Jump to content

SnarkosaurusRex

Member
  • Content Count

    2607
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

Everything posted by SnarkosaurusRex

  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.
  14. From philosophy basics: "Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice. It is the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe." That, uh, sounds pretty difficult when we've all been nuked. Remember, very few of the 'life is meaningless' authors actually say death is good (Bataille and that German guy I can't spell correctly (Schoepenhaur?) are the big exceptions). Most of the authors like Nietzsche say that life lacks *externally defined* meaning, IE life isn't valuable because of some God, but that you have to find your own meaning in life. Radioactive zombies probably have a tougher time of this.
  15. Antonio doesn't apply to debate. No one role plays. Not one thinks they're John Boehner or Paul Ryan. His criticism is premised on the idea of an actor losing themselves in their role, no longer able to differentiate themselves from the character they play. That has jack to do with debate. This "double bind" is asinine at best. First, they haven't proven that the aff is a bad idea. Second, even if it linked, the internal link is...'of poor quality.' Go ask the Model UN people if they feel like their lives are worthless after they finish a session, or go ask Leonardo DiCaprio if he thinks life is pointless after he finishes a movie. I'm gonna guess the answer is no. A 'VTL is subjective' card is more than enough to take out Antonio even if the judge is too poorly read to actually buy the link. You could also read a 'no impact to ressentiment' card if you were really scared of this as a 2nr option, but Meh.
  16. You can say the alt solves the aff and be fine. It's when the alt does the aff that it becomes a floating PIK. For instance: "The alternative results in "plan action" without X justifications" Is a floating PIK
  17. As someone who just finished a course in international finance, I got some criticisms. (After the round, of course)
  18. 'Ontology framing cards' makes no sense. An ontology "is," it's not a question of "should." After presuming a specific ontology, you could create "should" claims consistent with that frame for the world, but those kinds of cards would be within your specific lit base, if they existed at all. Example, Wilderson presumes the world is anti black, which is the world view in which a "should" claim of anti-ethics arises. Tl;Dr, you didn't give us enough information.
  19. Nah. It's basically terminal defense.
  20. See, stuff like is why I don't buy it when all these K teams are like 'Switch Side Bad.'
  21. Although you should note that in debate, "neoliberalism" usually means unregulated capitalism, or extreme capitalism. Whether or not this definition is correct, pretty much every neolib K I've seen assumes this. For example, the very first card in the JDI file linked above: ***Note that this author is an English professor, and not an economics professor. Most of the "misuse" of the term according to what Squirreloid has provided arises out of philosophy (pomo/post structuralists especially) and generally non-economic people "Their celebration of an “open Internet” and the “creative economy” reproduces the neoliberal entrepreneurial subject " "To begin with, it is evident that creative-economy discourse was the means by which a more systemic program privileging private-sector modalities and economic ends was made relevant to culture and the arts" "is friendly to private enterprise and wary of public subsidy, and friendly to a flexibly self-sufficient and self-managing workforce and hostile to collective politics" "I should be, above all, committed to remaining free— or, as Matt Stahl would have, bereft—of actual state support.38¶ The continuation of these processes after New Labour suggests their basis in a broader neoliberal politics"
  22. My finals are over tomorrow, so I can (probably) judge. Unless the round finished tonight by some miracle.
×
×
  • Create New...