Jump to content

chriskim

Member
  • Content Count

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Good

About chriskim

  • Rank
    Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Christopher Kim
  1. A lot of advantage counterplans aren't mutually exclusive with the aff- you can technically do both at the same time, so the permutation solves if the advantage counterplan is read on its own. For example, say that an aff solves global warming through their plan, and that's their only advantage. Say that you propose an advantage counterplan that also solves global warming. You can technically do both the aff and the counterplan at the same time (as the counterplan alone is not a better option than doing the counterplan and the plan together or the plan alone) so the permutation solves and the aff wins. That's why an advantage counterplan is meant to be read with a net benefit, usually in the form of a disadvantage that links to the aff but not the advantage counterplan. If the aff's plan (referring to the previous example) is politically unpopular while the advantage counterplan isn't, then you could read the politics disad as a net benefit to the advantage counterplan. The permutation would NOT be a good idea because while the advantage counterplan alone solves both global warming and avoids the politics disad, while a combination of the advantage counterplan and the plan OR the plan alone would not avoid the politics disadvantage (even if it solved global warming.) tl;dr you're supposed to read a disadvantage that links to the aff but not the advantage counterplan. while the permutation is possible, it's not preferable because the advantage counterplan is net beneficial, which means that the judge should choose the neg since the neg solves the affirmative's advantages and avoids a disadvantage whereas the affirmative solves its own advantages but links to the disadvantage the neg doesn't link to. the advantage counterplan often doesn't solve the entirety of case, however. if your advantage counterplan only solves a part of case, turn/mitigate the advantages that your counterplan doesn't solve for, and read a disadvantage that links to the aff but not the counterplan. you win when you prove that the disad outweighs the parts of case that your counterplan doesn't solve.
  2. Would the politics scenario this week be similar to the debt ceiling/government shut-down type disad we had around October of last year? I couldn't find anything else to make a politics da with :c Also, does anyone know when the politics updates from duhbait are going to be sold again?
  3. Yup, I'm from Lynbrook! Two of our varsity teams are going for sure, but I'm not sure how many JV/novice teams are going. Maybe we will! That would be awesome
  4. kicking the alt while retaining the K, like you've shown above, is perfectly legitimate (although it might not always be strategic.) If you kick the alt, you're stuck with a non-unique disad and no way to solve for it, which could be a problem. on the other hand, some Ks might not need that. The security K without an alt can still act as a solvency takeout/case turn to certain affirmatives. Plus the AFF can't really perm the K if there's no alt to perm. i'm sure that the K debaters on cross-x will have more to say about this.
  5. chriskim

    UIUC

    Damn. I wasn't really looking into debating in Illinois (although I wouldn't mind doing so if I found the right college there) but I really liked UIUC and that's why I wondering if it had a debate team.
  6. chriskim

    UIUC

    Does anyone know if UIUC has a debate team? I know that they have a speech team, but it isn't really the same.
  7. i'm going to have to try to convince 8th grade public forum debaters (that are going into 9th grade, and thus will join my high school next year) that they should join policy. moreover, i'm going to have to convince them that policy debate is better than ld, parli, or pufo (which is, of course, debatable.) what reasons have you successfully used in the past when trying to convince novices to join policy debate and convincing them that policy debate is better than the other events?
  8. do they defend specific types of musical resistance? and could you give me a list of some of these authors, pretty please?
  9. yes, we use a USFG actor, but what I meant is that the neg specifies an agent WITHIN the USFG that's different from the aff agent. in several rounds the negative has claimed to use a different agent within the USFG (other than the agent the aff uses) then claims politics as a net benefit, and I want a theory answer to that type of cp
  10. i'm looking for a good theory shell/blocks against agent cps that use a USFG actor- pm if you want to trade it!
  11. some openev files Cap K of Race based Affs - Northwestern 2014.docx Cap K vs Race Affs - Michigan7 2014.docx Capitalism Critique vs Non-Traditional Affirmatives - HSS 2014.docx
  12. chriskim

    Answering T?

    1) We meet- [insert reason that you meet]. If you actually meet, great. You shouldn't spend that much time on T then. But even if you don't, make up a bs reason that you might meet- it wastes the neg's time. 2) Counter-interpretation- [insert your interpretation of a topical aff + insert tagged card that supports your interp] This is the core of your answers to T- unless you really meet their interp, you absolutely need a counter-interpretation with solid evidence backing it up [insert "we meet the counterinterp because ... "] You need to say why you meet the counterinterp- this should be quick 3) Standards- [insert reasons why your interpretation is good/their interpretation is bad] For example- LIMITS- their interpretation overlimits the topic and excludes core affs 4) Reasonability superior- competing interpretations leads to a race to the bottom and precludes substantive debate This is also a really, really important argument- it says that you don't need to prove that your interpretation is BETTER than theirs, just that it's "reasonable-" your standards will be reasons why your interp is reasonable. If they concede this it's pretty much gg for the neg at least on the T debate I'm sure there's other arguments you could make, but these are the essentials (at least in my opinion)
  13. When an aff advantage is hard to beat or you just don't feel like debating it, you access it using an advantage cp: a counterplan that solves for that advantage but not necessarily the rest of case Then read a DA that links to the aff but not to the CP and turn/mitigate the AFF advantages you don't solve for. You win when you weigh the net benefit against the rest of case Example: aff reads SMRs with a warming advantage and heg advantage Then the neg reads a iron fertilization cp that solves warming, an SMRs-specific DA, and heg turns/defense
×
×
  • Create New...