piece of CONTEXTUAL evidence that defines whatever your aff does as a national service and argue only your case is topical, and immediately you win the T debate, because at point they argue overlimiting good you capture it plus you can win all reasons why contextual definitions are best. (I normally would vehemately oppose only our case is topical, but it works way good if the neg tries to pull of some abusive overlimiting interp.) Oh ya and yusuf, you are my hero I agree with just about everything you say. If you check out the thread from last year, about Civil Liberties being picked you will see probably as much groaning and tons of "shit" comments, yet I like the affirmative I have this year better than any of mine from the previous four years. Oh ya and all of you are way lazy who are mad about this topic because you can't rerun affirmative cases in the past few years, thats totally lame.
  16. YES! I'm glad the NFHS knows best. This topic is going to encourage me to judge next year. While granted Africa wasn't bad next years topic ROCKS! I think it is funny how my favorite case of the original five got picked. 2 Years of foreign topics would have = bad there is a reason that foreign topics are only done once every three years. Ya I know my team was happy to find out NFHS made the right choice. TheEnd "This is the worst topic ever!" Completely unwarranted, nice case list and certainly not banal. Coove "Who is voting? Please, I want to know? As a coach this is so depressing. My team is almost all back next year. They were so excited about the Africa topic, and honestly, I was too. I even thought we were finally going to make the right choice this year since it had the most votes in the Fall. But no, we get another year of boring off case debate where negatives will control the ground and essentially ensure that we rarely talk about the case. Considering that the differences between cases will be small, it shouldn't be hard to get links. Our we just unique in the Northwest? Almost everyone up here prefers foreign policy topics too domestic. I just don't get it. Yes, National service is better than this year's topic, but Africa is a much better topic." Well, if National service is better than this year's topic then it must be pretty damn good cause this year rocks it allows for a lot of creative cases that fit in the resolution with sweet aff ground while allowing the neg to have decent case arguments and great Kritikal ground. I probably don't need to repeat myself when I say next year should be quite interesting and debate is anything but going in tubes. (read my previous posts on the final two thread if your still confused why National Service rocks)
  17. NATIONAL SERVICE ROCKS AND I WILL ANSWER WHAT I SEE AS THE THREE MAIN ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT Here is what I see people saying the disadvantages are with National Service. 1) Comprehensive ruins the topic, what the hell does that mean? O.K. don't tell me you want to eliminate this topic just because of comprehensive. First you will never win any brightline on negative if you use your " I'd lean aff on limits in predictability, if you interpret comprehensive to mean mandatory by ALL US citizens. View my previous posts on this. Even If you still are convinced the word comprehensive ruins the topic, please don't tell me substantially is any better (which is in vast majority of recent topics), and yet that isn't even a serious issue. Substiantial: "Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent" or "of great extent," or " Solidly built; strong." In fact just about any definition of substantial is way ambiguous, yet, people manage to meet it, how do you figure? BECAUSE YOU ARE ON THE LOSING SIDE OF THE DEBATE when you argue stupid ambiguous interpretations even if that is a more common definition it certainly isn't better for debate. 2) It's a freaken Hegemony topic which sucks, uhh...heg every round vote for africa! Noooooooooooooo...Read the previous posts, it doesn't have to be military support. Public works projects are certainly national service. The topic allows for cool creative affs which is what I like about this year's topic. 3) Mandatory National Service has hardcore biopower links This claim is the hardest to beat because its true, the negative has phatty links to biopower. At the same time every rez links to biopower even Africa. This doesn't screw the aff over, as if biopower is impossible to beat. I like hearing good biopower debates. Their are crazy links to K's on both resolutions, I don't understand how people can argue that they don't want to hear more biopower with national service cause it is inevitable biopower is all around us crazy people argue it is biopolitical control that is controlling my thought and is why I'm writing this right now. Look you will get biopower on both resolutions, and I don't think it gets old because biopower seems to be argued in a different way each time I hear it. While national service has strong foucault links, africa has strong lacan links, either way you can't avoid a good critical debate and I personally don't think the negative is necessarily favored so dramatically if you do so much as grant them the link to the most common K ever. I must answer this claim because it seems to go untouched. Plan flaw is STUPID, no just kidding it is REALLY STUPID. I am convinced you can EVEN mispell the name of like the court decision you are overruling if the mispelling is minor and it is obvious what you meant, especially if the aff team gives their plan text before the round. Please can somebody tell me what the logic is behind plan flaw. Education? As if debate is about education? Ya I'm sorry this has nothing to do with this thread, but WGLF's post kinda got me started. Ya Plan flaw should NEVER EVER be a voting issue unless the plan is way vague or it truly unclear what it means.
  18. QFA Someone who understands NAGPRA
  19. one problem, your interpretation of comprehensive is completely unpredictable if that is the case and you would lose T every time (assuming you still debated). After all substantially is in virtually all topics and yet that isn't even an issue. While at the same time its hard to find a bright line of substantially, that doesn't mean you reject the topic it means you exclude cases like help one person or what not. I don't see how comprehensive is any different. (But then again, you are Ankur the debate GOD and regardless of the topic you would still win. However, say you were your average varsity debater, they would be on the losing side of the standards debate arguing comprehensive) The best way to argue comprehensive (off the topic of my head) is mandatory for all US citizens and that meets most interpretations while still has decent standards and case list. I agree with birdwing that there is no reason you still can't meet comprehensive. I hate people who are assuming that the topic requires military service, it totally doesnt, it allows for creativity which is awesome. And even so a military service case could be pretty cool. After all prolif is the sweetest and truest impact of debate.
  20. wow, i'm not debating next year but i must say, debate is not screwed as i was afraid it would be if either aging or education made it. You can say whatever you want about National Service, but that resolution is freaking amazingly well worded and I think it is the only topic that is truly great on both sides while not exploding aff case list and not underlimiting either. For high school topics it is way sketch to state that US should increase its assistance in ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING education, public health, nutrition. This sucks because the aff can always spike out of any T violation saying it is another area. I really think one or more screws the resolution. Plus, it isn't that interesting because the policies are more focused on a certain region while at the same time you can be like Adv 1: Education, Adv. 2: Pub Health, Adv. 3: Nutrition. I am sooo glad National Service made it and can guarantee that if that is the topic, I will stay interested to judge strong teams. The topic is worded great leaving room for sweet interpretation. Topicality violations are feasible with service (mil. service) or comprehensive while at the same time it is GREAT for competing interpretations. I think its awesome because it allows for military cases if you want to take the more hegemonic route while at the same time you can do cases dealing with mandatory service for public works projects or stuff like that. Honestly the topic functions really well and has great stuff on both sides of the debate. This topic clearly allows for the most creative thinking as well. Think outside the box. And the NFHS is brilliant for keeping this in the runnings.
  21. then i guess i was lucky u were neg when u hit us. lol
  22. Charles is right that u wouldn't win in the first place if u are afraid of disclosing...that's why Charles is asking cause he'll lose if we dont disclose. Wut were we thinking, let's make for good debates. Please email me a copy of your 1AC and any 1NC Shells to any offcase positions you are thinking about running. As of now we are running Natives, but that could all change.
  23. azstud

    az team list

    wut the freaken hell???
  • Create New...