Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by maccook

  1. Agree with everyone in the thread. KCKCC, Washburn Rural, and Wichita East are all on the more progressive end of the spectrum.
  2. I think the biggest problem with this argument is that the internal link to your impact is empirically denied. The card is from before the Eurozone really started to go south. I think this has a couple of implications: either the EU's economy got bad enough to hurt international trade before and nothing happened OR it means your card assumes that trade would be a problem only if the EU's economy totally collapsed, which I don't think you have any evidence saying there's a risk of, let alone saying the trade deal would by itself stop that.
  3. I think people really underestimate the neolib k for this topic. Most of the unsavory parts of our engagement with Latin America post World War II has been driven by neoliberal economics. Pinochet's restructuring of Chile's economy, for example, was based pretty much solely on the Chicago School of economics. While Chile is the most notable example with the deepest scholarship, we had ecomomic motivations in backing most of the dictators we did in Latin America from the 50s on. I think people who run imperialism bad arguments are going to find that for this topic, they're closely tied to neoliberalism. Combining these elements would probably make for a pretty strong K, because you'll have tons of real-life examples.
  4. Or you could just, you know, understand and win the Nietzsche alt.
  5. maccook

    Cx File

    Call me crazy, but I like to think that Nietzsche's ideas are a little more complex than "YOLO."
  6. Stop that. Right now.
  7. College : KU Major: History/PoliSci Debating
  8. I believe BY will be debating Barstow DL in quarters tomorrow morning.
  9. You should definitely be asking all of them questions. If your panel is mixed (flow, lay, somewhere in-between), play to the lowest common denominator (adapt to the worst judge). There's not really much a risk that quality judges will drop you just for adapting the others on the panel, but there's a good chance that lay judges will. Better to play it safe. The only exception I can think of is if there's two good judges and you know you can beat this other team in a highly technical round, then you should just go for it. But otherwise, just adapt to the weakest link and work from there, if you don't, you're basically giving up a ballot before the debate even starts.
  10. Best all around team (speed and open styles): BVW Birzer/Yeamans Best Squad: BVW Coach of the year: Tough call - either Kelly Thompson or Steve DuBois Best speed-style team: BVW Birzer/Yeamans Best lay team: Manhattan Deloach/Seaton Best Affirmative Team: Washbrun Rural Christensen/Rattan Best Negative Team: BVW Birzer/Yeamans Prettiest Speaker: Jake Seaton Fastest Debater: Spencer Yeamans Best 1A: Chris Brizer Best 2A: Sahil Rattan Best 1N: Sarah Evans Best 2N: Keith Monaghan Most likely to do well next year in high school: WaRu Rattan/?, BVSW Locke/Super Person most likely to graduate and judge: Mason Owen Best Judge: Tim Quinn, Sean Stenger, Melanie Campbell Most underrated team: Manhattan Deloach/Seaton, Emporia Haynes/Smith, BVW Bajwa/Hills Best K debater: Keith Monaghan Best Politics Debater: Spencer Yeamans Best T Debater: Sarah Evans Most likely to be NDT champion: Northwestern LV Best place to eat at the tournament: Subway Nicest debater to chat with outside of rounds: SMS Monaghan/Owen, All of BVW, BVN Evans/Jones, All of SME Best evidence: Schlag 91 - fiat is illusory Best argument: Obama Good Elections Best K: Nietzsche Best aff: Offshore Ports Best excuse for losing a round: Lay judge Best pen: .5 Pilot G2 Best medium for flowing: White legal paper Best tournament for between-rounds hanging out: DCI Best human being: Cody Christensen
  11. Applied to the context of debate arguments, positive peace theory criticizes the conception of peace as "not war." Conflating the idea of peace with the lack of armed conflicts between nations ignores the war that always exists against the bottom rungs of society. There's definitely a lot of discussion of structural violence in this criticism. Acting like all is good when countries are blowing each other up is sort of complacency with the existence of militarism and the ways that plays into oppression. Your alternative should be something that recognizes that war isn't an event, but a condition that constantly exists in society. Reps are definitely a big part of this argument - the link is how the aff talks about war. A good starting point is Chris Cuomo's “War is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence".
  12. I think it depends on how you're reading this argument. Is your internal link that global trade collapses, or that the US will be protectionist? If it's the former: Economic interdependence makes the probability of their impacts zero – free trade solves all conflicts that are inevitable with protectionism – empirical studies prove Hillebrand 10 [Evan E., Professor of Diplomacy at University of Kentucky and a Senior Economist for the Central Intelligence Agency, “Deglobalization Scenarios: Who Wins? Who Loses?†Global Economy Journal, Volume 10, Issue 22010] A long line of writers from Cruce (1623) to Kant (1797) AND for more fractious relations among states and the probability for interstate war rises.
  13. Both of those are way more than 500 miles from the border.
  14. Omaha Westside is also within the 500 mile radius.
  15. Say spending money is bad. They eat that up. You don't need an extinction impact, just read Royal or something and say it increases the likelihood of conflict. Hell, you don't even need to read a terminal impact, mommies don't think the economy collapsing is ok, even if there's no nuclear war. Counterplans like states should be fine. A good trick is to make a justification arg on that flow. Say it's part of their burden of proof to justify the United States federal government being the one to do the plan, as it's part of the rez. T should only be your 2NR if the gut check says they're really, REALLY not topical. Truth over tech, here.
  16. A couple other forced strikes come to mind: a) can't judge a school you debated for b ) can't judge an immediate relative c) can't judge a school if you're an immediate relative of a debater there, regardless of what school recruited you Other than that, I agree with Zach.
