Jump to content

XrossEcramination

Member
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by XrossEcramination

  1. The net benefit to a pic is usually internal instead of an external DA, so most pics don't link to their net benefits.
  2. It's definitely not an auto-loss unless you've got an awful stock-issues only judge, but it probably won't help you that much in most situations unless your aff is super outside of the topic, and there's a risk they can read T in the block.
  3. go away. it's too late. k's are here to stay.
  4. 5A Highland Park
  5. 1-don't bend to the demands of white supremacists-their presentation of this logic in debate only naturalizes the attitude that these people's demands should be accepted and followed 2-thumpers-there've already been immigration bills that should've triggered the impact 3-no internal link-nuclear codes aren't under the control of white people in Congress 4-no internal link-they won't try to get nukes just because of refugees-they won't be THAT mad 5-no impact-they don't have anyone they want to nuke. They like America a lot so they obviously won't nuke it, and if they have another country you can maybe turn it. 6-Idk maybe read that twitter diversion card that people read against Trump lashout
  6. facts bad-no real warrants and doesn't contextualize to debate because it's mainly about "fun facts" like the example it gives of 5 presidents eating fish for breakfast-those aren't the type of facts that people talk about in debate white privilege-no real link to the aff and it's not a reason the aff should lose even if your conversation is important so it probably loses against the perm. This is just an overcomplicated structural unfairness argument that doesn't really add anything valuable. bullying k-no link to the aff except that they want to win, which you also do, so it's a nonstarter. What your link cards describe is not really what happens in most debates. This mainly seems like trying to portray yourself as a victim to get judge sympathy when there's no real violation. There's also not really an internal link to your impacts even if you win a link, because the round probably doesn't spill over and this is more of a procedural argument. Your tokenization of actual violence is pretty egregious in this argument, when you have all caps tags saying "BULLYING LEADS TO THE VICTIMS HAVING LOW SELF-ESTEERM, DEPRESSION, MALADJUSTMENT, SUICIDAL IDEATION, OR RETALIATION. THINK COLUMBINE!" because there is obviously no internal link to school shootings from them saying they deserve to win, and your claim that there is probably quite messed up. I would have a very low threshold on voting against you and giving you horrible speaks for a short aff theory argument against this. Just don't throw around suicide. Your alt and ballot arguments about bystanders are basically just poorly reasoned guilt-tripping. Also, literally 0 of your evidence talks about debate. Rosa Parks-another quite bad argument. Pretty damning when the first card says "vote him down so we can legitimately solve them by spurning action." There's a lot of amazing women in debate and you probably shouldn't ignore them by assuming everyone you debate is a dude. It's also pretty violent to use the language of martyrdom here, since the first line of the shell is instructing the judge to kill your opponents. The Wedgwood card doesn't say anything relevant to debate it's jut an example. Low risk version-again, don't assume you're debating a dude. This is also the exact same argument with more words. They're both "high risk" because you will lose the theory debate. Saying the judge should martyr them to "provide a point of community and mutual indignation" and calling the judge an "overlord" is particularly dissuasive because you're telling the judge to act as an oppressor and become hated to spur action, and nobody wants to assume that role. You also have exactly 0 solvency, since all your evidence is in the context of actual martyrdom, not losing a debate round, and losing a debate round is a much smaller thing that probably won't really have any effect unless you're in a late elim which, based on the quality of these arguments, I'm guessing you won't be. The bataille card is probably the high point of this file, but it's a totally different argument. Also, calling it "Rosa Parks" then having no discussion of that is quite tokenizing. In general, this argument has no warrants, no clear articulation of the ballot, no evidence in the context of what you're talking about, no evidence specific to debate, no real link, an unrealistic role of the judge, and some blatant sexism issues. Don't read these arguments. They are bad, and you should (and will) lose.
