Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DiamondLouisXIV

  1. I agree, reading only from Leviticus in your speech speech would be a terrible idea. What's probably more strategic would be to read logical syllogisms on god's existence, and from there argue morality. On some level I think it's pretty strategic. For instance, people who identify with that religion would be more inclined to vote on it. But even if you were just reading the bible, you can't tell me it's any less strategic then other Kritiks (The Batman K, The vampire k...and other crazy Ks). Assuming X religious stance is true, it may matter most that the argument Is True. I feel like strategy may play a role, but that the larger barrier is normativity in policy debate, which, again, really irritates me because of what policy debate is supposed to be and is for so many other concepts.
  2. I, and everyone who does policy has realized that there is currently no place for god in the debate space. Although I am atheist, this norm disturbs me. Debate is supposed to be a place of transformation, we talk about race, LGBT, fem and gender studies, all sorts of identity arguments, and if certain ethics are good or bad. Badiou even says all ethics are bad (basically). What I don't understand is that despite the transformative nature of debate, we exclude the most important question: Is there an objective morality? Even in LD there is but a mention of god, I fact the only place you can find a good God debate is on YouTube or debate.org. The worst part to me is that we are excluding a question this big from the debate space and silencing that voice. The closest argument relating to god I've heard is the god k, which just mocks Christianity. You may argue that we shouldn't argue about god because it's an indeterminate question, but That's a contention of debate not a fact, even if it is, just argue that in round and say interminable questions bad. You may also say it gets people to emotional, My answer would be get over it, if debate is going to be transformative, we can't require they must be happy in the process, that alone is an idea for kritik. So why DO we have these norms, and should they be altered?
  3. I give permission to use this file however you would like.
  4. So I'm trying to wrap my head around narratives. I went against one for the first time yesterday but have heard debates with them several times. I wanted some suggestions on strats and specific arguments (links..ect) that would be good. This is a former version of the aff I went against, which is not in use now (below) Here were my thoughts. They are running their argument without the use of any fiat mechanism which means that everything they say, they claim will really happen (stopping genocide..ect). They do all of this just by talking about the problem and changing our mindsets which somehow scales up and causes a reduction in surveillance. My last strat was this: Border kritik (you're plan text says 'USFG' which is an recognition of its existence, bites the K), FW (hey bro you should actually do policy debate), Methodology aka case (you have literally no solvency because you dont prove that this discussion leaves the room, and you have BOP soo), and then a BS CP (There is no reason that your narrative justifies the ballot, my partner and I advocate a counterheg narrative except we don't recognize the existence of the United States or any other border which is a NB to the CP).....not in that order. I realize the contradiction with the CP AND reading theory blocks that say narratives bad, but they never argued it was abusive and its neccesary to demonstrate the argument that there is no unique reason to affirm, plus I said it only stands if theory fails. I would love to hear some strat/argument suggestions on this because this ish blew my mind with how much it doesn't make sense. bad.docx
  5. I don't think its a terrible argument. Just because you say Word has quality W, X, Y, it does not logically follow that Word does Not have quality Z.
  6. It seems like everyone relies on mutual exclusivity to determine competition but from what I understand, it must simply be less advantageous to do the perm than to do the plan + CP. Or in otherwords, mutual exlusion is just one form of competition. Doesn't this basically means all you baseline-need (to compete and win) is a winning disad and full adv (or weighing the Net Benifit as greater than the other adv) solvency? If wrong why is it wrong. Do you need to solve the advantage(s)? or does anything go so long as the CP is competitive?
  7. so you're saying fed AND 50 states do plan right. then force them to show how not a lot of this surveillance is from fed taking away solvency? what about the CP above but you pick out of one or two of the plan planks making the perm impossible?
  8. 1) So with the solvency argument, would it go something like this: 'they have BOP, means they need to give solvency, means your voting neg on presumption that case doesn't work'? 2) How do I substantiate the claim that most of these activities are local? I've been having a very hard time finding evidence that most of this surveillance is state based or mostly federal based. So would I just make it an analyt. "hey, this surveillance only happens on local scales, believe us until they provide evidence otherwise" 3) when can I find the evidence for the "serial policy failure argument, because that is a good argument. 4) I've never understood alt cause arguments. Even if we can't solve racism or securitization as a whole, isn't it still good to stop this instance? If I see a bully picking on a kid for being black, I stop it bc racism bad not becasue I want to solve racism. Im guessing you make it as an argument to tame down their impacts. 5) so if they don't have a part specify for charitable giving, how does that turn into offense against them?
