Jump to content

seanarchy

Member
  • Content Count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by seanarchy

  1. States CP? Disad outweighs? Is there really a music education aff to begin with?
  2. Yeah as long as they have literally ANY chance of their internal link chain then there is no possible weigh to win that debate that I can think of. Maybe some type of nietzsche argument that we shouldn't hold responsibility for the world around us, but you already are being petty enough to care about $100, so yah I don't see it.
  3. Define "small impacts" and "large impacts." Do you mean like nuclear war versus racism? Or like racism versus losing $100?
  4. The permutation *gasp* is fluid that's *inhale frantically* key to subject *wheeze* ivity.
  5. I feel like tuck and yang are not very strategic against people presenting their own experiences. Refusing research is about refusing people not in one's community from researching said community and scarred bodies is kind of the same as telling people "you commodify yourself" which is not a great argument.
  6. That sounds totally cool, I would just suggest framing the root cause arguments as serial policy failure, and making sure the impact framing contains some defense of the internal links (or reasons why they don't matter).
  7. Alternatively, they may lose to "yeah you're right except that part where you don't use the states."
  8. I mean, it's possible, but if the whole thing is complicit then how much worse can they make it? Especially when most of the affs this year are probably pro-government intervention, which is sort of the opposite of neoliberalism. That means that even if they don't win a link turn, the perm is probably still better because the aff advantages probably outweigh whatever amount they're "complicit" in capitalism. The aff should also be questioning the internal link between "acting through this system" and "making it worse." There's probably not much of a chance that 1 education policy makes the whole of capitalism so much worse or especially makes their impact that much worse. Like how do competitive grants cause environmental decline? Because competitive formats are capitalist that means logging companies will log more? It's not a very plausible scenario. You need either A ) aff concession of the internal link. B ) a linear and proximate impact that the aff directly intensifies. C ) an ethics impact. Or D ) a really good turns case/serial policy failure/alt solves the aff argument.
  9. K uniqueness/inherency is not really ever a thing, since the alt is meant to generate uniqueness for the K like a uniqueness counterplan. Were the card you are referring to to be used in the uniqueness context, it might flow aff, because while sure the alt isn't happening right now, the link seems to be. If the whole system is already complicit in capitalism, then the aff can't uniquely make the problem worse.
  10. At CNDI both of the finals rounds for the 7 week lab were the Miliken v Bradley aff - that said, it lost the first time and probably should have lost the second time. Decent desegregation aff though.
  11. You're probably not going to win that they shouldn't get to read poems. People should get to talk about their own experiences, and most judges will agree with that unless you're in a more conservative/traditional circuit. It's more strategic to just say that reading framework doesn't exclude that - the interp is that they should defend the usfg, not that they shouldn't read poems. Say that the performance can be used as a justification for a policy. The most likely aff answer is that attaching a policy would undermine the value of the performance, but then it's just a question of weighing your impacts versus what's really a semantic nitpick.
  12. Although I don't believe it has the Baudrillard card, the Wake Camp put out a file of almost every other sort of sentimentality K in existence. I think it's less of a holistic thing and more that there are loads of different modules so keep that in mind. http://www.rksatwfu.org/s/RKS-Lab-Victimology-K.docx
  13. seanarchy

    Backfiles

    Open evidence has files from up to I think 2011
  14. Apparently elementary education is everything between preschool and high school.
  15. seanarchy

    WPM

    idk if it's what you meant, but don't intentionally slow yourself down if you're doing K debate. Quicker is still better unless it's performance or the judge can't understand you.
  16. I know this is a thread about the overall strategy Rutgers employed, but I think it's worthwhile to note that the 2nr was basically the 1nc case page with disads to Georgetown's plan centric performance of the 1ac. There was very little mention of the land of petty, I think the only explicit reference was the white uncomfortability good arg. That might imply that by the end of the round Rutgers thought that the weren't going to win on their performance. I'm not exactly sure how I would analyze that but maybe it's worth noting.
  17. @frenchwa tbh I don't really think those were any of their arguments. I had the same initial gut reaction to the round, but I think the thesis of their argument is correct. It also is probably too soon to determine the solvency of their strat. But that everyone is talking about it is probably proof that it raises awareness of the issues in debate. To be fair, many performance teams have been asking for some time to not have their argument separated from their performance (see Emporia in 2013). Rutgers should honestly have higher standards for their own performance but that's besides the point. However, both issues should probably be considered, and I think we're seeing that consideration now. Maybe Rutgers' solvency isn't in the round. I don't really see why debate should have to be uniquely racist or white for that aspect to be criticized. As for how it is racist, you know you can just ask Rashid about this, right? He's probably better able to answer this that most people. Debate about debate is probably good. I don't understand why you think this is analogous to track. Part of why debate is cool is that the rules are negotiable. Also, Rutgers' argument is a *little* different from "we're discriminated against, give us the ballot and/or handicap." They're making a claim about how their performance can affect other rounds in the debate space, this was their uniting the crowns argument. Usually I don't think any one round can have that much influence, but it's different when Rutgers is only the second team to unite the crown. The thing about Georgetown is that chances are nobody is going to think policy debate isn't an allowable or credible form of debate but people will still run framework against K affs. Rutgers didn't make an claim about police brutality to my knowledge. Also, their argument about plan focus bad wasn't that the state is anti black, it was spectator mentality.
  18. If you weren't watching Gonzaga JS vs Michigan state WR, go have a look. Judd Kimball's rfd is a thing of beauty.
  19. @Nonegfiat From what I've heard the big schools kind of look down on CEDA, like there's less prestige associated with it. Also many of them are going to the NDT which is next weekend, so maybe they're prepping or something.
  20. seanarchy

    1AR Drills

    Summarize your 1ac cards off the top of your head as quickly as you can. Have your partner/coach evaluate how well you do. Do rebuttal redos and cut out unnecessary parts or sections where you rambled. If you're doing the redos with a coach fix or follow whatever they suggest.
  21. seanarchy

    Framing

    Do you mean a certain style of debate? Or debate in general?
  22. I hear the best answer is DnG, but if you aren't familiar with them don't try it. Best bet is probably cap (creates the issues they analyze probably) and some sort of method argument about how they have the worst possible way of analyzing even if they were right. Stuff like genealogy bad, microfascism bad, etc. I feel like K affs have a much easier time brushing off framework than substantive attacks on their method or claims.
  23. If it's just an impact turn to death, read choice theory that says even if death is good, people should get to choose if they die or not. The extinction scenario in the 1ac would take the choice away.
  24. You can also think of the k as a framework argument. Ie read the k, kick the alt if they kill it's solvency. Then you can say the round should still go to you because you have the best relationship to the k. Basically the debate should be about capitalism or whatever, and they have a bad relationship to whatever it is. Therefore they should lose even if we can't provide an alternative because they're so terrible.
×
×
  • Create New...