Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DisplayName

  1. I mean there's a difference between a floating PIK and a straight up PIK. A floating PIK is a cheap trick, a straight up PIK is laid out in the 1NC and is generally more accepted. EDIT: and no, calling out K teams not the only use of a floating PIK, many teams utilize a floating PIK trick very often, and it is something that affs have to be aware of in the block/1AR.
  2. I don't mean it literally, but if they have dropped the floating pik you should definitely point it out clearly at the top of the 2NR.
  3. Slightly OT, but I might actually have an indo-pak war impact turn that I found somewhere once... I'll post it if I can find it, it's pretty useless, but might catch someone off guard.
  4. Hey I've run things similar to this (but more specific I guess?) I was looking at your arguments above and I do think this would be difficult to win as a wide ranging, generic kritik. I feel like to make this more workable or easier to win you should narrow down your argumentation. As in, the search for the capital-t Truth is bad in (x) instance rather than in all instances. You could use the literature you have now, but specialize it. An epistemological version of the Development K from the Latin America topic might work well here (that's the one with which I have the most experience) as it holds the thesis that Westernized knowledge production is not the only form of production and we can reach truth in other ways. The alt in this case wasn't indigenous KP in of itself, but instead a critical approach that we could take to westernized KP to allow for indigenous KP (which addresses some of the issues brought up above). I think maybe you're aiming a little broad with this which makes it more difficult to be workable in a debate setting. If you want to be able to pull off a few wins on this, I would make a few versions and play around with some Development literature (like Escobar) and see what comes out of it. Of course, on next years (HS) topic, development lit is unlikely to apply, so I'm unsure how you'd get this to work under surveillance.
  5. This is correct. The way i've done it in the past is by being really shifty in the block, then yelling they conceded floating pik at the top of the 2NR. Usually, like Capisnotcool says, you should definitely not heg on it, but you should make it clear that there's no way you lose if the judge accepts it as legitimate And to answer your question about the perm -- if they end up making a perm or saying the floating pik proves the perm you should say (in any perm block): any perm that severs representations is cheating (insert reasons like destroys neg ground, justifies infinite conditionality, justifies kicking out of an impact turned heg advantage etc.)-- you have to evaluate the aff vs the alternative not the plan vs the alternative. Therefore the floating PIK is only an option when links are to the aff's advantages/epistemology etc and not the plantext. If there's a link to the plantext or action of the aff that proves the PIK is impossible and links to itself, which makes a 2nr on it at best a perm or at worst a double turn. This means in order to win the PIK you must not extend links to the action of the aff/plantext. The only justification for a floating pik is that epistemology comes first, therefore the plan doesn't matter, and if you win that you don't need the pik anyway. But the pik, if dropped, simply allows you to get rid of that debate without having to really engage in it. If not dropped, your better off just winning epist comes first, which nullifies the same amount of offense as the pik does anyway. The main theoretical problem with the pik (contrary to everyone's usual floating piks bad 2ac block) is not that it nullifies aff offense (that's just a pics bad argument which can be beaten easily) it's the floating part that it isn't actually the alternative that's in the 1NC which justifies shifting literally everything, making debate neigh on impossible. Fortunately, most teams just make a pics bad argument that it nullifies the aff, which you should say is good because epist (edit: or whatever your kritik is of) comes first.
  6. Semantic "bullshit" wins debates. Regardless, the fundamental question is still the same, and doesn't justify the negative opening up the discussion on the permutation. The aff has the right to clarify and make arguments in response to questions, and you haven't given a reason why not. I don't know why any of this is ethically wrong. You haven't provided a single reason, you just asserted it without any warrants. Additionally, you missed the point of my argument. It's up to the judges, it's not an ethics challenge like racial slurs or clipping. If the judge doesn't want to listen to it, then fine, I have no idea why the making of a perm in cx justifies either a loss or loss of ethicality. You're just straight up wrong on this point. You also don't have an answer to scrappy debate is good debate which I impacted out above, that is functionally an impact turn to your "ethics" arguments. You've only provided reasons as to why it might be borderline sketchy (which it's not) and you haven't provided any as to why it's straight up unethical. In any case, creative, tricky, sketchy, lowercase-c "cheating" arguments are hailed very often (floating PIKs for example), so why shouldn't this be the same? It's not on the same level as clipping. Get over it.
