MrEragonSaph

Sufficiency framing is the argument that as long as the CP Sufficiently (Does enough to resolve it) solves the affirmative impact then it doesn't matter whether or not the affirmative solves better than the CP because both still resolve the impact. So for example if the CP had +5 Solvency and the Aff had +7 solvency and you only need +5 to solve the impact then sufficiency framing would say it doesn't matter if the aff is better because there is no impact to that difference.

Eh. Could do better.

This is annoying to hear but your best bet is to practice! Practice giving speeches, practice flowing debates, practice by redoing your speeches, or even you can practice on the V-Debates here. None of these are gonna radically transform you but they'll slowly get you more comfortable with the process of debating which is really the most important thing. If you have a team that can do practice debates then always try that! If not then go onto the wiki and look for 1nc's people have read against your aff and give a 2ac in response to that! If you want to practice efficiency then try and give that 2ac with less time than you normally would. For flowing debates, you can find both college and high school rounds on youtube. I would suggest trying to make a decision before listening to the judges RFD because it makes you put yourself in the judges position which is super helpful in terms of judge adaption and giving rebuttals. Lastly do research! It will help immensely if you've read the source material (Whether it be the philosophy books or the politics cards) because you'll feel way more comfortable explaining the argument when you understand the context of the cards you're reading from!

Baudrillard is a very explicit criticism of Marxist forms of politics in the majority of his books both on a a theoretical level (Marx assumes capital works through Material structures of production, while Baudrillard assumes it works through the symbolic exchange) and on a practical level ( Marx's attempt to understand history as a teleological project, Marx is a move towards a project of liberation etc) so i'm not sure a marxist baudrillard aff makes all that much sense.

I think the easiest answer is that the ballot is just a site of libidinal investment in which the judge chooses to invest in certain modes of politics/non-politics/theoretical orientations. Value as a concept is inevitably to some degree, but the ballot really just indicative of an investment in the aff or neg's orientation or a divestment from certain ideologies.So in the instance you have a method thats beyond just "Unproductivity good" , you can just answer this argument with a defense of your solvency mechanism. All speech is performance and to say that the negs speech isn't performative and done for a ballot also seems just as arbitrary.

Y'all also gotta remember that because of State laws pretty much every california (and i think a few other states) school can't go to ceda/NDT this year because of Anti-LGBT laws in Kansas which cuts down on a good amount of teams.

The most basic level of this partiucular problem can be traced back to heideggers discussion (and Bleikers later extension) of the nature of truth and its connection to the process of revealing and concealing. For those less experienced in heideggerian literature , he begins this analysis which an understanding of the clearing ( which for him is a metaphor that can be seen as something like a clearing inside of a forest in which a person is traveling through a forest and once they find a clearing a larger aspect of the world is revealed to them compared to their perception inside of the forest normally I.E. they literally have larger radius of view) in a metaphysical sense. I.E. Every action or interactions with knowledge in the world inevitably reveals particular truths , lies or just aspects of existence that weren't previously understood or avaialable to us. Yet , Bleikers continues on that and says that truth , knowledge and existence are not solely a question of revealing but also based on the nature of concealing in which certain understandings of the world inevitably close off and mystify other aspects of the world. I.E. in the context of china - The China threat narrative as well as the narrative of china being totally peaceful inevitably are unuseful heuristics for understanding a society that is neither single facited nor static and only end up creating violent structures that presume they can fully explain the every aspect of the world. Bleiker and Burke both says that the formation of conservative and hegemonic forms of thought aren't frightening just because of the material coordinates or existence of these structures but because that any social theory and praxis that ignores its own act of concealing inevitably becomes hegemonic and lashes out against anyone or theory that doesn't fit within its universal model of knowlefge

Have the 1ar/2ar Pivot to whatever your reasons why including the aff within their model of politics is a necessary corrective or strategy to resolve what ever you're criticizing and then do the impact calculus of your NB's to the permuation compared to whatever DA's they have to the permuation .

Best Bets wouuld be HS or the KQ lab(Has historically been the more K leaning lab at DDI) but Jyleesa and Lindsey shook both have lots of experience with K affs and neg args

So like as someone who went to their 7 week program and dealt with both the MNDI people and the Classic People , The Lab Leaders for classic tended to be better and the competition in your lab was by far better in the Classic compared to the MNDI. Being with your partner isn't that important unless you've like never debated with them before. + The Classic people get more experience debating the people in the 7 week labs at the end of camp tourney instead of just of the MNDI people only debating MNDI people.

Also like for future notice on Blood Quantums , Blood quantums Aren't A) Legally enforced by the united states federal government Aren't even mandated by the USFG , all the government does is require a mechanism to determine tribal membership.

Don't , its a terrible model for debate.

Pan did just recently write in his book a criticism of the way in which the west attempts to economically bring China into its global economic system.

Postcolonial's theorization presumes a shift from territorial occupation to things like colonies without the material aspect , things such as economics , Neoliberalism , , british common wealth etc. I.E. the post part of post colonialism denotes an assumption of an end to the traditional colonialsim. Tuck and Yang are actually an explicit criticism of that postcolonialism because it says we should have a a return to the materiality of land instead of things like Mignolos epistemic disobedience or delinking Tuck and Yang are part of a sect of literature called Settler colonialism studies While he some academic problems , he writes well and alot of people cite him for some of their arguments so its important to have that basis for theory.

Bid tournanments don't get determinations on what bid they are in the few weeks before the tournanment. Its all based on historical entries and how difficult it has been in the last few years.