Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Okay

About please

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • School
  1. Hey thanks so much everyone, this post is buried treasure! Of the above, what I don't really have are the roleplaying good/bad cards (antonion, schlag), anti-K education good, ballot fails, cruel optimism I also don't know what new affs bad theory looks like, or how it's run (do I run it to grant me certain kinds of leeway, or can it actually be usable, if it is viable should I do it), etc That being said, I am still worried about backfile check type arguments. Without an extensive knowledge of what's run, I can't have my only defense be that backfile checks are bad and so are small schools -- that's probably checked by new affs, which I have, right? Pirate on
  2. ahoy sailors and nonsailors alike, with the wa state tournament coming up, and basically everyone competing breaking a new aff, prep as of late has been intimidating. I know i'm going to walk into the round and have no case arguments and probably no idea what they're talking about; what do i do? in the 3nr post about breaking new affs, the author mentioned how topic word PICs were a common response, what do those look like? or on the inverse, when they lack the topic words, "euphemism PICs" (the 3nr article is the only place i've found on the internet that uses that terminology) likewise, I hear that "abusive" counterplans are more acceptable in face of a new aff, how would i prepare something like that? (or are those the same) will my politics disads stay alive with generic links? naturally I could always go for t or the k, but i don't feel terribly comfortable on any k and what if the aff just is t? need i learn an interp like doe so as to always have a violation, or will argumnets like ikonen/kumar suffice? finally, i hear against new affs (I'm not immune to the trend), people will run things like backfile checks. Coming from a very small school, (the program atm is myself and a novice), i'm not sure what kinds of arguments i ought be prepared for as a backfile check, or if its possible to be prepared at all. things even tangential to this topic'd be appreciated fair sailing!
  3. Hello all, hopefully this is in the right/an adequate place I was wondering what were some nontraditional responses to critical affirmatives? I find myself persuaded by many answers to framework, truly, but in as much as my career has gone thusfar I've really only spent time with more straight up negative strategies: politics. That, combined with a small and nervous circuit in the way of critical debate that has left me only encountering two k-affs in all of my debating, has left me at a sort of loss as to what to do against them. While I ended up running and going for FW, I had a really hard time arguing for it. However, I'm not terribly well versed in many critiques, and going for FW and cap is an easy round for a team that hits it all of the time. In preparing for an aff I know someone in our circuit is about to read, I came across disads to the K aff: epistemology and science disads. I thought the idea of running multiple disads and maybe even a PEC of uncertain political action would be interesting, so I appeal to those who know more than myself with a) is that viable at all what kinds of uncommon offcase like that exist c) where would I find them d) anything else that'd be relevant based off what I've said I've heard whisperings of a Heg DA? what is that Any help is appreciated, thanks
  4. please


    I don't think you need to necessarily create conflict between those who are inclusive because it's the right thing to do and those who are framed as doing it more cynically. I think that the mechanism of losing ballots because you're un-inclusive, or the discourse thereof can be important in bringing to people's attention things which are important. Very few people I would think truly are alright with themselves being seen as jerks but the nature of these modes of politics are such that it's possible not to know. I know I didn't think about any of these things before debate: privilege. Also, cynical inclusion may be better than nothing (but maybe it's not).
  5. Tangentially, what is the strategic dichotomy that could be gained from that? What gain could be achieved through successful execution, what are the pitfalls, how might someone do this well and if s/he was attempting to, what might s/he be careful of?
  6. So I know that a lot of K folks will read arguments about what the roll of the ballot is -- ontology/epistemology/etc first, and I know that in my 2ac blocks I'm supposed to have framework that says the roll of the ballot/judge (assuming I'm reading a tpd aff) is to evaluate the effects of the implementation of a hypothetical plan text. But, as far as I know, the "actual" rob is affirming the resolution based off whichever team is more convincing. That said, this is all really shaky in my head. What does it really mean to say that the ballot signifies anything? How does this intersect with arguments about standards -- like, how does an aff being more educational mean that the resolution is true/false? What does it mean to argue that it should be changed, esp. does that affirm the resolution? What about topical counterplans? Is the only point of the resolution to inspire affs and then everything will be determined by the impacts inround? I guess this probably comes from a lack of understanding of the impacts of standards/pre-fiat stuff on the critical side. This was probably a lot, any help would be appreciated, I've a lot to learn. e: I put this in Ks because generally its teams outside of tpd that will make arguments like this (although its just as much if not more about T/theory) -- didn't know quite where it went, hope it's not an issue
  • Create New...