Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BobbyTables

  1. Walter Payton Brahin-Cusick aff. It's on their wiki.
  2. Royal concludes aff. The section people tag as Royal concludes neg is about economic costly signalling theory and interdependence checking war, not diversionary theory or power transition theory, which are the warrants of the aff card about economic decline.
  3. 1. The versions I've seen seem to be more about ethics than education. Conditionality is a form of fluid politics/ideology, which is a manifestation of whiteness, or conditionality incentivizes us to throw metaphorical shit at the wall and hope something sticks, which destroys our ability to form coherent ideologies because we're taught to use beliefs as weapons, while making us really good at justifying rejecting arguments that would be problematic for us. 2. In most condo debates with a K aff, I think it tends to be framed more as a perfcon debate than a condo debate, so the number of advocacies technically present is less important than how they interact.
  4. Just get particularity links. "Your ending of one form of surveillance makes us think the state is reformable, kills revolutionary politics".
  5. On the income topic, there are at least particularity good/bad debates.
  6. Honestly, I think there's not a ton of K ground, either. Most of the K affs will either defend the USFG and lose to the state pik, or not defend the usfg and be in trouble against T version of the aff. Policywise, there's probably some sort of relations/backlash/tradeoff scenario you could read.
  7. For Edelman, the main source is No Future: Queer Theory and The Death Drive.
  8. http://www.cross-x.com/topic/57909-so-confused-right-now-on-this-quantom-mechanics-aff/
  9. How was this T last year? Also, still not as bad as space elevators. As for strats, military CP solves the aff.
  10. The aff doesn't really have a US key or Federal key warrant.
  11. Sure. T is a question of plantext in a vacuum, not its outcomes.
  12. Regarding Negarestani, does anybody have recommendations for secondary sources?
  13. The problem with that sort of aff is that it's basically impossible to actually be forgotten because information on the web generally spreads too fast to get rid of it, which makes any consequentialist aff have huge difficulties with solvency.
  14. If it's just a few pages you're interested in cutting, you can take a screenshot, convert the screenshot into a text or pdf file with an online OCR, and cut the resulting file. As for downloading it, try using chrome, which lets you change the extension when you save the page (this might not help, as some pdfs are locked and don't let you copy-paste even after downloading). If you're cutting the whole article/book, you may have to just find a different source for it.
  15. Futility aff? To be forgotten from internet searches is impossible and we should affirm the desire for impossible struggles?
  16. Should is future tense, they explode limits because you'd have to prepare for every possible aff at every possible time at history, they kill ground because whatever they say should have been done was done and obviously didn't cause extinction, but they can claim not doing it would have, which means they'll always access the largest magnitude impact.
  17. I think the OP wanted cap bad, and even if not, Ayn Rand is not who you should be citing (there are definitely better defenses of cap good, and Rand is most famous for being kind of a terrible philosopher who no academic takes seriously, followed by being famous for using state welfare while criticizing things like state welfare programs as being communist).
  18. The 1ac does explicitly defend the scientific method, so they'll have trouble spinning themselves as not what the neg authors are critiquing, I think.
  19. The only reason to vote aff seems to be contention three (contention one is just quantum physics is true, contention two looks like framework preempts, but may well have embedded reasons to vote aff, so ask in cross-ex). There are a bunch of authors who write about artificial intelligence being super difficult; the aff's reductionist explanations ensure that we'll create an AI with a bad optimization function because we think its just a question of resolving humanism, etc. The aff also assumes that the AI will think like humans (Abrams), which the de Mul card explicitly rejects as a presupposition; that probably also turns the case.
  20. What sort of aff do you want to run?
  21. BobbyTables

    Cap ALT

    Are you reading this alt against policy affs or against k affs? Why is your critique not talk[ing] as much as possible about the necessity of a radical change to make it sure that nothing will really change How is rejecting capitalism not an action if all action is coopted by capitalism? If rejecting capitalism isn't an action, how is it distinct from the squo? If you can answer those questions, I think the alt is decent against K affs (it seems relatively advantaged against the perm, which is generally the weakest part of cap against those affs). On the other hand, against a policy aff, how are they a Leftist academic movement that gets coopted? If they're any sort of liberal advocacy (a structural violence or environment aff, for example), Zizek's arguments about one can only afford to be indifferent if the liberal option is in power. Otherwise, the price to be paid may appear much too high seem to conclude perm, and your alt probably doesn't coherently solve. For policy affs, I'm a fan of the Badiou alt (communist hypothesis) because I think it makes a decent embedded VTL claim and helps set up your framework arguments about ignoring alt solvency as much as possible.
  22. The context of the resolution is given by the word resolved, which comes before the colon and means to reduce by mental analysis. Thus, the resolution means that we should analyze the topic that follows the colon rather than advocate for the topic. The neg team will generally read an interp saying that "Resolved:" refers to implementation of legislation, which means we should advocate the specific topic and not just analyze it. Either way, begs the question of the standards debate.
  23. Does anybody have sources that say that saying the state is inevitable is used to justify passivity in the face of atrocities? Any other answers to state inevitable would also be appreciated.
  24. That sounds like a definition that would be read on a framework debate. Could you post a link to the wiki of the team that does this?
  • Create New...