  7. I think what you're talking about is an out of round dialogue CP, which basically just says that the ideas of the K should be discussed, just not in the context of a competitive debate round, because it's impossible to fully explore an idea with the time and side constraints of debate, and because the competitive nature of debate makes it hard to engage in good dialogue or education. I would advise against reading this argument, because it's not particularly good and there are some pretty good and easy to come up with answers that will usually beat it. These are some good answers 1-In round discussion is key to truth testing the aff because out of round dialogue provides no incentive to point out flaws because there's no competitive aspect-means out of round dialogue can't build effective projects 2-There's no model of what debate would look like in the world of the CP because it links to everything, not just k affs-their model would be that everyone leaves debate to talk about stuff outside of it 3-Perm do both solves-if it's good to talk about the aff at all, then talking about it within the round in addition to out of round is net better
  8. 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.
  9. http://timecube.2enp.com
  10. p o l i c y d b 8 . c o m but take out the spaces since this site blocks posts that drop the link
  11. You can obviously read new evidence in the 1NR. Don't like read a whole new offcase, but you can certainly expand your arguments with new evidence. You can probably read new case answers in the 1NR too, but it's better to do it in the 2NC because it gives the 1AR the 2NC CX to prep answers and clarify if there are misunderstandings. You don't need to read evidence to make a violation claim, the only reason you might need to read evidence is so the judge knows "it's in the rules that you reject the team." You shouldn't make theory arguments about evidence violations one of your main strategies, as this is a type of weak debating that seeks to avoid clash when you know you're losing, but if the violation is egregious then it's probably appropriate to bring it up.
  12. Process CPs and plan plus CPs are distinct. Process CPs can win since they have a net benefit through their process, but plan plus cps don't have a net benefit since it doesn't uniquely link to the aff. Also, process CPs probably shouldn't as much as they do, since they're definitely on super sketchy ground.
  13. You probably shouldn't characterize the aff as a "crack whore" because that's a pretty problematic analogy. It might not always be a reason to reject the team, but it's definitely a reason to reject the argument, and if you characterized the aff in this same way throughout the debate there's maybe a convincing voter that's just like "punish them so they'll stop using this language, not voting them down for it means they have no reason to change." Also, please don't use analogies like this in debate, because it can be hurtful to people in the community.
  14. The neg can make perms, they're called plan plus counterplans and they don't win. If the neg can say "do all of the aff but also this other thing" they will always win because there's always another good thing you could do in addition to the aff, and doing all of the aff and another good thing is net better than doing the aff without that good thing, which is unfair and a bad model of debate. The neg CAN make arguments that do most of the aff (but not ALL of it) and they're called PICs. If the plan was "do x, y, and z" the neg could read a PIC that said "do x and y" then give reasons why doing z is bad. That means that the neg doesn't have to worry about beating x and y since they can access all the offense from x and y, so all they have to do is win that z is bad. Since the aff has to defend that the whole plan is good (or else they sever which is bad) it means that if they can't win that z is good then they should lose. Also side note, old articles about perm theory are probably not very useful since debate and the community evolves very quickly and they become outdated after a few years.
  15. please don't read this. It's just a way to get out of framework but its probably not that topical and it makes it much easier for you to lose to Ks while policy people get more to run against you besides from framework.
  16. It matters a lot what type of antiblackness you are trying to answer, and you should answer different flavors in different ways. Warren and Wilderson (and the other antiblackness authors like Moten) have very different theories and if you try to answer them the same way then any decent antiblackness team will catch it.
  17. I don't think content warning Ks are usually particularly strong, just because they probably link to pretty much everything in debate, and it's impossible to anticipate everything that could cause a problem for someone else. I also think that a 2AC apology is probably pretty effective.
  18. 1-Framework-ROJ is to weigh plan, quo, and competitive alt-key to fairness and education 2-Perm a-do both b-aff and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt c-k specific perm if there is one d-perm double bind 3-theory a-conditional ethics bad b-vague alts bad 4-Aff-specific DAs a-alt doesn't solve the aff which causes x bad thing 5-no links (ask the links in cx so you can be sure of how to answer them) a-negative state action if you're soft left 6-link turns 7-aff solves the k (you have a k advantage so it will work sometimes) 8-Reform works 9-Cede the political DA
×
×
  • Create New...