Jump to content

-JD

Member
  • Content Count

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

95 Excellent

About -JD

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 12/06/1988

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Keitz Power
  1. The biggest draw cross-x had for me was the community focus. I (along with Steven) competed in central Texas, and every weekend there would be a thread posted for each local tournament. Trash would be talked, drama would be exposed, and competitors would discuss new arguments at the tournament. Some time around 2008, those weekly threads stopped. I'm not sure what changed, but that was long before the sale or anything else. The community had already moved on and Kerpin was pretty smart to sell the site when he did. Current threads for UIL State are smaller than many threads for local Austin and San Antonio tournaments from 10 years ago.
  2. I've rocked the K aff quite a bit. Honestly, it is a bit unfair. The best answers to a K when you are aff is to use your affirmative and argue that your 1AC is a pragmatic solution to the alternative and go for perms/link turns. I always joked that a K aff is like a K where you don't have to worry about winning a link because your link is the status quo. This means the negative functionally gets the options of impact turns or framework. Of course, most K affs are designed from the 1AC to answer framework. From a strategic point of view, there are fewer avenues to answer the argument than any other, so it is harder. Until the negative develops the same generic versions that they have for answering policy affs (DAs/CPs) for answering K affs (methodology DAs NOT based on framework, alternative advocacies that are NOT framework), the negative will struggle against this type of aff.
  3. While I am sympathetic to your struggles in West Texas, it is hard to give much support (which I why I think that no one outside of yourselves has responded to this post) without any specifics as to what exactly happened. The offending poster on your facebook link seems to have deleted their posts, so it is hard to tell what is going on. Rural Texas definitely has its quirks, I was once barred from judging and had my kids threatened with disqualification because I had the audacity to give RFDs (this information was not listed in the tournament invitation). The difference with West Texas seems to be that they are a bit more organized as a community than other small areas. The source of most of these practices (non-disclosure, intentionally lay judges, community restrictions on disclosure/preperation/professional coaching) seems to come from a defensive position. Many members of the rural debate community feel as though they are under attack and that they have to defend their way of debate. Almost every UIL/Rural/Lay/West Texas/Whatever term coach that I've ever met has a genuine interest in promoting the growth of their students and making the activity better. Many of them are eager to learn how to be competitive against the more successful schools in the state. However, these conterproductive fears come up when they think they are being excluded or cornered. The tragedy of debate is that it teaches us to be excellent advocators of an ultimate and definitive truth. This sort of approach seldom works with real opinions where there are no ballots to be won. So my advice is to adopt a tone that is non-combative. Work from a position of how to include and improve the West Texas community, rather than from a position of stating its inadequacies.
  4. The best way to understand spreading is to be able to do it yourself. Do speed drills, work on getting faster. You'll be amazed at what 20 minutes a night for a month or so will do for you. Watching videos helps, but the audio quality usually isn't good enough to pick up everything. It is sort of like how it is easier to understand someone speaking a foreign language once you can speak some of it yourself. Involving yourself in things is the best way to learn about things and spreading is no different.
  5. I feel like Nathan just wanted this post to get his views on capitalism off of his chest, rather than actually engage anyone who replied in a conversation/debate. It is sort of like a "Best of Objectivism," complete with ellipses.
  6. In short, the technological interpretation of being renders other modes of being invisible. So for example, if it is a part of life that cannot be charted, it is invisible to someone living under the will to will. As for Nietzsche, the will to power is simply another expression of the will to will due to its focus on progress and self improvement.
  7. Your answers are here, young scholar. http://ctheory.net/will/index.html
  8. If you have a flat field and then you build a factory on it, you have developed that field. The factory does not use the field in any way other than by sitting on top of it. Similarly, you can develop space by putting a piece of equipment (a satellite) in it. Also, using "space" is a bad standard because no one ever "uses" space. If you want to roll with that as your brightline, then SPS isn't topical because "solar energy" is not part of space, it is an emission from the sun. I'm interested in knowing exactly which affs you think are topical and why, given the standard is that you have to "make use of space itself."