  17. Me too. I don't think that's the point people are trying to make, though. I do understand why it might sound like that, though, as this is a tough issue to work through. Rather, I think a more appropriate statement is "result x raises some eyebrows about how we conduct the qualifiers". I realize some stuff is in place at the national level and we can't really have much of an impact. But it seems like there are some things that we as districts have more control over. Here's my thoughts on a couple: 1) No freshman judges: I think DuBois said this was a district issue. I frankly don't see the need for this, especially considering many freshmen have never even competed against a Kansas team, which should resolve some bias issues (it's not like we don't let all the freshmen judge at invitationals). You say there's not a constituency for this change, but I think we need to ask ourselves why this is the case. Someone smarter than I can probably tell me about it. This is one change that would be a small but important improvement to the qualifiers. By the way, I can confirm that no freshmen judges is the rule at nationals. 2) I think this forum has seen a fight about this before, but, is it time to start taking a look at not hosting the qualifiers all on the same weekend? It seems like a reasonable way to perhaps expand the judging pool without substantially altering the way qualifiers work. Maybe I'm totally wrong and this is a national rule, but I've always thought it was another "silly kansas thing". I also suggest no one pay much mind to people who want to do nothing but disrupt a civil discussion between bright competitors and some really experienced community folks, all because they got upset over something on Twitter.
  18. Obviously, the prosecution doesn't need to submit their evidence for discovery. The defense team might get together and come up with a winning strategy. And that's just plain unfair.
  19. I'll be honest, I don't think I've ever lost a round because of a team's lack of disclosure. However, I do think the quality of these debates has been degraded, because it hampers the ability to craft the most specific arguments. As for accessing ev online during rounds, it varies from tournament to tournament. It's prohibited by my state's activities association, but that's not true for everywhere. Communicating with coaches in-round is universally permitted as far as I know (for the record, I agree with prohibiting this). However, I think it is entirely different than talking to your coach before round. Working with your coach in round is basically taking the debate out of the competitors' hands and putting it in those of the coaches. Talking before the round is different, though. The debaters ultimately have to take what is discussed in and use it themselves. That to me is a learning experience and valuable. I'm speaking as someone from a smaller program that only has 1 assistant coach (and a head coach that does a great job running the program but doens't know contemporary debate very well). I understand that some of my competition may have more coaching resources, but I guess I'm ultimately more confident in my ability to take what my coach tells me to and use it better than my opponents. I still stand by the reasons I outlined earlier as to why I don't think "surprise" is effective anymore. I also strongly agree with what qqqqqqqqqqqqq said about lack of disclosure being more likely to give "the big schools" the upper hand in the surprise game.
  20. I can't imagine anyone asking people to disclose arguments they haven't read yet. If they are, I certainly don't think you're obliged to comply, because that's NOT what disclosure is about at all. Disclosure or not, surprise is dead once you break an argument. People talk about their rounds. If these schools you refer to really have dozens of competitors and coaches, they're going to find out what you're doing whether or not you disclose. And if your resources are as limited as you say they are, you aren't going to be able to churn out 100% brand new args for every round. In my opinion, disclosure is the only way to level the playing field. Speaking as a debater from a smaller program (not a small school, just a tiny squad), disclosure is a godsend. If we had no idea what other teams were doing, we wouldn't be able to properly channel our more limited resources. For us, disclosure has not widened any gap between our squad and larger ones. There's no reason a small squad can't use it to their advantage, especially when it's only a local circuit (there aren't that many teams to prepare for). You can say that big schools are just card cutting machines, but having a lot of cards doesn't win debates. Good arguments and strategy win debates. Maybe a big school has more backfiles. Great. Do they know how to use them? Plus, evidence disparity is largely resolved by the existence of openevidence and the wiki. These resources allow small schools to have access to all the same arguments that big schools do. You say coaching creates a disparity. Even if that's true, it doesn't have anything to do with disclosure. Let's assume everything you say about the big school/small school divide is true (I don't think it is, quality trumps quantity). How would disclosure make it worse? Why can't smaller schools use it to their advantage and level the playing field by developing their own specific arguments? That's why I think wikis are important, as opposed to just listing past 2NRs 5 minutes before a round starts. It sounds like you were debating several years ago, before the advent of online evidence. "Surprise" probably did make a bigger difference then, but I don't see that as true anymore. Today, even a lazy debater can have at least some kind of answer to most arguments. If people are losing rounds because their opponents didn't disclose, I don't think it's because they totally didn't see that new politics scenario coming, I think it's because they didn't even do minimal work to be prepared (most arguments can be beaten by better arguments, even if you don't have hyper-specific evidence to answer it). There's been plenty of times that teams have read something they thought would throw us off. It didn't help. We've also lost to arguments we had more than enough cards on, simply becaue we lost the debate. It's not about big programs vs. small ones. It's a competition between arguments. Disclosure is just a means to facilitate better clash, research, education, and make the activity more equitable (because big schools are always going to have more resources, so knowing what those are is the best way to level the playing field).
  21. State good/inevitable arguments. There are certainly generic cards about this, but ideally you should have some warrants specific to what your aff is doing.
  • Create New...