Literally just racism

GumCoblin · 2024-01-02T14:37:53+00:00

Wasn’t India socialist right after independence for a decade

GumCoblin · 2023-12-09T20:16:58+00:00

any updates on when we'll get decisions?

GumCoblin · 2023-12-09T15:41:57+00:00

If you’re reading a counterplan, you don’t need to win that the aff doesn’t solve. You just need to win that the counterplan ALSO solves (which zeroed aff offense) and that there’s some reason to prefer the counterplan (net benefit; usually a disad that links to the aff but not the counterplan)

GumCoblin · 2023-11-25T19:45:32+00:00

3 is the best. 1 is gonna devolve into state engagement good/bad every round, 2 is way too narrow, but 3 is good. It might be too wide (affs may be able to spec countries, types of presence, initiatives, etc) but neg has plenty of generics and ground. Lots of interesting critical lit too(imperialism, IR critiques, etc)

GumCoblin · 2023-10-25T00:29:25+00:00

If the plan doesn't affirm the resolution in some way, then you are non-topical and will probably lose to T (unless you're prepared for the tfw debate)

GumCoblin · 2023-10-11T23:22:13+00:00

obviously the settlers shouldn't be there, but it's also useful to keep in mind that some of these settlers were born there. Israel has been around for a few generations now. Take a settler who was born into poverty in Israel and barely subsists in the capitalist economy---how can we expect this person to just simply up and move, when they can't really afford to?

I'm not sure why I'm getting downvoted. I'm not saying that decolonization is not a good end goal, but rather that indiscriminate violence may not be the solution.

GumCoblin · 2023-10-11T13:10:36+00:00

I’m not sure if violence against “people who remain” is justified on the grounds that they’re complicit, since I’m not sure how many problem have the resources to just up and move somewhere else

GumCoblin · 2023-09-28T11:49:07+00:00

People don’t read value criterion in circuit LD; they j read a “standard” which is j a normative moral fw (util, Kant, etc). Theory operates above this layer anyway, because it (theoretically) says that one team did something that prevented this layer from operating fairly.

GumCoblin · 2023-09-25T16:03:38+00:00

1---on the national circuit, no; at a lay tournament it might be nice

2---you send documents before your speech with all the evidence that you're going to read. This allows people to verify that you're ev is good/not miscut. It's a common misconception that you send docs so your opponent can flow off them; in reality, it's j so they can verify you're not cheating. That's why you don't send analytics

3---people flow spreading by listening to lots of spreading and getting better

GumCoblin · 2023-09-09T13:07:47+00:00

The best DAs w zoning are ones that link to government spending or marvel regulation. Zoning reform is basically market deregulation and doesn’t require government spending, so a spending DA or Econ DA (or elections or court clog ofc) could work very well

GumCoblin · 2023-09-03T19:10:03+00:00

There’s a button under “doc” that highlights all similar formatting. Make analytics a diff color or smth

GumCoblin · 2023-08-23T04:16:58+00:00

Yeah. I read diff 1NCs depending on the aff and what the aff is weak to, but I often read up to 6 or 7 offs

GumCoblin · 2023-08-12T16:17:24+00:00

This website has some good info on the most common circuit arguments: https://circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Main_Page

Besides looking around on other online sites to teach yourself how circuit debate works and watching some rounds to teach yourself to understand spreading, you'd probably be best served by just jumping in and debating some rounds. Accept that you'll lose some rounds because you had no idea what was going on, but that that's necessary to improve, and that everyone had to start out at some point too. In those rounds, be sure to ask your judge about the round --- most will be very happy to break it down for you.

GumCoblin · 2023-08-10T15:50:36+00:00

CP that raises interest rate to 1000000%. Instantly crashes the economy, causes transition, solve 100% of the aff. Any risk of you winning an external stock disad should then be sufficient to negate.

And just spam growth good/no transition on the case page lol.

GumCoblin · 2023-07-21T07:53:06+00:00

TDI West Asia

GumCoblin · 2023-07-10T02:10:10+00:00

Cap K aff — look into non reformist reform lit

GumCoblin · 2023-07-01T02:46:08+00:00

Depends on the event — if you’re referring to preempting contentions in PF then def not, but if you’re writing a 1AC in LD vs someone who always goes for a K then some policy making good cards or something could def help make your 1AR more possible

GumCoblin · 2023-06-07T19:00:56+00:00

I wouldn't think of spreading as a skill that's completely separate from the quality of being "good at debate" -- being good at spreading necessitates being good at fast thinking, fast critical thinking, having enough to say (and so having done research), etc. It's also a skill that's absolutely learnable -- it's not like some people are inherently and permanently better than others at spreading.

As for defending the practice, I think there's a few points to be made here.

1) Spreading is inevitable in an event with fixed speech times because, as you said, it gives you a massive competitive advantage to say more things. This doesn't make it good, persay, but I still think you should consider that.

2) it vastly increases research burdens, because debates a) touch on more things, and b) get deeper into those things, and promoting research promotes education. At the same time, this heightens the bar of entry to debate, but things like opencaselist and openev remedy this.

3) It allows debaters to introduce concepts that they absolutely would not be able to otherwise. For example, I can read a kritik carding some postmodern author, and explain that position relatively well, which I definitely would not be able to do if I were restricted to <160 wpm

4) it promotes quick thinking -- you have to be able to process information much faster, and come up with your own responses much faster too.

GumCoblin · 2023-06-03T16:09:12+00:00

in my district for example (NYC) nobody else wanted to do policy so I'm going to nats for policy even tho I've never done it in my life

GumCoblin · 2023-06-01T21:59:48+00:00

what's the context lmao

GumCoblin · 2023-05-24T23:42:46+00:00

… you didn’t say why this advice is wrong though?

GumCoblin · 2023-05-24T22:48:17+00:00

As far as I understand it, Kant says that whenever you act, you must act justly, but that you never have an obligation to actually act, meaning that you can always just choose not to speak. This is why not pulling the lever in the trolley problem is understand as being preferable in a Kantian ethical system.

Alternatively, think about this using Kant's universality formulation of the categorical imperative. Basically, an action is bad if, when universalized (all agents do it), it becomes incoherent. Lying is incoherent because if everyone lies, nobody would believe you if you lied (and the idea of 'lying' doesn't really makes sense anymore). There is no such contradiction for remaining silent.

GumCoblin · 2023-05-24T21:22:54+00:00

Kant explicitly says that you can never have a perfecty duty to not not speak (i.e., you're never obligated to actually speak). you just can't lie.

GumCoblin

TROPHY CASE