  9. meaning that the aff changes their advocacy from 'do plan' to 'do plan then do cp'? can't you make it off like the advocacy stays the same but you basically say 'vote aff and then vote neg'? no i mean that kinda the whole point of the CP. usually the build up of hatred towards some other and the loss of morality is a build up. So unless you say the US has as much hatred for the muslim as the nazis did the jew, my point is solid. We need to shock people back to common sense morality and rally support for muslims. Not too many people are so far gone that they would happily applaud genocide. Its just so beyond over the edge that everyone would have to start supporting islam from islamophobia....that's the whole thing about conformity. you lost me here
  10. donald answered 3, and a I agree with 1, but on pp2 the CP is at least artificially competitive because it says keep all SQ anti-islam institutions. The perm takes away from the solvency of overconformity. I wonder if you could make a perm that is similar to a kritik perm, where you say "do the plan and the CP in all other instances" if the CP is good enough to change the entirety of islamophobia then it can also overcome the one instance of the plan? idk just an idea for the aff.
  11. So, I recently came up with a theory argument I would like to start running during my school debates. Consider the following scenario: Pro argues under the resolution 'reduce government surveillance' that the US should ban NSA data mining. Con comes up and says that surveillance must be observation by a human being, data mining determines information based solely on algorithms which then alert the NSA and therefore they aren't actually banning human observation. pro refutes by giving a counter definition, that surveillance is the acquisition of nonpublic information. My argument, as con, is that this response isn't sufficient. They have given another definition however, is this not a false dichotomy? Just because we read two separate definitions doesn't mean they are in conflict, they could both be correct. So I would argue that they aren't following the resolution. Even if surveillance is the acquisition of non-public information, it is (when combined) the acquisition of non-public information through human (and only human) observation. There is nothing distinctly creating a conflict or contradiction between the two definitions...or in other words, the two are not mutually exclusive and therefore, until the affirmative shows you why our definition is wrong, the judge should assume they are two parts of the same definition and they arent meeting the second portion.
  12. You say its such a big moral problem but isn't that outweighed buy the structural violence that occurs on a daily basis, by the government and citizens alike, on a daily basis? If the plan truly were preparing for the extermination of muslims it would be beyond immoral, but the way I see it, its little more than a messed up psychological experiment which gives way to Real changes in status quo racism.....Assuming solvency, you wont agree will happen, I have to believe it outweighs. I'm pretty sure you're much better than me, which is why I want advice on how to make it workable, not just to reject it as stupid during the first draft. So, I was curious, was it the Steklanberg and Klandermans in 10 that you thought had some substance to it? if so doesn't that mean I prove plan causes movements/protests? On another note, is all I have to do find a card which says "genocide causes outrage and protest"? Even though it seems intuitive, would that solve the link chain problem? what did you think about the krips evidence?
  13. moral issues? Do these moral issues outweigh literally solving islamophobia? Of course there isn't specific lit on this but the cards present should allow for only a small logical link. I'm just not sure what is specifically wrong with the cp?
  14. lol, do you mean that guy who said 'help me understand these two lines' and someone said its a virus or something?
  15. So I cooked up a really crazy counter-plan in my meth lab yesterday, I'm hoping a few of you can give me some feedback. The main idea here is a response to islamophobia. Basically, opposition to islamophobia, such a removing anti-islamic institutions doesn't do anything to actually fix islamophobia, sometimes people just need a smack in the face. Imagine if the government came out and said, "hey, you know what, Muslims are bad, let kill them all" people would be outraged. I posit that social movements would occur and read evidence that this literally changes people's racist minds. Who is going to back the sudden extermination of Muslims? No one. The idea is far fetched for reality, but c'mon this is policy debate so I figured I would make it. The only problems I see are with potential offense on it, that might say, "hey man, this might actually just get out of hand, and Muslims might really get exterminated." or "other Muslims nations would nuke the united states/ terror attacks would occur". That's why I might tone is down and say "intern Muslim Americans" instead, however that sooo much less dramatic Muslim Genocide CP.docx
  16. I've been trying to work out how to respond to the islamophobia affirmative, but can't find any good ground. It seems like the only ground is 'islamophobia good' or 'this isn't really islamophobia', which makes for a pretty bad argument. One particular Kaff I've run into has a securitization advantage and a racism advantage, the former I simply have no idea how to respond to. Does anyone have any advice here? (here is one islamophobia Kaff I've run into for reference) 1AC.docx
  • Create New...