Jump to content

LDr

Member
  • Content Count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

67 Excellent

About LDr

  • Rank
    Varsity

Recent Profile Visitors

5445 profile views
  1. We're in agreement on the point that it's still "offense" under a Ripstein framework. Ripstein does, however, equate one's person with one's body. I think this passage (F&F p. 41) is the most clear. Note that in the second half of the paragraph he also denies any relevance of dualism, which would respond to your later claim. As for the "stand in relation" line, an identity relation is still a relation. I think the issue the permissibility strat runs into isn't with "a just society" but with "ought." In any case, the "at least one just society has trait X"-style argument relies on a reading of "a" as an existential quantifier, which is neither a necessary (or in this case accurate, IMO) definition of the article.
  2. I don't think an affirmative case could strategically "impact to permissibility," even coupled with presumption arguments. Proving that presumed consent is merely permissible would not prove presumption; it would prove the resolution false. Also, Ripstein absolutely would not consider lack of organs to be "a violation of outer freedom." He treats bodily autonomy as an innate right, not a property right. Dependency on others for the means to exercise one's own bodily autonomy would be a violation of what Ripstein refers to as rightful honor. Force and Freedom makes the distinction between ownership over one's body and ownership over property clear in a number of places. As a side note, it's not obvious how Ripstein would treat the right to one's own body after death. Ripstein thinks the right to one's own body flows from the fact that using one's body is a necessary component of action. Insofar as the deceased no longer exercise intentional actions, it's possible their body would no longer stand in the same relation to their person after death.
  3. "Framework" is a term with different meanings across different events. In LD, framework refers to an ethical theory, e.g. a utilitarian framework. This usage seems closer to the PF definition of "framework" than to policy's. I see no grounds for treating one event's usage of jargon as on face superior to another's. TL;DR Language is fluid. Smug policy debaters are annoying.
  4. Check out Christian Chessman's new article on frameworks for the upcoming PF topic here: https://championbriefs.com/blog/frameworks_sports?fb_action_ids=10204856305231503&fb_action_types=og.likes IMO he is correct on all accounts, both in his evaluation of the strongest pro/con arguments on the topic and in the strategic utility of framework debates for public forum.
  5. What would you want to see on someone else's wiki if you were paired against them at a tournament? Post at least as much information as you'd want the other team to give you. This is one standard Greenhill has suggested when hosting its tournament each year.
  6. I agree with the commenter in the linked URL who said the structure of PF doesn't encourage well-developed arguments. This is also true of LD to a lesser extent.
  7. One of the potential NFL/NSDA topics is national security vs. digital privacy, and a number of summer camps used it as the camp topic. On the affirmative, communitarianism was a common moral framework. Look into Amitai Etzioni. He's a staple communitarianism author, and he also writes about privacy. By far the most common type of case was a utilitarian AC stressing the impacts of terrorism. On the negative, beyond generic deontological arguments and libertarian limited government positions, there's plenty of utilitarian literature about how digital privacy violations hurt our relations abroad and also negatively impact e-commerce. Your topic might play out differently since its not specific to digital privacy rights, although those are the most pressing privacy issue in the news right now.
  8. I assume the vast majority of affirmatives will defend humanitarian aid, of which the kritiks are endless. Also, someone somewhere needs to defend the following: Catch 22 CP Text: Humanitarian aid should only be offered on the condition that the recipient refuse to accept the aid. It's neg ground because it places a condition on humanitarian aid. The CP functionally bans aid -- accepting aid would violate the condition under which the aid is offered. Insert reasons HA is bad, kritikal or otherwise.
  9. Watch old videos from NFL Nationals. They don't use a value and criterion. I believe the V+VC structure was popularized by Apple Valley under Pam Cady Wycoff. I could be wrong.
  10. "Education is a voter because it's the reason schools fund debate." Literally the most common warrant in LD for education being a voter. Because if you don't run theory, your school is totally gonna cut funding.
