Jump to content

BootsandSuits

Member
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About BootsandSuits

  • Rank
    Junior-Varsity
  • Birthday 05/28/1997

Profile Information

  • Name
    Walker Adams
  • Biography
    Distance runner

Contact Methods

  • Google Chat/Jabber
    walkeradams.21@gmail.com
  1. I very recently went up against a fairness argument that I hadn't seen before while I was the AFF. I read a new advantage in my 2ac, and we haven't had a team question that all year, yet we were at district and in semis a team said that our new advantage should be tossed. Due to the fact that it was read in the 2ac. We didn't have a single thing to refute this with, so I just got up in my rebuttal and said "they have the negative block and 1 other rebuttal to address that advantage, they have a total of 18 min. worth of speeches to answer and they fail to answer." The judge liked that and allowed our advantage, but told us to cover ourselves further on the fairness aspect of the argument. Does anyone have any literature that says its fair to read a new advantage in the 2ac? Or anything from a debate expert who says its ok? Even a link to a pdf rulebook that specifically says it is within the rules to read new advantages would be a ton of help. Thanks for your help!
  2. District tournaments are almost rounded out, so does anyone have a list of all the qualifiers for UIL State? Also, anyone have any predictions for how state is going to pan out?
  3. The evidence certainly wasn't US code or anything that sounded remotely official. It may have been a really obscure section of US Code, (I don't remember what the specific source was) I just remember that it said attaching a tax to a bill is illegal. That's why I was hoping to find a bill passed somewhere that had a tax hike attached to it. Because, then we are totally legal. I didn't have a card saying that the tax was legal b/c I had never heard the arg they made before, so I hadn't planned for it. Also, I really don't want to say through normal budgetary means because then all of my district is lay judges and when a neg runs a Spending DA w/any extinction or nuke war impact our lazy ass judges alwasy automatically vote for the neg. So I can't say normal budgetary means or else I lose the district rounds that get me to state. The CHINA DA said that any development of the ocean causes china to flip shit and nuke us for lowering their hegemony. The affordable care act (ACA/Obamacare/whatever the hell you want to call it) had tax hikes, right? So could I just use the ACA as my example of a fully legal bill that the supreme court ruled had a tax on it?
  4. So, a couple of days ago (the 10th) my partner and I went to a tournament that we went 3-0 in prelims and were one of the two teams with enough speaker points to break to finals. In finals we were aff. Which I am really confident in, I thought going in we had a really good case and would probably win, because we had already gone up against one of the Austin Peace Academy's teams, and we destroyed their T's on development, exploration, and or. We also destroyed their DA on China that had a spending link. The team we ran up against in finals ran all of this, and on the ballot in finals the judge specifically wrote "T's flow AFF" "DA flows AFF". But, because of a really odd argument about using taxes a funding mechanism in our case we ending up losing the round. Their argument was that using a tax (which we use a 64 cent tax that raises 74.22 million dollars in one tax year to fund the plan) to defeat their spending DA which was linked with something about spending from normal budgetary means, would cause them to forfeit Neg ground and impinge their "debate educational rights." We said we weren't using these means because our bill specifically includes the tax provision. They went on to run an arg that said it is illegal to attach any tax to a bill that passes through Congress. The judge bought that arg as well. So, the help I really need is in relation to these odd tax args, I've never seen them, so I didn't know exactly how to defend other than saying we didn't use the means that linked to their DA, but they used that against me and said it abused their "debate educational rights." So, can someone give me some help with these tax args? An example of a bill that lawfully passed through Congress with a tax attached would really help. And anything saying that its ok to put a tax on a bill would help. Anything at all helps, Thanks in Advance! Also, please excuse the horrid grammar it is late and I just remembered to post this before I was almost asleep.
  5. There's a big motherfuckin' difference between OBL and a 73 yr. old granny. So, she ran a weed racket? Who gives a shit, seriously, it should be legal, but no America still has a Nixonian/Reganoian Stick SHOVED UP ITS ASS!
  6. Research something that you think has a chance of success. I'm an experienced state quarterfinalist and I still use openevidence to get my aff case from. It's pretty much good for finding any and all types of cases. Print out one of the cases that you can choose (for free) and read over all the cards. Start w/inherency and piece 2-4 good cards together for your 1st contention. I then always go to Harms for my 2nd or 3rd contention (dependent on how many contentions for Inherency you have) find another 2-3 cards for Harms and put those into your harms contention. Then flow into your planks such as plank I: The USFG should substantially increase its debt relief efforts towards Venezuela (worked for last yrs. topic) Follow those up w/2-4 more planks stating the specifics of what you want to do and don't forget to add your agency of enactment such as the Department of State through the Bureau of Finance and Development. Also, at the end of planks that the affirmative reserves the power of fiat and the right to clarify. I always then