Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aff'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Debate
    • Help Me...
    • Novice Center
    • Culture
    • Other Forms of Debate
    • Virtual Debates and Online Videos
    • Workshops, Institutes, and Camps
  • Specific Arguments
    • Immigration
    • Disadvantages and Counterplans
    • Critiques
    • Theory and Framework
  • Evidence
    • Evazon
    • Evidence Trading
  • Community
    • Current Events
    • Thoughts and Ideas
    • Non-Debate Debates
    • World Culture
  • Regional
    • National Circuit
    • Pacific
    • Mountain
    • Southwest
    • Great Plains
    • Great Lakes
    • Northeast
    • Mid Atlantic
    • South
    • Kansas
    • Missouri
    • Texas
  • Respecting the Elders
    • College
    • Judging
    • Coaching
  • The Site
    • Feedback
    • Discuss the Articles
    • Main Page Polls
  • Archive
    • Topic Archive


  • Thursday Files
  • Affirmatives
  • Case Negatives
  • Counterplans
  • Critiques
  • Disadvantages
  • Impacts
  • Theory
  • Topicality
  • LD and Public Forum


  • Tournament of Champions


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Debate Resources
  • Coach Resources
  • Blogs
  • Videos
  • Tournaments & Results
  • Administrative Organizations


  • Announcements

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL


Google Chat/Jabber











Found 105 results

  1. doublebind


  2. "Technically, the US allows for dual citizenship. And yet, we also require immigrants to take a loyalty oath of exclusivity. Getting rid of that condition on immigration seems like a solid squirrel case that's readable in front of judges of all types, to me. For offense, look to criticisms of the notion of "dual loyalty", which is a phrase often used by the xenophobic, and claim the loyalty oath perpetuates such notions. If you want to get even more specific, you could remove a specific sentence from the loyalty oath and leave the rest of it." Why is this plan necessary in the context of the U.S. government? Why is the argument of xenophobia important to the U.S.? How do you know that removing the oath will solve anything? Does the oath bind them by law, or can they ignore it anyways? If it does bind them, what if many people are already ignoring it? Technically: U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to his or her U.S. citizenship. Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its laws. Can you make a strong enough case that the oath trumps what the U.S. clearly stipulates? I would love to use this plan, but I'm not sure how.
  3. OwenK

    LD Cases

    I people, I know you are all super helpful on here and If any of you do any sort of LD and have anything on the current topic I would be intrested. I can trade policy evidence and "owe you one" to help you out next policy season, and I am ok with that or you can be a good person and help me out. Big tourney with big implications. Help out a brother. (AFF and NEG would be welcome, I need anything)
  4. Hello Cross-x, I'm a JV who has been doing fairly well with the year, but would like some help getting the Aff solidified before state quals. 1) We do Harms and Inherency as a single block, but it's all stuff about drought in California. Inherency in general is confusing to me because of this, because it's apparently supposed to be about SQ barriers, which for us is upfront capital, but I'll get to that. Is it okay to not do Inherency at all and just do "Harms" or "The SQ"? If not, how do I make an I that says we just need money? If we do need I it will depend on the: 2) Plan Text. This is our current: "The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its development of the Earth’s oceans by approving a P3 for $175 billion to build seven large-scale Carocell solar desalination plants along the coast of California so as to deal with the drought in that location. The United States should purchase 350,000,000 Carocell modules from F Cubed. The P3 is between the NOAA and the private sector. The modules will be assembled into seven plants that will be placed near key coastal areas and areas of relatively intense drought. The plants will be fed by 0.5 feet per second velocity intake pipes from the Pacific Ocean. Affirmative can clarify as necessary during the CX period." The 0.5 feet per second thing is just so we can negate a intringement and entrainment bio-d DA. Spending... Woah. 175 billion. That's way to much money for this, but I did all the math for what we would need, and that's what it came out to. We can't get full solvency without it, and we kept losing on that before I did the math. The plan buys CaroCell panels from F CUBED - http://www.fcubed.com.au/aspx/carocell-panels.aspx - which is an Australian company. I would love to make our plan as simple as mostly cost free legislation like tax incentives (is that topical?) but since we're buying from Australia... we can't really let the Australian companies pay less American taxes. So that brings me to the question of funding. I like the P3 (Is it topical to use both USFG and private sector in an aff? If it is, where's a good place to find supporting ev. for P3s, solar desal related or general?) but it would be really nice if the plan was free. Is there a way to pass legislation that gives tax incentives or a monetary incentive to companies if they develop or buy this and implement it? Would it be better to focus on American solar desal like "Water FX" and change our advocacy entirely? What it all really boils down to is "What is a better plan text?" What gets full solvency and is cheaper or free? It is to be noted that we have ev. for that the U.S. will take 45 billion worth of damage if California's agricultural sector fails. We can't go to state quals and say the U.S. should spend $200,000,000,000 on water. We would get shot out of the sky *cough* Royal 10 *cough* so is there a better way to do this? 3) As for topicality, there's a couple issues. Actor is going to depend on funding/plan text, but the NOAA is our current. If we're doing anything like the P3 or private sector in any way, we need defense against T that attacks that. I know how to set up T defense - kind of - but where can i find ev. for this? We've gone against some stupid T like "Water isn't a useful resource" which was pretty easy to defend, but how do we deal with "non-topical" attacks? We have a definition of aquaculture that desalination fits - so as to abide by JV rules - but how can we defend this further. I can talk to my coach about this too, but I just wanted specific opinions and perhaps helpful resources for T in general. Are there better actors for this? How would we defend them? I know this is a lot of vague questions, but I'm fine with vague answers. Thanks, Cross - X. Sincerely, Ryan
  5. I have been trying to think of a good neg strategy against these two affs but so far Im not comfortable with anything I have. Please help me with some good things to run against it. aff #1- The United States federal government should substantially increase its EcoGov2 environmental governance programs for the area referred to as Egypt by shifting United States neoliberal efforts to environmental governance. advantage 1 save the trees advantage 2 coral reefs aff #2- Female Genital Mutilation-reduction programs have been identified as democracy assistance for years; but are piecemeal and inadequately funded. advantage 1 SECOND, FGM IS DEHUMANIZATION â€“ CHILDREN ARE PUT THROUGH TERRIBLE PROCEDURE THAT KILLS THE GIRLS AND THE CHILDREN THEY WILL DELIVER advantage 2 Traditional understanding of warfare as great power conflict of nations over territory contributes to the invisibility of an ongoing systemic war against women advantage 3 patriarchy (makes war inevitable, nuclear war etc..)
  6. I will trade heavily for this AFF. I have A Lacan, Baudrillard, Friere, Anthro, and Heidegger that I'll trade. PM me! ASAP!
  7. NonU

