Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by NickDB8

  1. If "Perm: Do the aff then the alt" It's also an intrinsic perm, in a way. Delaying the alternative kills any true competition between the alt and the aff. This means that the two obviously are mutually exclusive, if the aff has to go to the extent of delaying the alternative, they can't exist together in the same policy making scenario. This is just an idea, I'm sure someone can spin it into something. If "Every other instance" You need to win that every instance is key, otherwise the impacts still happen. For example, I wrote a Courts K of biopower, it went something like this: Aff uses courts, those exacerbate biopower, biopower is bad, and the alt is a different court system. This is all from Foucault, btw. However, Foucault writes that this court system must be rejected in every instance, otherwise the court system we have now will take back over. In context of cap, cap must be rejected always, or it comes back. Either win that every instance is key, or that the affirmative specifically is key, ie, "To get rid of cap, we can not {insert plan}", or something of that sort, and have a card with warrants to back it up.
  2. You're spamming these requests quite a bit. Maybe if you could specify what you're looking for?
  3. You're looking in the wrong place, I have a feeling.
  4. Also, don't forget a T version of the aff 1) Shows that you can still be topical and get the education regarding the aff, but the way they presented it is wrong. 2) Think of it like a CP with T as a net-benefit. If that fails (or one doesnt exist), you need to win that voting issues and debate education (portable skills, etc.) outweigh the specific education the aff provides.
  5. Just for the 2NR? You're blocks should be able to last you through all five minutes, so things to note 1) Fiat isn't real. It doesn't matter how the judge votes, no real world change comes from the debate. However, the education and portable skills we get from debate have been harmed within the round. This means that T is the only real-world impact. (Minus a K, that is.) 2) Answers to counter interpretations that only justify the aff. For example, on the surveillance topic, I hit a team that answered it with "Animal Disease Tracking is surveillance". That justifies having the same debate every round, what good comes from that? In the block, you should break down what the T debate is. Start on the interp and violation, extend those. Next, explain your standards and how they lead to the voting issues. THink of T like a DA, Interp=UQ, Violation=Link, Standards=IL, Voting Issues=Impact. Be sure to explain why the voting issues matter. For example, lack of fairness leads to people leaving debate, etc. You can talk about out of round abuse, as to not compromise the abuse story Multiple Ts are justified if there are multiple violations, just c/a the standards/voting issues I can elaborate on these some more if needed.
  6. Methodology debate. Instead of going for impact turns, etc., just explain that their methodology is wrong
  7. Cross-X Lecture 6-26.docx
  8. I have my shorthand notes that I took during the lecture, but no video. I can post them later tonight from my other laptop
  9. fair enough. Seriously though, where can I get this?
  10. >thread has been around for over ten years >no one posted download in the thread
  11. Debate camp doesn't make the debater. While it does help in terms of argumentation/research ability, they focus less on lay debate. So if you are from a lay circuit, it may not be that helpful. In terms of actual debating, you get a jump-start on the topic, improved research skills, and you get familiar with people in your circuit. Most camps are composed of practice rounds, research, lectures, and a tournament. In other words, similar to a regular debate coach/team, except more people, more knowledge, and different ideas for argumentation.
  12. I went to JDI last summer, one of the parts of the CX lecture was specific to making the other team upset about your answers, while still maintaining credibility. This included things like asking a question as an answer (be prepared for "this is my CX), and reading evidence. Honestly, I'd just start reading the card, and then use the fact that you were merely presenting the evidence to them (as asked) when they ask why you did that. TLDR- Use CX as a speech.
  13. I had Uber's two cards in the 1NC, just using them for different purposes. Probably going to use Trump's card. Thanks to both of you, though. If anyone is interested in getting this file, PM me.
  14. It really depends- You can have the unemployment impacts, but you need to be able to weigh these against impacts like war, etc. If it comes down to stopping a nuclear war, or having people be unemployed, the nuclear war will win on magnitude every time. There's three ways that impacts should be evaluated: Magnitude: The body count, or how big the impacts would be. In this case, nuclear war > unemployment Probability: How likely the impacts are to happen. In this example, unemployment > nuclear war Timeframe: How soon the impacts will happen. In this case, I'd say unemployment > nuclear war (not sure on that, though). So yes, these things can be considered impacts, it's just a matter of "Are they 'hard' enough to weigh against others?" For this purpose, you may want things called terminal impacts- these are the big things that happen at the end. For example, you can weigh that unemployment against war, if you find evidence that says things like "Unemployment is a prerequisite to war". This is just the policy aspect of it, I feel like Kritik impacts are explained well enough in Chaos' post
  15. Hey all, Writing a courts K based on Foucault's first chapter of Power/Knowledge. Only thing is, this doesn't give me a solid enough link from the court system to biopower. Any impacts within the book aren't solid enough, like class separation, and the aff will just say "case outweighs". Anyone have a good link, or a place to look? Thanks in advance
  16. Line by line should probably happen- I've won so many rounds because people drop the link and the impact scenario, only reading weak defense to a DA. It should go something like this "They say circumvention of the plan will happen- However, it won't, bc..." You can make blocks to common arguments against your aff and read those on the LBL, like above, or you can even do that with DAs, Ks, etc. It's just a matter of answering everything. When people don't do the LBL, you can capitalize on what they didn't answer- I've seen Heg turns go conceded, solvency deficits, even entire DAs. At that point, the neg should blow up the things that didn't get covered.
  17. Try writing in all capital, block letters- it will increase legibility. This is a good answer, you should also develop shorthand to flow faster, while keeping it at a point in which it still makes sense.
  18. This is called a "status" of a CP or K Alt- Conditional advocacies can be kicked under any circumstance- This is usually done by extending or conceding one of the other teams arguments. Unconditional means that the advocacy will be in the 2NR- This is a bad idea, as the aff will hammer you on offense I'm not familiar enough with dispositionality to explain it TL;DR- When you read CPs/Ks, conditionality is what your should run them as. (EDIT: https://www.cross-x.com/topic/59144-whats-dispo-in-conditionality/) Teams will argue that X status is bad for debate for some reason or another (Ex: Conditionality creates affirmative time/strat skews, etc.), while the neg will argue that these kinds of advocacies are good. Back to the OP- Best thing you can do is download a bunch of camp files where these CPs may be included, create some general offense. If you don't have answers to it, the permutation is probably your best bet.
  19. https://www.cross-x.com/topic/59488-dear-debaters-start-checking-your-sources-camp-files-are-riddled-with-ethics-violations/
  20. When I'm with my partner on policy affs, we typically go K/T/Case in the 2NC, and then a DA/CP in the 1NR. As of recently, we've been going one off terror, because lay judges, so it's typically me going five minutes of terror case turns in the 1NR.
  21. Hiya, I've finished my first year of debate. However, I'm making an aff for next year's topic, and I'm making blocks. If anyone can provide their blocks on OSPEC, or other theory, that'd be great! If you want a file in return, message me. Thanks
  22. NickDB8


    Alright, To start, I'm a novice. One of my varsity members gave me a Heidegger file, and I have no idea. I've gathered bits and pieces, "everything has importance because it exists," "commodification is wrong,". But I'm still confused. Can anyone get me an EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE guide to Heidegger? Other questions: What exactly is the alt for this, and how does it work? In a world where we don't reduce things for our own usage, would we still be living primitively? -Is commodification not required to get to where we are today? Thanks a ton.
  • Create New...