flow into my solvency cards. Depending on how many things the plan solves I've used 2-6 solvency cards. Then go to your advantages, which obviously have to be directly tied into your case, but don't have to come from the same file or brief that you got the case from. This year some advantages could be BioD, food security, global warming will almost always be an advantage. But, depending on your case you choose which advantages you want to run with it. For advice while cutting cards, just cut them down to the least amount of words you can while still conveying the message you want to show the judge. You only get 8 min. to make your point, be efficient w/all of your cards so you don't waste time. However, if you have a complicated card that a crappy judge may not understand you need to be able to elaborate a little on that card. So keep that in mind when cutting cards. Just choose something you are personally interested in, read the files and you'll find what you want. Putting together an aff case is a very important decision. You don't want to choose something that you hate, because you'll probably be running it all season. I prefer a tad of squirrelyness to my cases, meaning they don't have to be mainstream cases, like Law of The Sea, Aquaculture and all that crap. But, those non-squirrely cases are really easy to find and put together. Squirrely cases take more time to put together and they're harder to understand, but I guarantee you the time is worth it. Last year, I ran debt relief towards Venezuela (which was pretty squirrely) I mean, no one ever had any hardcore killer evidence to bring it down and it never got beat except by a K at State.
  7. You could always switch to the 2AC, and go from reading the case (which I have my weaker partner do) to defending whatever args come up in the 1NC. That's a simple solution that worked for my partnership.
  8. My bad, I never did clarify, I want to learn how to defend against kritiks and how to run them. I do want to run them, but if my coach insists upon not allowing K's, I'll just fall back into running stock issues (which I know I'm way stronger at than running something I've never done before.) Also, out in West Tx we have a lot of judges who don't know the slightest thing about CX, thus don't understand K's. I had a judge at district last year get confused about my partner's Saudi Oil DA that said if we lifted the embargo said that we would import less from mid east and mid east would fall into chaos. The judge's out here can be pretty dumb at times, so I wouldn't consider running a K around here.
  9. Thank you, so much! I have cards from Foundation Briefs stating mandates are a form of development, and also more cards saying that exploitation of a resource is development. The resource here being ocean water. Thanks for your help.
  10. My coach refuses to allow me to run k's, I understood that last year as a first year debater. But, as a 1st yr. I made it State Quarterfinals where I had absolutely no damn clue about what a kritik was and how to defend against one. My West Tx coach continues to prohibit even the slightest interest in K's, but they never go into our rounds. I'm thinking of defying my coach and learning how to run a K, but it seems like an extremely complicated concept. I'm having trouble understanding how they work, so can anyone give me a breakdown of how K's work, how to run one, and how to defend against a K? My coach really doesn't want to help on this end, and still refuses to believe that people run K's, I got beat last yr. at State by a K, thus the interest in learning how to run one. So, can somebody please help me?
  11. I am referring to current power plants that use once through cooling, there would be a mandate to ban Once Through cooling and replace it w/more efficient and therefore economically beneficial closed cycle cooling systems. All of the offending plants are located on the Atlantic, Pacific, or Gulf coasts. (23 on the Eastern Seaboard, 5 on the Gulf Coast, 4 on the Pacific Coast) Individually these plants suck 1.5 billions of gallons from the ocean per day. In this process they are entrainment nets where per year billions of fish and other aquatic life are left stuck in nets to suffocate. If any marine life survives the entrainment process they are then processed into the reactor where they are instantly burned to death. The animals that have died in both the entrainment and reactor areas are then dumped back into the ocean and treated as waste. If Once Through Cooling is banned, and replaced w/closed cycle cooling systems the amount of water per day sucked in would be only 20 million gallons of seawater per day. This would save a vast amount of the surrounding aquatic environments that are around these plants. Also, since I'm vulnerable to a T so much, is there any way I could get a tighter def. that would benefit me more than the one I already have? I found an alternate def. that says using knowledge to meet a predetermined goal. Is that any better? Or do I need to abandon the goal def.?
  12. Are a food chain collapse prevention advantage, and a save sea turtles because they're a keystone species advantages enough to keep a case afloat? If not, what could I use for separate advantages? The case is over Once Through Cooling @ power plants, wherein the coolant for reactors is drained from the ocean. This directly affects a vast amount of marine life, and replacing OTC with modern closed cycle systems saves 95% of the marine life surrounding power plants (including thousands of sea turtles.) Basically, are those two advantages enough to win, or do I need to scrap one of them and find a new one? Also, I don't think a development T can do much damage, because our def. of development is using scientific knowledge to meet a specific goal, the goal being saving 95% of marine life affected by the current system.
×
×
  • Create New...