    New affs

  8. Hey Forum! So my partner and I competed in a tournament, and we had a judge who recommended we ditch one of our advantages and put a monologue in the aff instead. My partner and I would like to try it but do not know how to structure a monologue, how to debate it or how one monologue would take up the time it took me to read one of the advantages. Any help on where to find monologue for human trafficking, how to tag it or debate would be great!!!!
  10. PcsJoslinJJ


    <script> </script> Hey, so i was looking at the Dartmouth STEM AFF and im kinda confessed as to why the plan text specifies that ESSA should fully fund title II and IV? the solvency cards are kinda no the best so why specify The United States federal government should fully fund grants for primary and secondary STEM education, including an emphasis on climate change and evolution, authorized by Title II and Title IV of the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015.
  11. hey all! i've been cutting a philippines decol/identity aff, but i need a little (jk, a lot) help on it. i mainly need help with tying the aff to the topic and making it "topical" (as in, engagement with china) thank you all! : )
  12. My partner and I are the only team from our school, and have problems keeping up with the research burden for circuit debate. We plan on breaking a new aff at our next tournament, but are having difficulties given it's incredibly hard and time consuming to cut blocks for every off case position. What is the best way/most efficient method of cutting blocks? Any tricks? Is it better for the long run to create a giant 2AC masterfile with generic answers to all off case then filter in specific answers as you cut them? What does a 'generic K frontline' look like if you don't read a plan text?
  13. Other post
  14. Recently I hit an IRS case and they only gave us a paper copy which they took back after the round was over, I flowed it but I was wondering if there is a brief or file online that has the case so I could take a closer look for my team's frontline against it.
  15. Need a homecut, uncommon/strong aff that I can break at state. I have lots to trade. pm me.
  16. Willing to trade heavily for neg file cites are here : http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Nevada+Union/Scanlon-Meckler+Aff Message for trades
  17. How does one go about writing a critical affirmative?
  18. Will trade for neg file against Cloud Seeders. I have multiple Ks, including Baudrillard, Anthro Ks, Enviornmental dualism, Lacan, and more. PM me ASAP
  20. Hey y'all, Has anyone run into the Banned Books affirmative? Someone is running it in my circuit and I was wondering if any of y'all had any ideas for possible unique/interesting/winning offcase positions. T will be a big one of course, but possible DA's are a bit less obvious. (At least to me). Here's the plan: - The United States Federal Government should substantially curtail its surveillance and censorship of literature and publications in public universities and secondary schools. - Enforcement is guaranteed by the Department of Education. We claim the right to fiat. Have any questions, just ask.- Durable fiat - This is will be passed through congress and then enforced by the doe - We are banning banned books and striking articles from school-funded publications unless they pass the Miller Test (which defines obscenity). The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2] It has three parts: - Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, - Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law, - Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[4] - The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied. Thanks, Noah
  21. osahoniyamu

    K affs?

    So I'm entering in my 3rd year in debate this year at a new school and I'm starting to look at some lit for the China topic this year and My question: Are there any K aff (or good affs if there aren't any good K affs) I can read for this year's resolution besides Model Minority Ks and such. I don't know how I'd be able to run any K topics without linking to arguments like the "Speaking for Others K." (I'm black). Any ideas? I'm down on cutting my own if there are none online where I can get cards from
  22. Can someone explain the Levinas affirmative to me? Much appreciated.
  23. Also, if someone has a shell that would be excellent too!
  24. Im looking into making a case using the ideas of Quantum Physics. The basic thoughts I have right now is making a quantum network that will be connected to quantum computers specialized in running algorithms for medical research and maybe going through and using noaa for this any ideas would be great
  • Create New...