Jump to content

youdidntseeme

Member
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

66 Excellent

About youdidntseeme

  • Rank
    Varsity

Recent Profile Visitors

2865 profile views
  1. not doing debate in college sorry
  2. honestly you could even say the perm is net better -- it allows xi to "say no" to a western-led initiative which would win him a lot of political support at home among the nationalists for standing up to America and refusing to make concessions definitely not a round winner, but just a musing
  3. I feel like we're kinda talking past each other here --- To win the debate, neg must win that their CP is better than a) the aff and the permutation. Debate 101. The net benefit was the Xi DA. The perm shields the link, ergo, the counterplan is not preferable to the permutation what if you evaluated this debate: -- aff: plan the usfg should give youdontseeme a trillion bucks --- 2nr: cp the usfg should give youdontseeme a trillion bucks the 2ar goes for perm do the cp, the aff wins -- even though the perm essentially does the cp
  4. er bc it's not competitive.? the perm shields the link? bc it's functionally perm do the cp? edit: like theoretically any time the aff wins "perm do the cp" against a process counterplan or what have you, you could just say "well then if they win perm do the cp, why not reject the perm and vote on the cp, if the perm is essentially doing the cp?" - you see what i'm saying
  5. yeah - the "spin" is what i'm about to explain (and not anything that happened in debate, just the best way to go for perm do both against the uncondo cp): permutation do both -- the plan fiats an OFFER to sever commitment if china makes territorial concessions, and that is negotiated -- the counterplan IMMEDIATELY ends defense commitment to Taiwan -- the permutation does both the offer AND end defense commitment -- which means that in a world of the perm, China would ALREADY GET TAIWAN (which is what they want), so in that world where they already have taiwan, there is zero way they'd say yes to signing away all of the scs and the ecs for something that they already have (especially if the neg's xi link is true). thus, in a world of the perm, they accept the cp but SAY NO to the aff, which shields the link to the xi DA because then they don't have to make concessions
  6. idk-- case d + offense was kinda tagline extended in the block so you probably woulda been fine there perm do both destroys the uncondo cp, the 2nc didnt really have an answer to the 1ar spin of "say no to aff" you could have done (i can explain more if you'd like) cp2 is a process cp so yeah.. perm do the cp xi da, the 1ar could sandbag a bunch of new uq cards given that the block didnt read anymore uq cards on the da, and you could read a bunch of new recent 2017 cards in the 1ar i think the 1ar was fine if you were planning on going for condo to practice, but i thought it was rather unnecessary and definitely a worse option than just debating the substance.
  7. ooh nice any more general framework cards or impact framing cards about predictions, turns case / root cause stuff or updated links for: --- economy (not the neocleous card) --- hegemony --- i-law --- prolif --- russia --- environment / biodiversity we love you<3
  8. these 2 questions in an actual debate round would be h i l a r i o u s to hear
  9. not sure you can call them novices -- this is at least their 3rd year of debate, but yeah they're incredible
  10. erm i may or may not retract that statement after reading through the 1ac but why in the hell would you read a us economic leadership advantage with this aff
  11. this aff definitely does not rely on a theory of offensive realism :/
×
×
  • Create New...