Jump to content

PrideOfLenin

Member
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

PrideOfLenin last won the day on October 27 2018

PrideOfLenin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Okay

About PrideOfLenin

  • Rank
    Junior-Varsity

Profile Information

  • School
    St. Marx

Recent Profile Visitors

925 profile views
  1. I don't think that addresses my central point, which is that rigorous FW debate is a prerequisite to maximizing policy education.
  2. If you can't win on framework, I'm not sure how valuable your policy debate experience will be. Framework is just articulating why your style of debate provides a beneficial form of education. If you don't know why you're doing debate and are just blindly asserting "policy good," you probably won't get any useful skills out of it.
  3. The examples you're giving are PICs. You wouldn't call that a perm because the aff doesn't have the burden of being competitive with the neg. It's the other way around. PICs are different because they test whether the whole of the aff is necessary rather than whether the neg is actually proving that the aff is bad. Say you read a counterplan to increase food aid to Africa and then make a "perm" to do that and part of the plan. What is the strategic importance of the counterplan to increase food aid to Africa? It would be better to just read "do part of the plan" as a PIC given that they can just perm do both away the advantage to the CP. Also, the aff can't say they don't enact their USFG part because that would sever out of the plan. Severance perms bad isn't actually an easy argument to beat, because it's true.
  4. Perms are really just tests of competition, which is why the affirmative can't go for them as advocacies. The burden of the negative, under a traditional policy framework, is to prove that the aff should not be done. That means that negative advocacies must be competitive to be weighed in a debate. Therefore, a negative perm serves the same functional purpose as an aff perm. It just proves that the negative advocacies aren't competitive, so these arguments would actually hurt you. Obviously you can think of a good policy option that could be done along with the plan, but that doesn't mean you should win. Of course, there are PICs and PIKs that allow you to access the affirmative, but that's a different issue.
  5. How does fiat bad theory make sense outside of a kritikal debate? Obviously the USFG isn't immediately going to do the plan just cause someone said they should in a high school debate round. The purpose of topic education is to become informed advocates for the future. The shutdown isn't going to last forever. A good affirmative won't spend too much time on this argument and the time skew will go in favor of the aff.
  6. Fiat is a question of should not would, so the argument doesn't really make sense the way you're running it. It also doesn't make sense because Congress can still pass bills during the shutdown. Apparently, immigrants can still file petitions for LPR etc. during the shutdown, so people can still get in. However, there's a lot of backlog in the immigration courts system because many of them are closed. You could probably spin a solvency deficit out of that against some aff. One other thing about the shutdown that's relevant is that the only political fights right now are about the shutdown and the wall, so any unrelated politics DA makes no sense.
  7. Alternately, you could run one of the more well-known soft-left affs and not try to prevent a debate from occurring.
  8. Actually, I don't think this perm severs out of the plan text. It seems like they're just not ruling out your method for looking at the world while still doing the plan text. First, you have to win plan focus bad. Debate is an educational game, so letting teams sever out of their research is bad because it's not educational. There are also cards for many K's that say analyzing cap/security/whatever is a prerequisite to understanding policy action, so the K should come before the fiat of the plan. Second, turn methodological pluralism. It basically just says that we shouldn't rule out different ways of looking at the world. Refusing to rule out capitalist/securitized methods of analyzing policy allows those policies to continue to dominate the political sphere. You can't combine liberal order key to solve nuclear war and anti-capitalist discourse, so the perm is basically to be indecisive. That's also a bad model of debate because it's the judge's job to decide which school of thought was better defended. The perm actually makes no sense in the context of debate because methodological pluralism is about conducting studies, not making policy decisions.
  9. I don't think anyone runs that aff because T-LPR beats it so easily.
  10. Depends on the plan, but T-LPR links to some asylum affs.
  11. Can you be more specific about the exact arguments you're trying to make?
  12. The act has never been passed before so I don't think that's a particularly good argument. Fiat probably answers it pretty well.
  13. I don't think that's a particularly strong disad on this topic. I doubt there are any fed disad cards out there.
  14. Try SDI's packet stuff. It's pretty good. I think there are also Base DA links somewhere.
  15. For this debate I felt like a warming turn of oil and good impact calc would have won it for aff. Warming is pretty easy to win since their authors are funded by Exxon, and its an extinction impact
×
×
  • Create New...