Jump to content

Latke

Member
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Latke last won the day on February 13 2013

Latke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

42 Good

About Latke

  • Rank
    Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Sam Pilgrim
  • School
    Indiana University
  1. I agree with this. 4 conditional advocacies is also probably not good. A typical generic strat in college against a policy or policy-ish aff is T, CP (like XO or something like that), Politics or topic DA, and a topic-related k. This provides strategic flexibility and 1 cp and 1 k is a pretty reasonable interpretation for conditionality.
  2. I don't know what it's like for this topic specifically, but you can usually make the case for XO/Politics if you use the right link. Remember, you don't need to prove that XO doesn't link. You just has to prove that the aff and perm link MORE.
  3. Yup. I was actually physically painful to here it...
  4. Also I bet you could find cards saying we had a moral obligation to prevent species extinction. I know there's ev about the florida everglades having lots of species that are uniquely vulnerable.
  5. It would be really easy to impact turn the shit out of this though. I feel like if the other team just argues that renewables are good, they'd be on the better side.
  6. I'm working as an assistant at a camp right now and I've judged multiple PF rounds where people begin their constructives with "We are affirming/negating the resolved".
  7. Adapt to what? How should he have known the exact nature of the judge's military involvement? Even if the jacket had clued him in, he couldn't have known what part of the military he was in or that his experience would cause him to be so biased and defensive.
  8. Political capital is measred in cents...just an fyi. Of course, I have no idea wtf one "cent" of pc would be, but whatever XD.
  9. I actually found some pretty good links now just based off of free trade and globalization. It does blend biopower and cap a lot (since cap is just a form of biopower).
  10. So could these discourse links about the production of knowledge-power just come from backfiles? If so, does anyone have a card or two they wouldn't mind sharing or just some cites?
  11. How hard do people think cases on this topic will link to biopower? It seems like the link ground for biopower and cap are often somewhat similar, but I'm having trouble finding much about economic engagement. If anyone has thoughts on this it would be appreciated.
  12. Yes, but this is in Indiana where a "normal" 1nc consists of 4 minutes of inherency and then a spending DA
  13. That is probably the most amazing thing I've ever heard. What did the judge and your opponents have to say?
  14. Oh I agree completely. I just thought it was funny because they were literally reading one of the most common affs possible with the default plan text that was in the file.
  15. Notes: This thread will be a competition to see who on this forum has been in the worst T debate of all time. (This could be expanded to just worst round of all time if things are going that way). Disclaimer: I am not trying to be trolly or mean, I just like funny debate stories. For this reason, I will refrain from posting specifics (names, schools, etc.) Just know that I debate in Indiana and people there are not the best at arguing3 T. My two contenders: 1. We a team that had probably just moved up to varsity and they're running GPS with some pretty bad agriculture and heg-ish advantages. We run T on "transportation infrastructure" (something like excludes military/security), an XO counterplan with a fiscal cliff NB, and some generic advantage/impact defense (my partner doesn't spread nor does anyone really here). The 2A gets up and reads 3 definitions of just "infrastructure," with no standards, and concedes competing interpretations and jurisdiction. So I go for like 3-4 min of T in the 2NC just extending some standards and doing some impact work. In the 1AR they try to say that their interp is better because they had 3 definitions. The judge voted neg on T. 2. In a similar situation at the next tournament. We're hitting inland waterways for the first time this year. As the 1AC is reading, I'm scanning over some of our case neg, which I cut all the way back at the beginning of the season, and I realize that most of it is shit. So I'm basically like "bitch, pleaze, who needs case neg?" So the 1NC is 3 off (probably the most off ever run at an Indiana tournament) with T-Capital Expenditure (cause they were only maintaining and repairing), a P3 CP, fiscal discipline disad, and a bit of case defense. The 2AC gets up and reads 1 card from Tolstoy saying words have no definite meaning on T and then moves on. So I'm like "Ok, words have no definite meaning, so we should have a system to decide which meaning is most appropriate, aka competing interps," then I do a big overview and make some extensions. In the 1AR, they finally read a counterinterp, but they don't actually meet their own counterinterp and they still have no standards. We ended up winning on T against inland waterways, which is one of the novice case areas in my state.
×
×
  • Create New...