Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Lucience

  • Rank
  1. Hey, I was wondering if anyone had some files from the military topic. Specifically good advantage and impact files. Any would be nice though
  2. So I hit a lot of teams that run stupid spec arguments (mostly ISPEC and FSPEC) just to suck up time and they always wind up kicking them. Is there some way I could put offense on these spec args or even specs in general? I would rather it be something relatively short and unsuspecting so the other team doesn't immediately notice it, and then when they try and kick it I can point out that you can't just kick something with offense against it and blow it way up. Any suggestions? EDIT: I removed the K idea cuz I got too many people focusing on some off the wall idea that I spent exactly 20 seconds considering and threw in because I happened to think of it as I wrote my post. Please bring it back to topic, any REAL help is appreciated
  3. Edit: if you have any other template you what to suggest, feel free. Just tell why it's advantageous and so on
  4. Which is better? I've used synergy and quite like it. I love the macros like "~" to copy and paste instantly, "save to USB", the ability to pick what speech your preparing and it auto names it for convenience, and so on. I've never used verbatim, but am thinking of trying it. The only problem is the site says synergy needs to completely uninstalled, so I cant have bother the same time and be actively comparing them. What do you guys say? Give examples of functionality etc. Also, I can't affor PaDS anyways so don't use that as a reason for verbatim
  5. I was wondering if anyone could help me with arguing standards on a Topicality as the neg. I always take most offcase in the 2NC and my partner takes K in the 1NR. How do I get lots of clash on the standards? So far, I usually say crap like "Reasonability, Predictability, and Most Real World are all subjective and promote judge intervention. That's bad because it kills fairness". I was wondering if anyone had any tips in how to get more in-depth/more flash on arguing whose standards are better
  6. ok, so im having a problem with debate synergy's virtual tub system. I'm using 1.5, and from what I understand, when you convert a file into an expando, its supposed to have "subfolders" that match the headings and the way it shows up in document map. That way, you can easily import a single card into your speech without having to open up the whole file and copying and pasting and all of that. Example: click on Tubs dropdown, scroll over the Topicality Tub, there are subfolders for each word in the res, scroll over those to get the subfolders for the different definitions of that specific word, click on one of those and it pastes just that definition. However, for me it's: click on Tubs dropdown, scroll over T Tub, click on Topicality file, and the entire Topicality word document opens. Why? I've tried setting it up in the Heading 1, Heading 2, Heading 3 style, I've tried making a table of contents, I've tried doing both of those and then using the Format Fixes' "Reformat in Template Default" option before I convert the document into an expando. Nothing works. Is it not supposed to work the way I think it is? If it is, what's going wrong? Someone please help me, this is the best feature of Synergy and the new Hoya Template, and it's driving me crazy not being able to use it the way its supposed to be.
  7. Can you explain that further? Who's asking who what? Who's Kato? And when you say cheater, is this evidence on debate the acitivity, or is it philosophical evidence?
  8. Ok. So I have a fairly strong grasp on what a floating PIK is. I just have one question, is a CP nessecary to set on up? If not, how do you set on up?
  9. Lucience


    I feel like  I have a decent grasp on what a floating PIK/PIC is, but I was wondering if someone could help me understand how you set them up, not just explain what the argument is. From how i understand it, a floating PIK/PIC is a Kritik with no alt, (simply "rejection is key" or "reject the aff"). The 2NR then claims that the alt solves for all of the case, except the one part of they were Kritiking. Thus, they net the advantages of the aff, and since they don't link, also the K as a net benefit. Correct me if this is wrong and please explain to me in detail how one would be set up. Some reductive logic/simple analogies is ok, but please go in depth, no matter how high end it gets. Also, as a side note, which is it? Floating PIK or Floating PIC? Are the two even the same, if so why are there two ways of spelling it? So can you go for a Floating PIK in the 2NR. That is to say, can your first mention of "We advocate doing the plan in the world of the alt, but without the Kritiked part. This means that we net their advantages and, since we don't link, the K as a net benefit," be in the 2NR? Edit: Do you need both a CP and a K on the flow to do a Floating PIC? What I mean is, in order for it to actually be considered a Floating PIC/PIK, do you need to be arguing both a Kritik and a Counter Plan?
  • Create New...