  7. Here in Kansas we are known for being pretty backwards because many of our local tournaments are lay, but we have quite a few where faster policy debate takes place in virtually and K debate is taking a foothold (mostly due to the influence of colleges like KCKCC or Emporia which utilize the K quite often). We have more and more teams going to the national circuit (this year the KCK magnet school's top team Sumner GT went to their first circuit tournament, and turned to more kritikal arguments as opposed to their more policy arguments of years past). East Kansas is also a little different from Wichita area where the K is also being deployed with more frequency as well. But many of our top teams are heavy on policy (BVSW HF, SME DW etc) and others are more mixed (WEast BK) and others relatively more kritikal (Hutch CS).
  8. Hey everyone, I'm a senior at Shawnee Mission East who's had a variety of success at local and national tournaments over my career at SME, from Topeka to the DCI to GBX. Throughout these tournaments I've gained a love for debate and the community that we have here in Kansas, and I want to remain involved in that community. I'll be going to a college nearby East Kansas (either Emporia or UMKC most likely), so I wanted to know if anyone knows of any assistant coaching positions that would be open to apply for at local high schools. If anyone is interested or knows any information about open positions, please either message me, comment below or email me at park.ben.mitchellATgmail.com (@ sign replaced for AT). Thank you!
  9. This is correct. The reason behind this is that the Royal card is cut from a review of literature -- so basically he's giving the arguments that other authors have given in favor of econ decline leads to war. Royal doesn't actually believe that as we can see from the other royal cards posted above. The studies he cites are just examples of one side of the argument, which Royal sets out to rebut in his paper.
  10. a) Well if you're making unimportant arguments at the bottom of the flow then that's your problem. But it again depends on the judge, many judges that I have had have been open to or have done that in the past. Some others directly flow cross-x. b ) No, cross-x is a speech means that arguments can and should be made by both teams. This doesn't mean talking over each other, as the negative should be asking questions and the aff should be answering them. One (good) way of answering them is by making arguments. A permutation is simply an argument.
  11. a) wrong, depends on the judge, at the very least they'll be paying attention or writing something down if it's important. b ) Wrong. I have no idea why cross-x is not a forum for argumentation (you've provided no reason why not), it's a portion of the debate. The aff has every right to argue in response to the negative c) wrong again. It's both the speeches of both teams. The negative is free to cut in to stop the affirmative (I've seen it happen many times) but if the negative allows questioning to leave their control, it's their own fault. No such conflation occurred. When it comes down to it, we have to consider what "was there a perm" fundamentally means, and that means "did you make an argument as to whether or not the cp (or k) is mutually exclusive" the affirmative making a perm fundamentally means "no I didn't, but the existence of me saying "perm" doesn't negate the truth claim that they are not mutually exclusive." then proceeding to argue in that way. This is hardly cheap and is definitely not unethical. And if it is cheap, then fine. Scrappy debating wins debates sometimes. Sometimes you're stuck in a whole one way and you have to find a creative way out. There's nothing wrong with being scrappy and finding a creative way to win on the flow. If anything, that just improves the way we critically think about argumentation and encourages the other team to be more careful of ways out, which encourages bulletproof argumentation. And regardless, sometimes you have to find a way to win. The Royals found ways to win throughout their playoff run last year and nobody complained about stealing bases. Finding ways to win is not only the fun of debate, it's an important part of debate. And your ethics claim is ludicrous and unsubstantiated. No, making perms in cx is not on the level of unethical things like clipping cards or misrepresenting evidence. It isn't cheating, and is certainly up to the judge if they want to listen to perms etc in cx (which is something more and more judges are doing, especially where I'm from). If the judge doesn't want it, it doesn't become unethical or punishable by a loss, it just leaves the flow and that's what happens. But I see nothing inherently wrong with trying.
