Jump to content

TThur

Member
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About TThur

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 05/11/1994

Profile Information

  • Name
    Tyler Thur
  • School
    Marquette University High School
  • Location
    Milwaukee
  1. This question is impossible to answer without knowing a few things. For the affirmative: are you planning on going for it? Is it your only option? Is it a clear voter? Is there in round abuse? How much time did they spend on it? For the Negative, basically the same questions, but change you to they and your to their. In terms of the 2AC, I would suggest that you have a condo frontline of about 20 seconds. Maybe 3 standards and an explained voting issue. Other theory a little shorter. In the case of something like a Word PIC, where theory is your main option, it would probably be more time as it is a better answer and is necessary to win a perm do the CP.
  2. TThur

    TOC

    Actually, Kinkaid was the 17th seed and they had to beat Jesuit to get into elims
  3. TThur

    Board Game

    1. You are debating the politics DA. You read a Link turn, and you want to straight turn the DA. You still need to read A) An impact turn Non-Unique C) No impact 2. What should you answer first in your 2AC? A) An economy disadvantage The Security K C) ASPEC 3. What's the best thing to do to prepare for CX? A) Write down some questions Get your speech together C) Pull cards for your partner 4. What's the best thing to cross examine the 2A on? A) The politics DA that will be in the 2nc The Security K that your partner will kick in the 2nc C) The Heg Da that you will take in your 1NR 5. What should be your order for the 1NC? A) Three off and case in the order of solvency then Heg Case in the order of solvency then Heg and then Heg C) Two off, case in the order of solvency then Heg, and one more off if you have time 6. The 2nr should... A) Never take what is in the 1nr Always take what they argued in the 2nc C) Discuss with their partner what they think is the best position to take? 7. If a team reads a Cap K and De-dev, you should A) Concede De-Dev and answer the Cap K Concede the Cap K and answer De-Dev C) Concede both 8. To kick out of an argument that has been link turned, you should A) Concede no impact Concede non-unique C) Concede case outweighs 9. To be able to argue contradictory off case positions, you need to argue A) Conditionality Good Unconditionality Good C) Conditionality Bad 10. Which is not needed to answer a CP? A) Perm Solvency Deficit C) An argument that a CP is severance 11. The plan says withdraw from Japan. The CP says withdraw from Iraq. A permutation that says withdraw from both and Kuwait is... A) Intrinsic Severance C) Perfectly fine, you can do both 12. All good arguments from CX need to... A) Be incorporated in the speech Nothing, the judge already heard them C) Ignored 13. When defending conditionality good, you need what? A) An interpretation A permutation C) 14. Affirmatives should argue what against T? A) Resonability Competing Interpretations C) We should pick which interpretation is best for debate 15. What is not needed to answer T (if you don't meet it) A) A counter-interpretation A we meet the counter interpretation C) An impact turn
  4. The difference is two fold. One, is the consent issue, which I think was addressed above. Two, your taking a block from another team or entire shells or as McFly said, evidence that they might not have even read. Taking that evidence is the equivalent of using their hard work for your benefit. Sure, your right that hearing good analytics and using them is inevitable, but that is not a justification to take the other teams exact format and arguments word for word. That is straight up plagiarism. Really? I thought that was called flowing/asking another team for clarification
  5. This seems clearly unethical. Its like getting cites in that you are getting the same information, but it is in an entirely different process. Teams should never save other teams speeches. The key issue is that this being done without permission. Some teams don't share full text and others would just prefer that you ask, but nothing should be taken without explicit permission.
