Jump to content

MattYee

Member
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by MattYee


  1. 23 hours ago, XrossEcramination said:

    You could've gone for DnG instead of conceding?

     

    Generally, most policy affs will link to generic CPs and DAs like Horsetrading or Canada, and you can always read those if you don't have case specifics. If they're reading a soft left aff, which it sounds like they are, you can also pair these with some framing stuff on case that's like Util good. There are also lots of Ks that link to most policy affs, so you can read something like Settler Colonialism or the Cap K and probably get a link. If none of these things link, then the aff probably isn't topical, and you can read (and hopefully go for) some flavor of T.

     

    It sounds like the aff that they're reading is probably public charge, which you can read T-LPR, T-Substantial, Parole, Canada, Horsetrading, Base, or any other number of things against.

    The aff called for the removal of either all or a part of USC Sec. 1182 (inadmissibility) specifically barring those who are a danger to themselves and/or others.


  2. At a recent invitational, I hit a team that I respect very much and ended up conceding the round. It was my first ever concession. Im not proud of it. Im never doing it again. However, I must give credit where credit is due: their aff is hella good. Theyre running an ableism policy aff with kritical advantages. How do I compete with this? I didnt have any case and the only off that linked was DnG so thats what i ran.


  3. I totally feel you. I was in your boat at one point too. As far as spreading goes, start by focusing on quality instead of quantity, and practice reading aloud for 30 min a day. Do the pen drill, work on speed and you will get better. In regards to jargon and flowing, I reccomend the Go Fight Win youtube series. It is a comprehensive guide to policy debate and will cover all of the fundamentals of CX debate. Additionally, if you are using open evidence, stop now. Start cutting your own cases. This will give you better cases and will help you to better understand the concepts you are debating. Practice debates are also great. If you have any questions email me at mpy2019@gmail.com. id be happy to help you with debate and if your partner is down, my partner and I would be happy to do practice debates with yall on discord.

    • Like 2

  4. 1 hour ago, HyperRhizome said:

    What was the context of the drop the team arg? It was probably a kritik of your impact framing, but I don't see how that would be a drop the team arg. 

    We ran a VA reform CP against the U Visas aff and they said that prioritizing veterans is "problematic" and that we should be dropped because of it. The pretense behind the cp was that the aff is like a crack whore who wants to adopt six kids. Need to help our own etc. Etc.

    • Upvote 1

  5. This past weekend, the opposing team ran a "drop the team" argument and refered to it as the "K to the DA" and the "K to the CP", could someone help me out with this? They didnt read a proper K, and nobody runs this kind of arg on the side of the state i normally compete on.

    • Upvote 1

  6. 1 hour ago, AlistairTheKDebater said:

    ok, so you should try to figure what you like the most

    also consider doing more than 1off

    i normally do up to 6, depending on how long the cards are, and how good my opponents are

    3 or 4 is a much better starting point

    do like a cp, da, and something else if you prefer policy

    if you prefer Ks you can get away with just that if you find a good generic one, but i would also throw in like T or something

    I normally go 4-5 off and case but i don't think I'm using the block effectively.


  7. So I'm on my third year doing policy and I'm looking to improve my game. I win consistently on aff but really suck at neg. I often struggle to win even one negative round at local tournaments. What can I do to improve my game? I've stopped running things from open-ev, I've begun cutting my own cases and learning about how to break up speeches. Thanks in advance.


  8. Thank you so much for the responses. I've been prepping this case for the progressive judges in the area. I have a good deal of research under my belt. I just can't seem to imagine how to address T arguments, especially USFG and reduce. It seems as though the plan advocates open borders. But it doesn't have a plan and it only advocates epistemological/ontological change. Plz help.


  9. 30 minutes ago, seanarchy said:

    In 99% of planless K affs, the usfg doesn't do anything. You have to have some reason that the model of debate reading a planless aff (or whatever you're doing more specifically) is more valuable than traditional debate, usually for some reason connected to the 1ac. Example: an afropessimism aff that advocates guerilla warfare and burning it all down. They might say plans invest hope and time in planning an always antiblack world, or that topical debate isn't fair for black people bc of biases about what a model debater looks like (rich, white, eloquent, moderate, etc.). It really depends on the aff. For any of the Deleuze affs I read, I might have said predictability is a part of reactionary metaphysics, or that topicality ignores the slippages in language. What is the aff you want to defend? Is there a file, advocacy, or summary?

    Quantum Life. My understanding of the case is that borders hinder our ability to understand the cosmos. But idk. The case is written largely in incomprehensibly verbose postmodern BS.


  10. So, I compete in a primarily stock/comms area and am interested in running a K-Aff. I found one that I like but it doesn't have a plan. I'm sure this is a novice question but how would I go about running a case without a plan? Also, how do I defend T? How does the USFG substantially reduce anything?


  11. Worth pointing out for all the aff ideas that say "allow more immigrants if they do x" isn't t. Even if you eliminate other restrictions, you're still adding new ones contrary to the direction of the topic. This dovetails with what chaos is saying about increasing immigrants not being T and what I think he was getting at.

    The number of immigrants allowed is a barrier and of itself.


  12. This is a meh argument on it's own that can be accomplished through an analytic to supplant a discourse/representations/experiential focus first k, like "their aff doesnt actually occur, 2 impacts, first is presumption, the aff can't resolve their impacts; second, we have criticized the way they depict 'x' in this debate, you should evaluate impacts to their presentation before scenario-based impacts of the aff." A discourse first card or two is helpful.

     

    Schlag just says academic legal discourse is vacuous, creates a savior complex, and contributes to "the field of pain and death." It's notable that this is in no way contextual to the aff and ends up being a presumption type argument that most judges would accept the response of "obvi the aff doesn't actually happen the education of what we discuss is important because scenario planning (or whatever)."

     

    Basically you don't need nearly 30 year old cards to make an obvious statement.

    Thanks so much! I think i'll cut a short K just to have evidence for it. The premise is a whole lot clearer now. thanks!

×
×
  • Create New...