Jump to content

JohnTheStupek

Member
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Good

About JohnTheStupek

  • Rank
    Junior-Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Johnnie Stupek
  • School
    University of Georgia

Recent Profile Visitors

1811 profile views
  1. Nate is a junior at Emory and doesn't debate anymore. Keenan is at Wake and doesn't debate anymore. Marcel definitely still debates at Kentucky. As far as West GA people go, James Thomas is a lawyer now and Joe Koehle is a coach at Kansas State.
  2. Research, practice debates, practice speeches, etc.
  3. The moral issues are you fiat the government preparing for a mass ethnic genocide. The counterplan doesn't "literally solve islamophobia" because you don't have a piece of evidence that substantiates any part of your internal link chain to solvency. You don't have a solvency advocate. You don't have a card that actually says the government threatening genocide actualizes social movements. The social movements card is decent, but it's not qualled.
  4. They don't solve securitization through implementing a single policy. At best they just address a symptom of securitization. General security K defense applies to that advantage as well (discourse doesn't shape reality, realism inevitable, threats are real). As far as neg ground, you've got plenty of options. You can say the terror da, the politics da, process CPs, circumvention, kritiks of the state, other identity kritiks, etc.
  5. No. You don't have a solvency card that's contextual to islamophobia or about responses to government declarations of genocidal intent. There will never be a solvency card for this. It has serious moral issues and shouldn't be a thing.
  6. Go deep on framework, read as many links as you can, read impact add-ons. Answer any 2AC case nuance that could be spun as an answer to the K in the 1AR.
  7. An advantage counterplan is a counterplan that claims to solve the affirmative's advantages by doing something else that resolves the advantage's internal links or impacts. These can range from a counterplan that just claims to solve one advantage, to a counterplan with multiple planks that claims access to both the internal links and impacts of all the aff's advantages. The net-benefits to advantage counterplans are either topic disadvantages or turns to the parts of the aff the counterplan doesn't solve.
  8. Why wouldn't you want other teams to cut specific strategies? That would give you an incentive to make the cards and the way you present your 1AC better. You win debate rounds by doing the better debating, not by undercutting the negative's ability to do pre-round preparation.
  9. Judges would think it's not topical. The resolution calls for NON-MILITARY exploration and/or development.
  10. If military technology is the sole mechanism for the development/exploration, the aff probably isn't non-military.
  11. Because permutations are not advocacies. Severance does not make the affirmative plan itself a moving target, because perms are just tests of competition. Proving that the permutation is severance just proves that the particular perm doesn't make your counter-advocacy non-competitive.
×
×
  • Create New...