Jump to content

ICoastalKingdom

Member
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by ICoastalKingdom

  1. You should have a TVA (Topical Version of the Aff) and a caselist in a good 2nr. TVA shows there's no offense on the standards debate because the aff could have been ran in another way while still addressing the same core case. An example would be if the aff was "reduce caps for Ugandan refugees", the 2NR might say "That's not T - Substantial, a topical version of the plan text would be to reduce caps for ALL refugees, and the aff can focus on Ugandan ones specifically if it wants". A caselist is just a list of the affs that could be run through your interp. It shows that you don't overlimit or kill core aff ground.
  2. If you're running a K aff you're likely going to go up against a neg running framework that says you're destroying the competitive/game qualities of debate by not using a plan text... if the "debate = game" interp works for your aff, go ahead, but usually you see it ran the other way
  3. David why u active once everyone threatens to sue 🤔
  4. ICoastalKingdom

    edit

    How far do u consider the surrounding area?
  5. Why would West Point and the Navy not be able to debate the topic?
  6. In my shell I have cards that say: Democrats want education, Democrats are voting in huge amounts because they are so anti-Trump anti-GOP right now, but giving the Dems what they want makes em chill and not care as much to vote... means the Republicans win
  7. PTX is pretty generic usually... Midterms is the best thing prolly right now
  8. ok just cuz A2 Topical Version of the Affs: 1. Your examples don't even fit ur own interp 2. The example u gave isn't truly our aff, running our aff the way we intend is impossible with ur framework 3. lmao fuk T/FW
  9. On that note: anyone got any DAs that aren't crap? Thanks in advance
  10. Couldn't accelerationism be a turn to the cap k?
  11. What were some of the Human Rights cases you've seen?
  12. Is there a particular framing card you used? I'm trying to find something similar to that.
  13. Cooperation with China with asymmetric encryption and confidence building measures. Sorry, completely forget to add that
  14. I heard from some debaters on my team that they went up against a cybersecurity aff where the USfg cooperated on quantum computers to prevent major quantum-computer attacks. Opinions?
  15. Thank your for helping me. A few questions though. Okay so you should do the alternative first and then do the plan second. And so for framework, how would I justify a vote for the neg? Epistemology first, and our epistemology is better? Also, I'm confused about the alternative. Isn't the alternative usually "question the way we frame IR"? How could a cybersecurity plan stop supporting security rhetoric and still take place? Would the alt also mean basically "Stop exaggerating threats and instead be reasonable"? Thanks again
  16. Thank you! So while running a kritik, I'm not saying there isn't a threat, I'm saying the way you treat the situation is bad because you also produce threats. But, at the same time, if the Aff solves threats, while encouraging security rhetoric that causes threats....? Does it cause more threats than it solves? Could I just say "Reject on epistemology. Our alternative is better way to respond to potential threats"? Like for example, on cybersecurity: Aff argues we must work with China on cyber because China might attack our infrastructure if we don't. Now, there could be a threat, and the Aff could solve that threat by working together. BUT! The aff also generates threats by treating China like a threat. So how could an Aff approach cybersecurity to deal with the chance of a threat, without also using rhetoric to cause threats? Hopefully I'm making sense, and thank you for your advice
  17. In the security kritik, it usually goes that the Aff exaggerates impacts which legitimizes securitization. What prevents the Affirmative from simply saying "We aren't exaggerated, we have credible evidence that ____ is a threat"?
×
×
  • Create New...