Jump to content

Bentacularmc

Member
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Okay

About Bentacularmc

  • Rank
    Novice

Profile Information

  • Name
    Ben
  • Location
    California
  1. Can you guys help me with a Justice Framework? For the Jan/Feb topic, I want to start working on my AC and NC. Justice is defined as giving people what they are due or whatever helps me win Thank you!
  2. Like you said Judge Kick is incentivizing Judge Intervention. If they read this I would advise reading a theory shell about judge intervention. Another option is running disclosure theory if it wasn't posted on the NDCA wiki. However, I would like to point out that Judge Kick Theory or any other theory should be blocked with a shell stating "No new arguments in the last speech". That should block Judge Kick of any other theory they run.
  3. Any type of Capitalism Kritik can help link into Economy decline good. If the Aff/Neg states you create Econ decline just state "Econ decline = less capitalism" then read impacts of the Capitalism K. I'm being completely honest here but Economy decline good basically links into any Free market/Capitalism/Trade Kritik. Hope this helps
  4. Bentacularmc

    Fiat

    I would first like to state that in debate there are no rules. Anything is possible. However, when it comes to being "extra-topical" for the Aff there are some lines that Neg's can easily draw. If you ever think you specify your plan/fiat too much just brainstorm generic arguments to your plan. Can generic K's, DA's and CP's still link to your plan? If so you're probably fine. However, if the Neg tries to run topicality just state generic positions that they could have brought up to show you're fair. I know that I haven't really answered any questions about your specific plan but as long as it (and any other plan) can abide by these guidelines you should be fine.
  5. If it's a Kritik their are some generic attacks. There are 3 parts of a K 1. Link - Why this K applies to the Aff/Neg 2. Impact - Why there are things wrong with the Aff/Neg 3. The alternative - What to do besides the Aff/Neg. Sort of like a Counter Plan. Attack the link. Just say "It's Vague" or "It doesn't apply" it takes only about 5 seconds for you to say but 30 seconds to respond. Weigh your impacts versus the K. Should be pretty simple. Just say Opp's XYZ impact is less important than my XYZ impact. Perm the kritik. Say that your plan is NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. That basically means that your plan and the alternative can both be accomplished The alternative is Vague. Say that the Alternative does not make sense. These are generic attacks that you can apply to any K. You don't even need to provide evidence behind some of these claims. Just throw these out and extend if they don't say anything.
  6. Aff basically has the burden to uphold the exact wording of the resolution. Anything else and its a neg side. However, the resolution can be interpreted very broadly. A value is the core of your case. Your value criterion is how we measure your value. E.G. your value could be utilitarianism and your value criterion is who maximizing well-being. You have to prove that your case is superior to the negative while upholding the resolution. Don't run K's or DA's on your AFF. in your AC just run a framework (Rawls, Util, Contract) and contentions under that. Only in your 1AR should you bring up DA's or K's. Even then I wouldn't recommend it.\ The Neg simply has to disprove the exact wording of the resolution. The neg is simply disproving. You don't have to run a CP in your neg case. Just simply run some kind of framework. IDK what you mean by unconditional You need to either prove that the sqo is fine or that you solve better than the AFF for any problems in the sqo Like I said DA's and K's aren't super common as opposed to policy. When using them to attack the Aff line by line isn't super important. Because there are a lot of opposing values you need to show why your DA or K precedes, absorbs or weighs better than the aff. DA's are the same. K's are the same but you need a moral framework to accompany it. Last speeches you need to weigh values, impacts. Give an overview and voters. E.G. if they have a libertarian FW you need to show why you win on FW (util) and then do impact calc. Win A priori's>Theory>Topicality>Framework>Contentions I'm in my 2nd year so this might be a little brief. Sincerely, LDBen
×
×
  • Create New...