Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Okay

About 8off

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Biography
    I do LD. Deal with it.
  1. Couldn't the converse of the resolution also be "Adolescents ought have not the right to make autonomous medical decisions"? Which would imply that neg has to show why any medical autonomy would be bad? I had an apriori loaded up but looks like I can't use it
  2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think her own religious beliefs have something to do with it as well. Maybe you can talk to tab or something. There are always loads of generic Ks and arguments you can run - links of omission and ROTBs are just two examples of arguments that give you a good chance of winning without actually engaging the other side (lol, but if you hit a reasonably good debater they'll probably have those things prepped). Arguments like moral skepticism and nihilism also work similarly. I guess this would also help you in practicing your tech debate.
  3. it's ok ill become a tricky critical debater so ill have some legitimacy in my cases but not much
  4. So I've heard AFC and AEC used interchangeably, as well as differently. I've heard AFC as "concede value/value criterion" but also as "concede ROTB" and "all neg interps are counter-interps" Mostly I've heard AEC as "concede value/value criterion." What's the difference between the two, and which meaning is most commonly used? I saw @Bdawgsupreme 's post here https://www.cross-x.com/topic/58608-theory-spikes-help/?p=912287 and it gave me an idea - could i have "concede the aff framework" which includes ethics and ROTB and "neg interps are CIs?" I do LD.
  5. 8off

    Free Files

    Probably from the Full Cites Good
  6. So would this work? Short Version And, neg must read all interps in CX to see if I comply because I’m willing to clarify or modify arguments in the AC, otherwise assume I meet because I might have solved the theory debate and allowed more focus on substance debate. Long Version Neg must read all interps in CX to see if I comply because I’m willing to clarify, modify, or kick arguments in the AC, otherwise assume I meet because I might solved the theory debate and allowed more focus on substance education. If they don’t it means they incentivize running theory as a strat because they don’t care about actually stopping abuse so they bastardize theory and create this “win at all costs” mentality which can destroy the educational and moral value of debate so vote them down as a meta-theoretical issue. Also, does neg ever read CX Checks?
  7. So like "all their voters are bs anyway because running the shell itself kills theoretical education"?
  8. 8off

    K BEFORE Theory?

    I've heard a lot of "K outweighs theory" and "Theory bad" arguments, e.g. stopping oppression, the theory links into the K, etc., but not many "K comes first" args. I want to be able to run a K and also layer the debate with some theory, but I don't want someone saying "he conflicts" or "his theory links into the K", so could someone point me in the right direction for arguments saying the K actually comes before theory (i.e. operates on a higher level)? I do LD.
  9. So I used to have a longer cx checks spike, but since then I wrote a newer, shorter one (that I wanted to be easier to miss ) after I saw a friend's. "I may concede to clarify, modify, or kick arguments if neg reads their interpretations in CX, otherwise assume I meet because I might have stopped the abuse in the round and allowed more focus on substance debate. Also means they don’t care about stopping the abuse and they promote theory just for its strategic value so vote them down as a meta-theoretical issue." (I have an "all neg theory is drop the arg" spike that I plan to read alongside this.) Does the meta-theory part work? I'm not actually sure how meta-theory functions, is it written in a shell format? Can a voter be "bastardization of theory" or something? I do LD.
  10. So I was checking out libertarianism frameworks and I came across a case online (TOC Prelims NC.doc) that talks about meta-constraints. I've heard of framework constraints and I don't understand them, let alone meta-constraints. What are they?
  11. I took out "breadth" since I'm not advocating my voters anyway. A2 Skep Spikes Theory.docx
  12. The name's Hitler. 8off Hitler.

  13. Thanks guys. How about this? A2 Skep Spikes Theory.docx I didn't know what to put for the counter-interp, so I just reworded the interp.
  14. I do LD . Our school is having an internal practice tournament, and our coach distributed a "skep triggers bad" shell to all the participants. I had an op metaethical with a skep trigger (contractarianism checks motivational internalism, otherwise no universal morality), and I want to be able to beat back the shell, which people will no doubt run. I've attached the shell. How would I counter the shell? Could someone give me a counter-interp, or at least point me in the right direction? Skep Spikes theory.docx
  • Create New...