  6. I'll keep this short, I'm tabs, and I will vote on anything in this round. Below are just some dispositions. CP- I think that my favorite ones are those that are specific to the case with case turns as net benefits. Aside from that, I think that I am more inclined than most to vote aff on the perm when there is a trivial/mitigated net benefit vs. a smallish solvency deficit, but in the end I would hope you would tell me what to value first. In terms of theory, I think that there are some types of perms that are illegitimate, but that does not mean that they are voting issue. That is an extreme uphill battle. The best recourse is probably just to reject the permutation. DA- I take these almost every 1NR. I think that all DA debates should have a focus on the IL to impacts of the affirmative-- this means make arguments like we access or we turn their impact. I love IL debates.The only thing that you need to know with this is that I think that judges should weigh probability more than they should. I would prefer to avoid the offense/defense framework (unless you tell me to use it), and I think that defense can take out a DA (or case). In your final rebuttals, you need to isolate what the key arguments are and WHY they take out the disad. If you do this, and do nuanced impact calc, you will win (most likely, pun intended). A side not on impact calc. As stated above, all debates should have a focus on probability impact calc. This involves considering the mathematic chance the DA happens, not just "were systemic, that means most probable". Use your speeches to consider the chance of each internal link (note... the final probability is them multiplied, not added). In terms of other impact calc, obviously timeframe and magnitude are important, but consider more advanced arguments like intervening actors etc. T- I think the Ross Smith lecture on T and framework is amazing. I default to resonability, but I can be convinced (with a frown) that Competing Interps are good. I should add, I'm a 2a if that says anything. Forcing a team to win that their interp is uniquely better seems dumb... I digress. The neg does not need actual abuse, but they do need to win why their potential abuse is likely (i.e. allowing military presence=troops probably wont lead to hundreds of possible affs.) Lastly, remember that theory is an argument too and that it should be treated as one. This means it has a claim, warrant and support. They kill education which kills debate is not an argument. "They explode the topic to every weapons system. This makes it impossible for us predict which affs to research. We need to research to gain education because its where we read relevant literature. If we don't have the proper research to debate, we can't participate in this discourse which is the IL to education. We need this specific education to advocate our ideas in the future" is an argument. I should add that I agree with Bro-dan... Kallmyer does have a great outlook on debate, and many of my thoughts stem from him. Anything else just ask. I'm sure I'm missing something..
  7. I know I'm showing up late, but can I judge too? I have dreamed of being on a panel with Bro Dan. If anyone needs a paradigm, I can post one
  8. I was at the protests last Thursday and no one was even talking about the cuts (Including signs and the public hearing). It was pretty much only about collective bargaining. In addition, yesterday the union talked to Walker and said they would accept the cuts if he canceled the collective bargaining part, but he said the state couldn't afford that... Lol.
  9. Initially note that I find your advantages confusing, at least in the sense that they don't seem to jive. From my impression, it seems like the thesis of the first advantage is that Heg is Good and to preserve it, we need to withdraw (At least with the Ferguson Card), yet it also seems to argue that offshore balancing is good (as the JSDF should take over). The second advantage continues to argue that offshore balancing is good to prevent Chinese Military Modernization. These two ideas don't seem to work together, at least in my mind. I think the best solution is to get rid of the stuff that says "Overstretch collapses Power" Ignoring that, I find it problematic that your entire first advantage (Japan SDF Build-up) sets up to be a Off-Shore Balancing, yet it lacks any terminal impact to Heg. This is poor strategy for two reasons... A. If the 1NC strategy was a heady mix of DAs/Offshore Balancing Bad, you/your partner are in a really bad spot for the 2AC. In this case, the neg probably gets 2 minutes of Heg Good in the 1NC, the 2AC probably gets about the same, but then the block has 5-8 mins to just out card you. You don't want to start a Heg Debate having to read uniqueness, ILs and Impacts in the 2AC. You need those cards in the 1AC to make the 2A's job easier. B. You waste a ton of time with all the troops overstretched evidence in the 1AC. You could get rid of those and then strengthen your Internal Links of Japan will rearm (in terms of JSDF). You could also make preempts to the obvious Japan Rearm DA as and IL Turn on case. I think that your best bet is to get rid of your 3rd advantage (which seems sketchy at best) and bulk up on the first advantage, adding some kind of scenario of offshore balancing with better IL on Japan Rearm in the place of troop overstretch.
  10. Two teams you're missing from Dubs that won are USN LZ and New Trier (C?)K. In Octos I am positive that New Trier lost to BCC, and I am pretty sure that USN lost to GDS KL
×
×
  • Create New...