Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Latke

  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.
  16. Latke

    Nib Neg Strat?

    As a disclaimer I don't know much about this particular case (since I only hit it once after camp). I've seen some pretty good solvency deficit type evidence against TIFIA, but your right in that there's probably not as much offense on it. As for fifty states it probably depends on the advantages. Since the aff you linked basically just deals with the economy, 50 states probably isn't bad. However, there are some less common advantages to the NIB that I don't think 50 states solves very well (i.e. GW advantages where the aff solves through an international signal and then says that only federal action is perceived). While I haven't really seen any non-econ advantages actually being run, I would imagine some teams might read stuff like this as an add-on against states, which would create a likely larger solvency deficit than most of the lit on TIFIA. Again, don't know much about this...in my region when my partner and I read counterplans people don't even ask the status
  17. In a prelims round at state: "the china steel DA is everything I hate about policy debate"...I got 18 speaker points from him. Fortunately the other judge in that round gave me a 28 and voted us up because the aff mishandled basically every argument we made.
  18. This was a cool round, and I agreed with the RFD in that the aff dropped the kritikal framework. One reservation I had was that I thought the neg may have slightly undercovered the perm on the k. I understand that any risk of a link means a neg ballot under the k fw, but I really didn't think the perm was severance since the neg's extension didn't really have any warrants as to why it was. I also think the perm/solvency double bind is usually pretty convincing, especially considering the aff's evidence that the alt needs political action to solve...IDK though, I'm really not experienced with k's although I know the gist of Heidegger. If anyone could elucidate these points in the round that would be great, thanks.
  19. I don't think the states couterplan is particularly good against port security since it has pretty good warrants as to why the feds are key or why the states can't do the plan. I'm pretty sure their are some good case-specific counterplans for (I think some of them might involve satellite stuff or intelligence gathering but idk).
  20. It probably depends on whether the case areas say "waterways" or "inland waterways" since carving through ice in the arctic ocean really isn't inland. Also, if your saying you create waterways in the arctic to meet the jv case areas, you should be prepared to debate T-in. Just my thoughts, a lot of teams run this so it's probably ok if you're prepared for this debate.
  21. "The neg was a topicality train that ran over the aff"
  22. Also, I'm seeing a lot of solvency lit about GAO reforms. Specifically, does anyone think it would be abusive/non-topical to mandate removing cost-share requirements. In my mind, it seems all right because by no longer forcing ports to pay for a percentage of things, the government would be paying more. Thoughts?
  23. I actually have "United States Federal Government" written out in the 1AC itself. A good catch though. I think I saw a v-debate where someone ran the plan-flaw type argument. Also, my partner and I have hit T in about half our rounds. We've never lost on it because the negative usually does a poor job extending standards and answering stuff like lit checks abuse, but I'm not really sure how good our 2AC block counterinterp and standards are. If anyone has any suggestions that they don't mind divulging it would be appreciated.
  24. One file on open ev uses "The United States Federal Government should provide substancially more funding to the Port Security Grant Program." I think this is sort of a good compromise and means that you can clearly claim the PSGP as a solvency mechanism. Plus people almost never run counterplans where I debate, so I wouldn't really be using it to spike out of stuff. I just don't really want to debate funding.
  25. I'm writing a file for spooning spec. Basically it's a K based off of Foucault's stuff that says not discussing sexuality is bad (link of omission of course), but the alternative is to endorse a theory interpretation stating that each team must specify who spoons who in their partnership. There are also some theory arguments why this spec is good. It's a pretty small file right now though. If anyone wants it I probably wouldn't mind putting it up or at least showing the shell and cites.
  • Create New...