Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by BobbyTables

  1. dispo is short for dispositionality.  I've been taught that it means the position can only be kicked if the other team read theory or a perm, but definitions vary (I've also heard both that it means it can only be kicked if there's offense and that it can't be kicked if there's offense, for example).

    • Upvote 1

  2. Yeah I'll bite and say that the problem of induction isn't a problem at all in CX and that you can easily gut-check this. Some philosophy professors might shit a brick but it's pretty easy to have the ethos of "the adult in the room" by calling out how unlikely the impacts of the aff are. Pretty sure that if we're going to use  pure logic in debate rounds than slippery slope and strawpersons would be called every few words in a duhb8 round. 



    tho I agree with the rest of the post. 

    It's not problem of induction, it's anthropic bias.  We can't observe worlds where we've gone extinct, so we tend to underestimate the risk of existential threats; Bostrom writes some decent stuff on this.

  3. 1. Plan passage distracts from applying pressure needed to pass the scenario

    2. Theory arg - fiat means the plan happens after the politics scenario - probably not legitimate

    3. Exchanging favors - agreeing to back or stop one bill in exchange for support on another

    4. Nobody is pushing the thing in the status quo - a uniqueness claim

    • Upvote 2

  4. Yes, it would work as a link to Agamben; he's one of the main critics of reformism.  That said, I've heard he thinks negative state action can still be good, though I'm not sure whether that's correct.  As for sources, Michigan put out a Foucault K that has some reformism links; those might be a decent starting point.

    • Upvote 1

  5. Alternatively, identify a specific program that's uniquely problematic and defend only that ending program.  Personally, I think that's the better route, as it involves less general sketchiness and means you're going to have access to lit specific to the program you're talking about, instead of relying on more generic surveillance fails lit.  It does mean you're slightly more vulnerable to Ks of reformism, but you'll probably link to those either way.

    • Upvote 1

  6. The point of the argument is mostly to take advantage of the fact that most of the reasons the pic is theoretically illegitimate double turn with the impact turns people read on framework, so it can occasionally cause trouble for teams reading nonresolutional affs.  That said, most of those teams, and certainly all of the good ones, will be well-prepared to answer the argument, and you're on the wrong side of just about every truth claim if they don't mishandle it, so it's not really worth the time.

  7. I think the main difference between the games you're identifying and debate is that debate has a strongly established precedent of determining large subsets of the rules within the round (things like counterplan theory and conditionality, for example, even before questions of framework became a thing).  As such, it's only "cheating" in the sense of being theoretically questionable, and not in the sense of being a violation of the ethics of gaming (I doubt, for example, that Marty would condone clipping cards, even in instances in which one won't be caught).  This also checks back against destroying the game, because anything that's unfair enough to do so also is likely to place itself on the wrong side of theory debates (also, teams can and have adapted strategies to address many K affs; the need to preempt framework places substantial constraints on the literature that affs will draw on).

    • Upvote 1

  8. How do you plan to make that responsive? Both Puar and I presume the 1AC (I haven't looked at it in a while) say that SQUO images of terrorists are bad. Sounds like the perm solves.


    You probably wouldn't be a fan of the strat I would recommend, but I'd just impact turn the aff. IR lit, particularly on terrorism, has a lot of self reflexive people who are like, realism takes into account that stuff is constructed, but terrorists are still dangerous. It's easy to just beat them on quality of evidence.

    Are there any sources in particular you would recommend looking at?

  9. You should write these in round. Preferably during the 1nc.

    I usually have a few things 

    1) A link explanation: What specifically about the aff is capitalist (Use their warrants as offense)

    2) Impact 

    3) ALT

    4) Framework/ Role of the ballot 


    Links can be on the line-by-line as DAs to the perm, impacts can be done on the "case outweighs debate", alt can have an explanation, but the solvency debate should be on the line-by-line, and Framework should always be on the framework debate.

    The Overview should only have things that you're referencing everywhere on the flow and things that you're referencing nowhere else on the flow; most judges don't want to hear an overview longer than about a minute.

    • Upvote 2
  • Create New...