Things that are already officially lame on next years poverty topic-part 1

If you read these arguments/do these things, you are lame.

1. The poverty/social services word pic- I have decided that my threshold for voting aff on pics bad vs these cps is the following: if the aff goes to the CP in the 2AC and then makes a thumbs down motion like right mhere

That will pretty much do it. Against teams that read these arguments a lot I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next. Can everyone agree the “alternative energy pic” was

A. top 1 list of stupidest arguments of all time

B. A total waste of time for all parties involved

C. Perhaps the lamest indictment of hippies of all time

How many debates did this come up in? The answer is > the amount that would make me want to kill myself.

 

2. Readin the Gilligan card as an impact to just addressing poverty in the US. I will assign this advantage zero risk of the neg says “no link, you don’t address global poverty”- I will TOTALLY IGNORE tha thte aff does indeed improve the material conditions for a great number of people in the US. There are specific poverty impact cards that make the same argument but are about the US- and they are newer than 1996. If you are too lazy to find them ( and by find I don’t even mean research god forbid, I mean cut and paste out of a camp file) I will have no qualms- I WILL BE QUALMLESS. 

 

3.  The security K in the 2AC- any cards from before 2008 will result in you getting less than 28 speaker points so save campbell and dillon and lipschultz for somebody else- we get it you are very sneaky. You didn’t talk about war in the 1AC and now you have sprung your trap because the neg said the word terrorism- bravo. Welcome to the down whatever number of debates you had already lost plus this one bracket. The security K is a great argument in a lot of instances, this might even be one of them. But at this point in my life I have seen enough realism good/bad debates where none of the participants 

A. Knew what realism was

B. Did anything other than read the same 5 cards that get read in every debate ever despite newer and better evidence being readily available

C. Didn’t suck

 

Inevitably these debates end up as

If you would like to read this K in the 2AC in front of me, please first take and pass the following IR quiz:

Critiques of objective reality and threats in IR are

A. Cool

B. Awesome

C. Most likely not consistent with my 1AC despite me not saying war because I made several other positivist claims about how to advance the world through social services that would be objected to by most/all postructuralist scholars

 

The correct answer today is 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. The gift K- whats that? Giving things are bad? Then I guess I won’t give you the win- BOOOYAH

I get it-every aff gives something, so…

1. Prepare to say giving things is bad

2. ????

3. Profit

Only guess what- 2 is actually “this is stupid”.

16 thoughts on “Things that are already officially lame on next years poverty topic-part 1

  1. Ryan Ricard

    Oh, and one stylistic quibble. I’d like to see the author of the post at the top, rather than the bottom. I’d rather not have to read until the first spelling mistake to know that it’s ScottyP. Zing!

  2. Scu

    Hate to break it to you, but there is a new Dillon book, fresh for the 2009 dates. You better close that loophole quickly!

  3. Layne Kirshon

    2 comments in regard to this

    a. I have yet to read a post by scott that did not make me laugh at more than one time.

    b. I disagree with your “don’t read the security K in the 2AC” blurb. While yes, busting out the genero u tagged a card as extinction ergo you lose has never been useful, specific criticisms a) are useful if explained correctly in the context of the aff/DA b) in many instances do not contradict social services. Shoehorning all “security K” authors into poststructuralism/postpositivism/positivism etc. as a discipline ignores their usefulness and non-contradictory-ness. For example, Pan. With the exception of Mearsheimer, China is super evil, no one ever really answers it/addresses the epistemological aspects of it. I’m also pretty sure that even if the larger discipline Pan is a part of may disagree with social services, the specific criticism is not inconsistent. While ya, shitty realism good/bad debates suck, so do bad ptx and T debates. Also, Pan 02 would be no better/worse were it Pan 08.

    **waiting to get owned**

  4. Layne Kirshon

    just realized “at more than one time” sounds dumb. take out the “at”

    -Layne

  5. Craig Smyser

    I agree with layne (SHOCKING), specific criticisms can be very useful on the aff and in many cases aren’t necessarily contradictory. Also even if its not in the 2ar a short 2ac security k, despite being inconsistent in some respects with the aff, can give you a sweet time trade off when the block busts out its realism good/inevitable cards.

  6. Scott Phillips

    Dear Kinkaid et al,

    I did not mean to say “no k ever”. Instead, I was trying to indict aff’s that are written for the sole purpose of springing this trap, not teams that use good specific arguments one of many strategies or who think about things like “time trade off”. I more hate teams that like ignore the CP, kick the case, and then read 6 mns of security in the 2AC, forcing the neg block to be like 500 Murray cards. I find it really painful to watch teams who run human rights affs then read zero point of the holocaust dillon 99 after reading security link dillon 96, do you see why?

  7. Layne Kirshon

    ya gotcha. We thought for a second we had to strike you now. Fortunately that’s not the case.
    I also think States/Lopez is lame. I had my fair share of states are racist, judge, debates. Federalism is also yucky. and according to our aff pretty darn racist

  8. Joe Carver

    While no one can deny the list you provide here is dong. There had better be a version 2. Because this list is too short.

  9. TimAlderete

    In fearful anticipation of next year:

    1. Most rounds will involve to the States CPlan – I don’t think that the Edebate postings by a number of people will deter any person or camp from heavily relying on it.

    2. Most States rounds will include “theory debates” over the State CP legitimacy, because that seems to be the most popular recent advice in those postings.

    3. Many students will be encouraged to run cards to back up theory arguments.

    4. Many more people than I thought find it okay to cut cards from forums and blogs.

    Each by itself, harmless, even helpful. But Put Together – I am going to watch a lot of states cplan rounds that come down to theory quoting cards from Edebate posts.

    My own private hell.

  10. Stephen

    I’ve been kinda keeping up with this blog and thinking about things from the standpoint of how does debate relate to grad school and academia.

    This post made me think of a piece of info for debaters wanting to go to poli sci grad school: studying the things that get lumped into the header security K (constructivism, post-insertwordhere-ism, etc.) is very severely decreasing in value when it comes to what gets published in “top” poli sci journals. Over time, the “top” journals have become dominated by “a single theoretical perspective, liberalism; a single ontological position, rationalism; and a single method, quantitative analysis.”

    For someone lamenting the fact that academia is becoming a monoculture in ways that don’t really give credence to the concepts in most K debates, see:
    Kathleen McNamara “Of intellectual monocultures and the study of IPE” Review of International Political Economy 16(1) 2009.

    Regardless of your feelings on this trend, it is what it is and debaters should know about it.

  11. Stephen

    I found another link- this is a discussion amongst poli sci grad students about constructivism, and at the very least it’s telling of some of the opinions(biases) out there. As a disclaimer, this rumor blog is idiotic and half the posts are total crap, but it at least captures the trend I was describing in a different way.

    http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=8836

  12. Scott Phillips

    Frog,

    I don’t know what you are majoring, and suspect you are probably right in your field. In IR however, major journals (RIS, Millennium, British ones etc) are hugely dominated by critical theory and in 08/09 had a few articles from non crazies lamenting this trend. In IR at least, pluralism is alive and well.

  13. Stephen

    British and other nonUS for sure, but there is another part of those “field survey” articles that makes the argument that US poli sci people don’t read or care about foreign journals. I can count on zero hands the number if articles published in a foreign journal that are really influential. My point was just that if you want to get a “top” job or publish in a “top” journal, it’s hard to do and getting harder. IR in the US isn’t an exception. Good caveat though.

Comments are closed.