Many aff’s making security claims on the last two topics have responded to K’s with an argument along the lines of: we can’t ignore the worst case scenarios, to do so would cause disaster. Cards I would lump into this broad category are like that Macy SFP is backwards card, Fitzsimmons, most of the fear good cards like Sandman, a bunch of Krauthammer cards about terror/attacks on the US etc.
Most negatives respond to this by reading the monkeys throwing darts card, and maybe a Bleiker card about how prediction hurts agency with no impact. I don’t really think these cards are adequate.
Read more…
In a new series I will be asking the question “is X or Y legit?”
I will refrain from inserting my opinion in the original post, and depending on how the discussion goes may interject later on.
Read more…
It seems no matter what kritik is run in this day and age, the affirmative responds with some kind of gripe about “inevitability”. Realism inevitable is probably the most well known, but it has recently been joined by capitalism, calculation, patriarchy and many other children in the “it’s inevitable” family. And for good reason- the inevitability question is often not responded to well by the negative, and provides the affirmative with both a strong uniqueness claim and an indict of the alternative.
Claims of inevitability, however, are not as powerful as they appear. In fact they are often the strongest/easiest to articulate link to whatever K you may be reading.
Read more…
The deadline for submission for the Last Word is a little more than a week away- June 1st. Updates below
Read more…
One thing that has annoyed me a lot recently is the proliferation of a million rapid fire permutations in the 2AC. These things work because oftentimes the other team won’t here them all, or the judge will allow the affirmative to clarify later in the 1AR/2AR what the 3 words said in the 2AC meant and how that avoids the net benefit. So I’ve put together some thoughts on how judges should evaluate permutations and how debaters should respond to them.
Read more…
Just some biz I found randomly today that are interesting for next years topic
Read more…
A new debate magazine called The Bulletin has just published its first issue you can find here
While doing some electronic housekeeping I came across a wonderful article from the December 1999 issue of the National Forensic League’s Rostrum magazine. A written version of the speech delivered by Jim Fleissner at the Barkley Forum Coaches Luncheon in 1995, it is a poignant and compelling affirmation of the value of high school policy debate and a testament to the importance of those who teach and coach it. With another season winding down, it is a good time to reflect on the amazing power of our activity to transform lives. The full text of Fleissner’s speech is below the fold.
Read more…
Central to almost every high school policy debate round is the concept of causality: one event is said to cause a second event, either good or bad. Debates are laden with the language of causality: “X is key to Y” is the most popular phrasing of taglines, as in “deficit spending is key to the economy” or “military readiness is key to hegemony”. But what does it mean for one thing to cause another? Philosophers have been discussing this very question for millenia and there is no easy answer, but the concept of necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to make sense out of claims of causality.
What is the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition? And how can debaters use these concepts to improve their debating?
Read more…
Recent Comments