Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by NickDB8

  1. i think this is a pretty good idea - there are a few posts about people trying to automate card-cutting on here, even going as far as to suggest a program could cut, say, daily politics updates for you on its own by programming it to use google news. however, i dont know if any of these initiatives really took off. here's my thoughts on the individual ideas you have - #1. this would be good, except i think you'd need a similarity standard before it compiles, just so you don't end up with "econ decline leads to war" and "no war - interdependence" in the same file. the standard and tech may already exist, i am by no means an expert in that field. #2. go for it - you mentioned verbatim doing this but a. it cant highlight, so if that gets implemented that definitely gives you a leg up, and b. it underlines really poorly lol #3. again, no expert with the technology, but i think the auto-tagging would have to be pretty rhetorically powerful, accurate, and concise - for instance, can automation understand the warrants in something as complex as baudrillard, and be able to reiterate them back via a tag? i have no idea, but its something to consider In regards to formatting, perhaps base it off of the Verbatim macro settings?
  2. yall realize there is like 0 reason to read framework, right? they read a plan
  3. there's a lewis card in the agamben aff from utnif that explains why standardized testing is biopolitical and seeks to weed-out "non productive" subjects
  4. pf more like df like Debate Fakely haha get it
  5. I think this is from a Baudrillard round but I'm not entirely sure. Also, there's good ev about debate ballots having no real world implications, but I don't know the authors
  6. frame educational equality as a prerequisite to pedagogical practices because those suffering from inequality are the ones most impacted by neoliberal capitalism
  7. i've started reading t - substantial is of sizeable quantity against small affs, or something similar. picked up going for it in a lay round vs the natives aff
  8. a decent way out of a double-bind, imo, is to ask "which of these isn't true?" - force them to isolate which half of the bind which they're going to go for, because there's no world where both of those statements can be true.
  9. resolved: the united states federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the united states overall, i would pull some openev stuff. common affs include various spinoffs of title I funding (money that gets distributed to schools for a specific purpose), STEM education, sex education, and desegregation common neg positions include the states counterplan, the federalism da, the spending da, various politics das, and various court das depending on the aff. topicality is your friend when becoming new to the topic - a good interpretation is the ikonen 1999 evidence that defines education as the teaching and learning that happens within classrooms. if k debate is your thing, there is good stuff about neoliberalism, state sanctioned knowledge and more.
  10. This is how I organize my policy stuff, but maybe you can apply some to LD as well I generally try to have the following for aff: - 2AC blocks to common case args and all offcase under the sun --- Pretty easy, just go to "2AC Cap K" and there's your answers - A massive impact defense file that gets updated yearly --- If you need defense to a specific scenario that isn't in the 2AC blocks, go here, scroll down to "A2 Terror -> War" or whatever you need defense to - Bigger answers files to offcase in a separate folder --- Sure, your "2AC Cap K" might be alright, but when the 1NC is 8 minutes of cap, you'll probably want more answers. These should all be in a doc titled "A2 Cap K" For neg: - Case negs --- Just click the aff you're hitting and there's neg cards - A "1NC Funbox" --- Offcase my partner and I usually read, just there for quick 1NC construction - Impact defense file --- See above - Bigger files for the offcase we read --- For instance, the 1N can grab the Cap 1NC from the "funbox", but the 2N can go to the actual Cap K file for extensions
  11. Looking for the ev from the george mason camp - I can trade if need be. Appreciate it!
  12. i can judge tldr paradigm - tech over truth, can do some k stuff but you should not expect me to understand high theory things, k affs should be directionally topical
  13. i'll be there - any other prominent cross-x members?
  14. should lose to a predictability and infinite regression argument every time. a. no one looks at a topic and says "x area seems topical, but lets throw one k aff in for fun", and b. every k team will say this which means its infinitely regressive and inevitably will justify an endless amount of affs
  15. you probably shouldn't
  16. What do you mean? Like, having a neoliberal aff and still reading a perm?
  17. Well said, Snowball. Piggybacking off of a few ideas - When it comes to generics, there are generic arguments you can make, but they will not be the best. A good example of this would be a cede the political argument (the user AQuackDebater has uploaded a pretty nice sized one elsewhere on the website not too long ago), perhaps a "consequentialism good" argument, and perhaps the Zizek 4 evidence (I think it's 04, could be wrong) that some teams use as permutation evidence. These are okay arguments, and might win you a round if the negative really screws up, but it's best not to take that risk. I would advise more specifics. In terms of organization, there are a few overarching categories, but the more specific you can get the better. Even when Snowball went from "2AC Identity K" to "2AC Queer Theory", there are still branches of queer theory that are different. For instance, you could have "2AC Queer Pessimism", "2AC Queer Futurism", "2AC Queer Optimism", and so on. These are obviously just examples, but each has its own nuances that could make having a generic queer theory 2AC troublesome. Lastly, on the permutation, Snowball briefly mentioned rejection alts and comparing the actual alternative their evidence advocates. Instead of doing that (which you should do, but this is to save speech time), you could say "Perm - Do the affirmative and the non-mutually exclusive parts of the alternative". This would essentially mean that you, either in cross ex or the 1AR, get to explain that the perm is really just doing the aff and the alternative minus the "reject the plan" part of the alt, allowing you to bypass those tricky "yOu CaNt ReJeCt AnD dO tHe PlAn" debates. Just be sure that you are able to explain why only the part about rejection is mutually exclusive, otherwise the neg will say that 100% of the alt is mutually exclusive, therefore, you don't get a perm.
  18. i didnt go to utnif and those are probably the best
  19. Foucault doesn't really sad pessimism is bad, as far as I know. Is pessimism your method?
  20. don't allow new 2ar arguments because that would make me sad
  21. http://web.archive.org/web/20160206081755/http:/www.rwesq.com/on-flipping-aff-being-black
  • Create New...