Jump to content

DisplayName

Member
  • Content Count

    531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by DisplayName

  1. You'd be surprised. That's really the only thing they have to answer. I'm saying this having beaten a very good team on T Oceans for OSW. Teams have pretty good justifications for OSW being topical, the problem is the interpretation portion.
  2. LOL OSW is probably one of the best affs on the topic, and I don't even run it. It's hugely successful, the disads are non-existent, it's probably not topical but neither is anything else in this thread, the lit is great on how it solves warming, which is more than can be said for most other things. It's really easy to run as heg/warming which allows you to beat the big stick. It's an excellent aff.
  3. My ideology for lay rounds is to forget everything you've learned about debate then rebuild from the ground up. Pretend debate is what these judges think debate is. Don't use lingo then explain it (the trap most fall into), don't even use the concept in the first place. Forget all you know and then write your aff like you are a lay judge.
  4. lol at you for context. But seriously my partner is a great debater who saved my season (see my post on the partner appreciation thread). Despite this, he does slip up sometimes in the gendered language and "bad words" category.
  5. I was under the impression that AG would be mostly reading their Desi Ghulam aff, but idk.
  6. This is all true, but when people say T-Not-Framework they mean another reason beyond just not using the state why the aff should be "topical". For example T-oceans mandates an encounter with the oceans in the 1AC rather than state action (which is usually called "framework").
  7. Note: if they say "coasts are the oceans" they're taking their cards out of context usually. The eez is usually what's included as a "coast" in those cards, and if it's not theirs no clear definition as to what the "coastal oceans" means.
  8. Engaging the aff is often misinterpreted as spending reading a completely new case specific strategy that you don't fully understand. The problem is they understand the aff, and you don't. Unless you actually know more than them about the aff, a strategic option is almost always to redirect the debate away from the aff. So many people when debating us this year get bogged down in the tech of our aff and then realize too late they haven't put together a coherent strategy. The best teams I've debated while I'm aff are just teams that are like, screw this, we're reading this strategy or we're impact turning. Everyone is scared when they don't understand something and instead of redirecting everything they spend too much time trying to understand it. One exception -- Centennial KP destroyed us when we were aff by running an amazing multiplank counterplan and then just demolishing us. They are good at debate.
  9. It depends on their solvency advocate. Medina (the only person who says "CMSP" ever) says implementation requires coordination with the states, privates and military [T Its reporting]. Basically all the aff does is combine existing maps together from privates, states and the military. We went for t nonmil because we were able to win a violation that it's military maps and that the military uses the maps. It's not the best strategy but they screwed it up in the 2AC/1AR because they didn't have a 2AC block. We went for T oceans at CFL qualifiers because they clarified in cx that they map the oceans "and the glaciers around them" (that was also the text of their w/m. It's false but it was their clarification of the aff) We were gonna go for ddev but their w/m was a violation and they had no counterinterp.
  10. Crazy=outlandish is offensive in of itself, is AwesomePants3's argument.
  11. It's not a synonym it means something different. I'm not the biggest fan of jumping on people for honest mistakes (my partner makes them all the time), but please learn from them.
  12. So far against this case I've gone for T-Nonmil (at camp), T-Oceans and DDev. 3-0 against it. One of these rounds the block was ddev, the other one it was Toceans and ddev, and at camp it was 4 different Ts, NATO bad, and something in the 1nr that i don't remember. Probably more T. If you haven't gotten it yet, this aff isn't T. And impact turns are tight, especially since CMSP teams run like tons of advantages which you can impact turn (in my experience).
  13. If you're reading econ without a terminal at the same time as reading BioD and Warming you're just begging to be ddeved.
  14. Do you know what that word means? If you did you would probably know it's not the best.
  15. Martyring good, and therefore if the aff is really committed to their movement/theory argument/aff the judge should martyr them by voting them down which produces better solvency or something.
  16. That is the worst argument of all time. Worse than time cube.
  17. Exactly. And there are teams in the top 25 that are actually not that good, and super overrated because their school name is connected with greatness. you know who I'm talking about.
  18. Oh shit, I just checked and they did not SPEC their A. That's good, was gonna have to depend on OSPEC
  19. It's Kearney but their email is jayhawkdebateinstitute@gmail.com
  20. >tfw smart person agrees with what you're thinking >tfw it's way more developed than what you were thinking
  21. Right like one off afropess /s {edit: not talking about your post which only asked if they were one as well as giving non-k advice, I'm talking about others
  22. Say United States federal government not USFG. It's an easy way out and teams will take that way often against k affs
×
×
  • Create New...