Jump to content

kylerbuckner

Member
  • Content Count

    1204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    88

Everything posted by kylerbuckner

  1. an ethic of incommensurability isn't just "native pedagogy," rather it's a refusal to compromise claims for decolonization with settlers - it's a frame utilized to weigh calls to give back the land insofar as it refuses to believe that dialect of native vs. settler can be reconciled, at least through the reformism that most affs would claim to be.
  2. It depends on what aff you're hitting - your alt should be set up to be exclusive and net-better than the aff. If you're hitting a K Aff, reading an alt that calls for violent revolution is potentially more aligned with what their literature says than, say, an alt that slowly reforms existing structures. The same goes for a policy aff. If you read a reform alt vs. a warming aff, you'll probably lose to the perm, but if you call for a revolution, or choose to center the round on competing pedagogical approaches (ie Giroux/Critical Pedagogy alts) then you're in a better spot.
  3. I think the aff is being too light on the solvency question - I think the fact that the neg's entire strategy is premised on the claim that the aff is unproductive/unfair for debate is proof of how the very introduction of the 1AC into debate is a disruption of the "rules" debate proffers and a refusal to activate potentiality in a way that is aligned with sovereign norms.
  4. The citations in the 1AC need to be fixed - you need citations for all authors and the date in the portion of the cite you read, not # card you've read from that same author - ie Mitchell et al 1 should be Mitchell (actual date) and a list of all other contributing authors in the actual citation and their qualifications. This isn't going to affect the round, but it may affect future ones.
  5. Wake did as well.. can be found here
  6. that's still just the federalism da with a better internal link
  7. It seems like it'd be better as a CP or K given that you'd likely lose to "UQ overwhelms the link - NCLB, Race to the Top, etc. all thump their internal link." Having an advocacy would generate UQ for you and get you out of that debate.
  8. just... don't misgender someone?
  9. I think OP is referring to the Balsas evidence.
  10. Also, push them on the level of solvency. Playing Radiohead to George Bush probably wouldn't have prevented the Iraq War.
  11. I like this version of the Taiwan aff cuz it's not like "give Taiwan to China in exchange for less SCS tension" cuz that's p colonialist.
  12. I think that "a just govt should prioritize stopping terrorism b/c it destroys civil liberties" is still a better arg, but that's just me.
  13. i feel like a better turns case arg is "in the event of a terrorist attack, measures would be taken to curb civil liberties in an attempt to ramp up national security."
  14. idk South Eugene wins lots of rounds on it
  15. NSDA Nats is a great experience if you're going with friends or people you enjoy being around, but it isn't a great tournament. I went to it last year, and read a Metadata Aff in prelims, (had lay and spread versions, which I suggest doing as well) which was surprisingly successful given our lack of experience in policy debates. We got bored, though, and started reverting back to our Faciality aff in outrounds and did alright, but only because the teams we faced while aff were less than good. I only suggest doing that if you find out that the panel has at least two flow judges and your opponents aren't spectacular. As for the judging pool, it's mixed. One prelim round, we had Eli Brennan and some lay Pennsilvanian judge, and one out round we had three lay judges. It all depends. I would just say do what type of debate you like best when you're in a situation where one judge is your style and the other isn't.
  16. also even if they say "he/him" that doesn't mean they're cis so I would just stay away from that as a general rule of thumb
  17. it depends on the body of lit that k aff focuses on, but it will typically boil down to a meta framing issue about the purpose of debate. for most affs, it would be something along the lines of "if the only thing that leaves debate rounds are debaters, we should use these grounds as a scholastic site to test the best metaphysical relationship to [x] principle (which could be subjectivity, ontology, truth, alterity, desire, or even the world). i also think this question begets a sort of an absurd standard of solvency. just b/c someone doesn't read a plan text doesn't mean they have to solve, say, every instance of anti-blackness to justify an aff ballot just as when you're reading a policy aff you don't have to win that Trump *literally* signs the plan in order to win.
  18. I think I've solved the mystery. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is a wiki-mined file from Wake DL a few years back. I was helping a teammate compile a fem file awhile back and some of the cards look similar. Look at Kentucky Round 2, and cross-reference the Salleh card in the "2AC" with the one in the speech doc. It has the same note under the tag, and has the "////////////////" to designate where a card was cut. https://opencaselist14.paperlessdebate.com/Wake+Forest/Du-La+Neg
×
×
  • Create New...