  11. You are quite right about UIL. TFA is one of the most progressive LD circuits, along with the Northeast. UIL, however, is quite bad. I would really urge trying to participate more in the TFA in the long run. It also tends to be far more competitive. That said, for UIL, stay very traditional. Judges will vote on the value. This makes no sense. Deal with it. Say the affirmative values democracy, and the negative values liberty. The negative can win that the media is good for both democracy and liberty, but if the 2AR persuasively wins that democracy is more important than liberty, a very large number of judges will vote aff. Parents will vote aff because the 2AR sounds right to them, and they're not flowing or thinking enough about the round as a whole to realize how dumb their decision is. Traditional coaches will vote aff because grumble grumble LD is about values grrr. How do you avoid this? It's easier on the negative. You can short-circuit the persuasive all-in-on-the-value 2AR by agreeing to the value in the 1NC. Three notes: 1. The 2NR is too late. If you read your own value and then choose to concede your opponent's value, you can explain until you're blue in the face, "Look, judge, I'm agreeing with their value. I am going to prove that their value is better upheld by the negative." You're still going to lose at a minimum 30% of your ballots just on a 2AR of "Judge they have made no arguments against my value. Vote aff because my value pulls through (translation: "extends" for lay debaters) across the flow." 2. Don't say you're conceding the value in the 1NC. That looks bad. Just read a case which just so happens to have the same value. Then you can respond to the AC with "Lookee here judge, what a coincidence! We have the same value and criterion, so the round will come down to the contentions." Learn to improvise a framework. "My value for today will be [Aff value] because [some bullshit reason], and my criterion will be [aff criterion] because [make some more shit up]." You'll look better if you and your opponent just ended up with the same framework by a stroke of luck than if you chose to give ground to your opponent. 3. Optimally, you can agree to both the value and the criterion in this way and just have a contention debate. Some aff criteria will be so broad (e.g. societal welfare) that basically all neg contentions will still apply. However, sometimes the aff will propose some asinine criterion like "not having media influence." Yes, this criterion is stupid and tautological. They're UIL debaters; they don't know any better. In these cases, you should just agree with the value and provide a different criterion in the same manner as described above. 99% of values are so nebulous and meaningless (morality, justice, equality, John Locke's theory of social contract) that you can make any criterion work under them, so you'll almost never need to provide a different value. This is why you will never see two decent debaters ever have a values debate. Ever. (Although criterion debates happen very frequently). What if you need to debate the value? Maybe you're aff. Maybe your opponent has valued the text of the resolution itself (it happens; I cannot stress enough how dumb and/or misguided most local LDers are), and you can't agree to it. Pretend you're a politician. Make up some flowery sounding bullshit that doesn't mean anything. Here's a super easy double-bind which will always give you an argument. Either, A. [if your value is broader than your opponent's,] Judge, my value subsumes my opponent's value. If we achieve my value of democracy, that will also promote my opponent's value of liberty, so with the affirmative you get both. B. [if your value is narrower than your opponent's] Judge, my value is a prerequisite to my opponent's value. We can't achieve democracy if we don't have liberty, so we have to focus on having liberty first. If you're creative, you can say more or less the same thing 3 different ways and make it sound like 3 different arguments. Seriously, UIL judges are stupid. Do not underestimate their stupidity. There's also the classic "Would you rather?" Choose an exaggeratedly lofty as opposed to a pragmatic value. Life as opposed to prosperity, stability rather than progress, etc. Now you have your second values comparison argument. "Judge, society could survive without prosperity. It would be bad, but it wouldn't be worse than death." "Would you really rather a live in a world with no stability or no progress? In the aff world, things don't get better, but at least they don't get worse." And so on. Just make your value sound really big. Then you can assert that it's more important than your opponent's. And of course, there's equality. You're in Texas. Never value equality in Texas. 1. "Judge, my opponent is a comm-u-nist. They're saying we all deserve the same thing. That's not the principle America was founded upon." 2. "Judge, life is more important than equality. Would you really rather be equally dead?" This concludes today's installment of How to Pretend You're Dumb Enough to Deserve UIL Ballots. Seriously, do TFA. People occasionally make rational arguments. A majority of judges will vote on those rational arguments. If you can make it to elimination rounds of a tournament like UT, Greenhill, or St. Marks, the judges and opponents will be aeons ahead of anything you'll see in UIL.
  12. What region of the country do you debate in? This is very relevant to the correct answer. Texas and the Northeast, for example, have vastly different norms than the midwest and mountain states (the latter being far more traditional and conservative about style).
  13. LDr

    Topical CP's?

    Yes, truth-testing is a common LD paradigm, and it does imply that topical CPs are aff ground (although these are usually irrelevant anyway since a TT aff wouldn't advocate a specific plan but rather the truth of the topic, meaning there's no competition). I am totally lost, however, on how truth testing has any relation to a zombies counter-plan.
  14. LDr

    Econ Impacts

    This is the best econ impact ever. Just make sure to update your Miscut Evidence Good file if you plan on reading it.
×
×
  • Create New...