  12. I don't know I guess I don't see it as being cheating. I do think it would probably not be cool for the aff to just start making perms if no question was asked about it, but if someone asks for perms I don't think it's a problem if you argue them. Especially when you consider what it really means. Neg: "Did you make any perms?" Aff: "Perm do both" really means Neg: You didn't say that you could do both the CP and the aff, right? Aff: No I didn't say anything about that in my speech, but you could do both. So I think when you consider what the meaning is behind these cross-x questions, it becomes legitimate. I don't think it's cool for the following to happen: Neg: <completely unrelated question> Aff: Oh crap I forgot! On the K: Perm do both! That's pretty silly. But cross-x is a forum for making arguments as well as clarification. A great deal of argumentation happens during cx. The fundamental question of "is the cp mutually exclusive" is really what the perm is getting at, and if the negative opens up that lane of argumentation during cx then I don't think the aff is wrong for pursuing it. My original comment was solely aimed at people who screwed up on the off chance that the neg also screws up and opens up argumentation on that question. I don't think the aff should just start making arguments about random things in cx without taking a huge destruction in speaks, but if it's relevant to the question at hand, argumentation in cx is legitimate. [added in edit:] As a novice I often asked the other team "did you answer this disad" because I was silly and wanted to make them look bad for dropping things in cx. What I didn't know at the time was that this gave them the opportunity to answer the disad in cx. Because actually what I was asking was "what's your answer to this disad" and expecting the answer to be "none" because they didn't have any. A smarter team than I would have responded "my answer is this:" then made some smart analytics. No they weren't in the speech, but cx is a time for argumentation as well, and the negative should also be punished for making the mistake of asking for an answer when there wasn't one in the speech because it only runs the risk of new answers in cx. Essentially your stance limits cx to clarification questions, which not only is completely boring, but misses the point of one of the most valuable portions of the debate. If the cxing team is allowed to make argumentative questions (which they should) their opponents should also be allowed to make argumentative answers. The permutation is just one of those. TLDR: Making perms as an answer to cx questions is legitimate, and should be marked on the flow, as the perm (fundamentally) is just an argument (following logically from arguments being good in cx). Making perms randomly out of context in cx is probably not cool.
  13. I don't understand what you mean here. I don't think you should do what i'm recommending but if it's necessary it's kind of what you have to do. I mean, yes you have to have screwed up to be in this position, but why not try to get out of it. Should you give up just cause you messed up? I don't think you should ever give up debating because you made a mistake or are being beaten.
  14. I'm not saying this is a sustainable strategy, but if you are a noob and you screwed up bad, what are you gonna do? Just leave without reading a perm? I'm also not saying read cards in cx, just make the perms there only if absolutely necessary. EDIT: I've also never had a judge knock our speaks down for this in the times we were forced to do this. Again, obviously the solution is to make the perm during the speech, but assuming this is a last ditch effort and really needed to make a perm, you can do this to get out of a bad situation. Then you should add perms to your block which should've been there already.
  15. I'm gonna agree with Snark here, empirical evidence: One of our Junior teams beat PL (on this aff) at colleyville reading Framework, so it's not impossible and is probably not a bad strategy, considering it has won debates in the past. @ OP This is especially true if you are not reading into the kinds of kritiks that other users have suggested (e.g. wilderson), as those usually take more of an in depth knowledge base than framework to read. Obviously, any of these strategies require that you're good at whatever the strategy is, so I would pick the one you're most comfortable with. T oceans might be a thing here, there might be a TVOA about how we relate to the oceans rather than how we relate to water generically. I haven't given much thought to this strategy against this aff, however, so this could backfire unless you're careful.
  16. noobtip: if you screwed up because you're a noob but they're also super noobish and they ask you if you made a perm really snarkily in cx, then make a bunch of perms. They'll get mad and ask if you made those during your speech. Say yes, because cx is a speech. This saved us numerous times when we were noobs junior year. (I also understand that I wrote this in a really confusing way. I'm not fully awake yet and I can't figure out how to write it better)
  17. Create a topic and attach/post your 1AC via dropbox or something like that.
  18. I hit this before, I can reuse my strategy if you want, might be fun?
  19. It's cool, been a weird week on my end as well lol, I think cx is up or whatever
  20. I'll copy paste this from the other thread for my recommendations.
  21. Where are you/What kind of money are you willing/able to pay? I've recommended this elsewhere, but for the amount of money, the JDI (Kansas) has some high quality instruction for 3 weeks. This has been my camp for 3 years in a row, and I've learned a ton each time. It's low cost compared to camps like Michigan 4, etc, but with great instructors (last year I personally had Patrick Kennedy of Niles North and Harvard, Brendon Bankey of KU and Pace/Barstow, and Hunter Goh who debates for KU and coaches at SME) and small labs (3:10 leader to student ratio in my lab last year). They help students of all skill levels, from novices debating varsity for the first time, to debaters who would go on to get TOC bids (producing 6 in 2012-13: BVW BY got 4, BVN EJ got 1, BVW MN got 1, as well as many other competitive teams nationally), this year even someone who went on to win a couple college JV tournaments (Casey Owen of SME who was banned from competition because of transfer rules, debates for JCCC). There's a wide variety of debaters, as well as coaches skilled with that variety.
  22. Yo when we gonna do our debate on duhbait forums? I may or may not have a ton of time this weekend.
  • Create New...