  9. I'm saying that it is development because the plan of an EOS aff would put an incredibly high tech piece of equipment into space that can make space around the Earth more useful (since that area provides the ability to take images) This clearly is not FX T. The plantext does nothing but develop space around Earth. (I'm not sure if you fully understand what it means to be effectually topical) Yes, the plan provides advantages. There is no difference between the plantexts of "The USFG should launch SPS" and "The USFG should launch an Earth Observing Satellite." Both develop space in exactly the same way, they make a unique characteristics of space useful. Here are some examples of how your interpretation excludes other popular affs- SPS would be XT because even though it's "target" (whatever you may have meant by that) is solar energy (although solar energy is not in any SPS plantexts). However, the portion of the aff that beams the energy down to Earth would be extratopical. Asteroid Mining would be XT because the rare earth metals come back to the Earth for development. Solar Flare detection would be XT because it focuses on saving Earth's electric development. Just to make sure we're on the same page- Extra topicality is going beyond the scope of the resolution. Example - The USFG should go to the moon and annex Canada. (Any advantages off of the annex Canada part would be outside the scope of the resolution and would be unpredictable to debate.) Effectual topicality is taking a non-topical action that eventually would lead to a topical action. Example - The USFG should film a new season of "Lost in Space." The 1AC may say that filming the show would lead to excitement in space that would then lead to future development/exploration of space. While the plan may at one point lead to a topical action, it is not a topical action itself.
  10. By that same logic, the portion of affs that claim advantages that increase hege/economy are extra topical because they don't relate to space. All a plantext for an EOS aff would say is "the USFG should fund/launch X satellite." No portion of that text is extra topical. Again, the wording of explore "and/or", meaning the topic does NOT mandate exploration taking place if you choose to develop. As a result, it is impossible to be extra-topical for "exploration" when that isn't what an aff claims to do. Remember, topicality is based off of the plantext. If the plan leads to extra-topical or effectually topical things, that does not make the plantext non-topical. The plantext itself must be extra-topical or effectually topical. So, for example, an aff that sends people to the moon that gets an advantage off of getting people excited about space that will lead to more future development is not FX T. However, a plan that films a movie about space to get people excited about going to space would be FX T. Similarly, a plantext that sends up a satellite that is capable of observing earth is not extra topical. However, a plantext that sends up a satellite AND establishes earthbound observation mechanisms (weather balloons, buoys, airplanes, ect) WOULD be extra topical. To be absolutely clear- topicality is about the plantext. The advantages of a plan can relate to areas that aren't expressly within the topic as long as they stem from a topical action. If my plantext is "The USFG should send up X earth orbiting satellite" it is absolutely topical under development.
  11. Your distinction of "looking at earth and not space is not development of space" is ridiculous. You have to realize that this is a totally arbitrary distinction. I'd like to see any interpretation that you've found that defines "development of space" as "not looking at Earth." EOS affs do target space, they must be in space to give unique observations of the Earth. Why would 'targeting' sunlight, debris, or other planets be topical under this interpretation? Observing Earth from space does not develop Earth. Observing the sun or space debris does not develop the sun or the debris. It develops the space in which the satellite is located. That space is "space beyond Earth's mesosphere." Although EOS satellites observe clouds, ocean activity, whatever, that doesn't mean they 'develop' the clouds or the ocean activity. Space is developed to enable those observations. To give an example, a satellite that detects solar flare activity from the sun does not 'develop' the sun. Space is developed so that we can make observations of the sun. To put it in your own words, these affirmatives target space in that it is the only available medium for enabling stationary or polar orbit that allows for continuous Earth observation, just as solar energy is the medium used for generating energy for SPS affirmatives. Both affs focus on the Earth just as much as the other. Both affs develop some unique characteristic of space that solves their advantages. As for satellites exploring Earth and not space, the topic says "and/or development"
  12. This makes no sense. Space is developed under EOS affs as a means to view Earth. The presence of space is made useful in that it can allow imaging of Earth. To call this extra-topical is also ridiculous. Nearly every affirmative on this topic has all or most of its advantages based on Earth. Any affirmative with a hegemony, economy, or relations advantage would also be extra topical under your interpretation. Also, to claim that "development of space" and "space development" are mutually exclusive terms of art is petty. The re-arranging of words does not mean that you have an awesome T interpretation, it means that the framers aren't space policy experts and you are playing at semantics.
  13. The word "development" is in the resolution.
  14. Again, that isn't perming an interpretation. That is a counter interpretation. For something to be permed, there have to be two interpretations to begin with. At best, it is a perm of "only our case T" and the negative interp. Permutations on interpretations are an entirely different matter. They serve as a strategic way of negating your opponent's offense when they don't read a responsive counter interpretation on T/Theory.
  15. This is not a permutation, this is a counter interpretation. IE, "counter interp - all of their interpretation plus our aff is T." This argument was vogue for about six months, but it is functionally the same as "only our case T," it artificially gains a marginal net benefit, but it is entirely unpredictable. This is only an argument you win when the other team isn't paying attention and concedes it.
×
×
  • Create New...