Jump to content

SnarkosaurusRex

Member
  • Content Count

    2607
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

SnarkosaurusRex last won the day on October 2 2017

SnarkosaurusRex had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2831 Excellent

About SnarkosaurusRex

  • Rank
    Socratic Stingray

Profile Information

  • Name
    Adam
  • School
    [Insert University Here]
  • Biography
    Varsity College CX
  • Location
    The 4th side of the time cube.
  • Occupation
    Deploying sarcasm in a manner conducive to winning fake Internet points.

Recent Profile Visitors

12046 profile views
  1. http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Results/JudgesBallots2012final.htm
  2. 1) International fiat (IF) =/= object fiat. Object fiat is "fiating" the object[ive] of the resolution. Like on the college warming topic it would be fiating that warming stops. 2) International fiat is bad for limits by drastically expanding the number of potential actors on the table which in turn exponentially multiplies the number of potentially responsive CP's. Fiating China is especially bad for the aff on an engagement topic (what if someone pops you with a 'China should do the plan to the US' style CP?). In this case the argument that the 'aff should be prepared' isn't responsive because it begs the question of limits in the first place. An immediate counter argument is that Adv CP's have the same problem. Three potential responses - i) Non-sequiter -- this is a question of the legitimacy of IF =/= the question over the legitimacy of Adv CP's (ie 2 wrongs don't make a right) - ii) It's a question of the number of viable responses to the 1AC in the form of a CP that matter. While the neg could fiat almost an infinite number of potential US actions, a relatively low percentage of them can withstand the perm. Allowing international actors is different because it drastically increases the number of potential CP's that could survive to the 2NR because of the amount of interested parties. Take basically any country making a claim to the SCS and all their different options as a starting point. - iii) It's generally easier to attack the solvency of/mitigate the NB to an ADV CP than an IF CP. It's probably easier to come up with analytics or have cards sitting in a backfile somewhere (or hell, with a good aff it's in your 1AC solvency ev) that things like, say, domestic warming prevention won't solve (IE we need China). However, it's far more unlikely that aff's would have or be able to quickly generate a good answer to some random facet of Chinese policy. - iv) Depending on the way you do the IF CP, it could basically be an Actor CP, which is more or less a PIK. 3) This (the below) is a terrible theory block. You want fewer arguments that are well developed, not blippy args the judge can't write down, let alone find the time to care about
  3. Just Google "verbatim debate"
  4. I think that at the least many of the judges who wouldn't vote on inherency if you called it a 'stock issue' may be willing to vote on it if you made it a theory argument sort of like T (IE not being inherent is bad because it means we can't have a proper debate). I think part of the problem is that in the stock issues debates I've judged people just say "it's a stock issue" and stop there. That might have worked 30 years ago but policy has changed -- more precisely there seems to be more room to debate the "rules" of debate (or lack thereof). You'll see older judges who refuse to vote on performance debates because it's 'against the rules' (even if they don't say it that way), but with the younger crowd that attitude doesn't really exist. If stock issues teams got more meta, then they might see better success in front of judges that default to offense/defense paradigms.
  5. People also suck at cutting cards. My personal theory is that it's so easy to find evidence (open evidence/wiki open source/etc.) that there's little incentive to get good at research but that's pure conjecture.
  6. 1NC is to give you as many options is possible. Block is to win whatever option you pick (IE you pick one DA and crush them on it). 2NR is to tell the judge why you won.
  7. That's absolutely flat out incorrect. If the US was just like 'here China can have it' then not only do you result in the immediate collapse of our alliances with Japan, Korea, and a few of the smaller countries in the area, but the most likely outcome is massively increased Sino-Japanese conflict not peace. Everyone is getting involved because they feel it's "critical" -- ie no one is backing down. Japanese militarization would rapidly fill in. Also, no one would listen to that UN directorate even if they had the authority to declare it (they don't).
  8. I hope you're being sarcastic.
  9. That's definitely not true for policy anywhere I've debated. Public debates sure, but policy up and down the east coast everyone is either a college coach or former college debater.
  10. Well if you don't debate in college you'll have a tough time getting hired for college judging (at least for national tournaments, regional depends on the region). As far as judging for HS goes, just figure out what schools in your area have policy and email the coach. Most HS coaches are desperate for any kind of judging they can get in my experience.
  11. The phrase DnG K doesn't mean anything, because they wrote about so much. That being said, it'd almost always some derivative of Maury's file on Evazon. Anyways, any form of non-queer identity politics tends have a lot of hate for DnG et al (and some queer scholarship too, but the stuff in debate isn't usually that). Also eurocentrism and colonialism et al.
  12. While kicking the aff is generally a terrible idea, the above is particularly bad. You never want to play on the other team's field, since they have the advantage. They'll almost certainly know the lit better, and be prepared for this kind of stuff (also...this strat falls to any decent 'reps first' arg. Can't just kick the 1ac yo). Not to mention that this is a really good way to get your judge to hate you, so even if by some miracle you win, you're speaks will be terrible. In general, the only time kicking the 1ac is a viable option is when you've made massive, unsalvageable errors in the 2ac, and you have to do it in the 1ar. (This is primarily because of restrictions on being able to generate new offense.)
  13. Topic: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China. I don't think this satisfies the "with" part of the resolution. Now, obviously there are some definitions of "with" that can be used to justify the Guam aff, but the way that the resolution has used the word is as follows from Merriam Webster: b —used as a function word to indicate the object of attention, behavior, or feeling <get tough with him> <angry with her> Now the affirmative team will obviously counter define "with" if they don't suck, and may even make a predictability counter standard. Here's where the limits debate comes in. Using the word like this: —used to say that two or more people or things are doing something together or are involved in something Justifies having the US and China co-operate with literally any other third (or even fourth or fifth or etc.) party. This explodes limits and turns their predictability standards (especially because there's lit for basically any area of the world where the US and China both happen to be, which is everywhere). Teams could read Mexico/Latin America/South America affs (like the China SOI good bad debate on the Latin America topic), teams could read Africa affs (from the China SOI debate on the college Military Presence topic), teams could read Middle East affs (again from the Military presence topic), Artic affs, and so on and so forth. Clearly one definition of the word "with" is better for debate than the other. Here's where you'd provide a caselist of affs that you allow (basically all the normal affs on the topic). "These are better for debate because they have a predictable literature base, link to all common topic DA's, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...