Jump to content

PrincessAisha

Member
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About PrincessAisha

  • Rank
    Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Aisha
  • School
    Eleanor Roosevelt High School

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You could find some nihilist cards and argue that life is meaningless and death is unimportant (as long as your 1ac impacts aren't death or suffering based). You can also add some anti-natalism to say reproduction is bad so the best method is total reconstruction via nuclear war. Basically, "watch the world burn" type of thing.
  2. I 100% agree that you should disclose and I'll outline some answers to expect: 1A. This works unless they argue that by debating it in front of at least 3 other people at least 3 times per competition, you're blowing your own secret 2A. (not my answer, I saw someone else say this) Big schools have so many teams at tournaments that they'll know what you're running by round 3. The question is more if you want to know what they're running. The only way to solve is to ban large teams. 2B. That's all good and well but they're planning on not disclosing at all. Different types of disclosing and disclosing not as well are not the same as having no trace of your arg anywhere. 2C. Why would letting other teams know what you're running make you want to quit? How many people have quit because of that? So then would they want to have no idea what other teams are running and walk in blind? I think being 100% clueless and knowing anyone could run absolutely anything on you would scare them away more. 2D. Having lazy debaters is inevitable with or without a disclosure. By this logic, teams shouldn't file share in round because their opponents may take their evidence. It's really hard to find all the cards you need from another team unless you're running the same argument. If a team ever does get that lazy and never cut new cards, their evidence will become obsolete as other teams find new ways to disprove that argument. Laziness will never bear fruit so they'll stop being lazy. 2E. It doesn't matter how specific a neg is. You should be ready for it. The aff has infinite prep, so use it. Make your aff solid. You shouldn't be lazy and hope the negs aren't specific enough. You chose the aff, so you should be ready to answer any arguments made against them. This arg supports the laziness that is criticized by point 2D. 3. I don't have any cards, mostly because I don't know what this aff would advocate for (maybe the deconstruction of debate?) but there are a lot of debate good cards about making social change and micropolitics. 4. I haven't read that so I can't answer Overall, I agree. Just disclose. You'll never win that not disclosing gives the negative ground or helps them so you'll be pushed to the defensive arguments of not disclosing doesn't hurt them too badly, which you'll likely lose in the face of a team that has a large lit base. Edit: Grammar and spelling
  3. You can, that normally is for when you cut cards for a group file at camp or practice. You wouldn't normally if you just cut a card because you need it last minute.
  4. Honestly, no. I'd save the overview for the block. I'm assuming you do case, like criticizing their author or debunking that school of thought, etc etc. I say put that at the top, it shouldn't be too long if you tend to go for framing. (If you use it, I'd put the grease trap here) For framing, start with the interpretation of a policy round, aff burdens vs neg burdens, etc. Why they don't meet and then the standards. This is where you'd put the limits debate and talk about neg ground. You'd treat this like an impact with a bunch of scenarios. Antagonism DA, switch side debate DA, education, fairness. Then the TVA. Then, if you want, cede the political (you wouldn't add this alongside the grease trap".
  5. I agree with pointing out that their claims are unwarranted. Offer counterpoints that have evidence and also offer that with no cards, the validity of their statements is impossible to determine which is unfair. You can turn it into some dumb theory and if they don't use cards they'll have a hard time answering it meaning you'll win reject the arg.
  6. You can kick whatever whenever, to be honest. Even though T isn't really an advocacy, you might run into a team that wants to theory you anyway. It's a weak argument but I've seen it happen.
  7. This is a complete and very in depth answer but 1 thing that I think was glossed over was extending cards and not necessarily just arguments. You can bring up a specific card with specific warrants to combat a neg arg. Maybe you or your partner read a card that says "arm sales are not key to xyz" and their internal link extension in the block is "arms sales are key to xyz," you can extend your card and do a little author analysis to answer that quickly. Again, the above did a great job of answering but I though that was something else to be added.
  8. I had this same issue last year. I say teaching them the basics and also showing them how to cut cards, an effective line by line and how to use analytics. Like a poster above also said, teaching them K foundations and about how to properly run/answer T can help them a lot. Almost forgot, overviews! A lot of really good debaters still write pretty mediocre overviews.
  9. Update: I started writing the aff, started it with a card about how the horrors of arm sales are overlooked and the main benefits of arm sales are extension of US power (hegemony), economic benefits (capitalism), and enhancement of military capabilities (imperialism/militarism). I extend in a few branches why each of them are caused by arm sales and why each of them are bad. I'm looking into solvency cards and a framework. I've never run a K aff before so I hope I'm doing it right.
  10. Yeah besides open ev https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6cxphnjuosfptdr/AABbdsXIp6HqXgCwwAYN7IVIa/Evidence?dl=0&preview=Topicality-SDI2019-StarterPack.docx&subfolder_nav_tracking=1 and if you contribute some of your own cards, there are evidence trading links on this website and public forum has a couple of cards from their saudi arabia arm sales topic.
  11. I found on this link scrolling through this site, so I thought I would pay it forward. This site has made cutting/researching my own cards 10000% easier. http://debate.cards/search?q=arm+sales+are+imperialist&s=&f=
  12. I think I saw one on amazon for 250 pounds.
  13. If you put together a slide show comparing debating without vs debating with camp. You can add in the travel team fact and overall research about how much more you could get out of debate if you were kept sharp by going to camp. (Once, my friends and I put together a slideshow about why my friend shouldn't move. We completed it with citations and evidence about academics and crime rates as well as housing cost comparisons. I say all that to say, it helped a lot so I think it's effective if well researched.)
  14. Ok, I think I’ve got it now. Thank you so much for your help.
  15. Everything you've given me is really helpful, thanks! Now, I'm looking into cards. Do you know any authors that talk about the imperialist/capitalist qualities of US arm sales? So far I've only found two.
×
×
  • Create New...