T O P
StripedRiverwinder

i'm just tryna get that stimmy 😔


canigetuhyeeyee

i mean, topic disads should exist and the topic committee isn’t doing us any favors. i prefer most ptx disads to fism or process cps


wuurld

they suck but policy neg ground without them would be even more dead than it already is


PotatoMan777

How does it feel to go 0-6 every tournament?


vrengel

HORRIBLE


brownau0811

eh, what’s the point of debate? at the end of the day its an educational activity, and researching and writing ptx disads is actually rly rly educational, learning abt bills on the senate floor, or how political capital works, or what stances certain legislators take, idk just seems like ruling them out would hinder education abt rly rly relevant shit


ImaginaryDisplay3

As someone who won pretty much all my negative rounds my junior/senior year of HS and all the rounds I'm proud of in college, on politics, I have some thoughts. So, first off, I think that more teams should read theory against politics. I did this when I debated, and I feel like negative teams somehow still aren't prepared for it. The obvious incarnations are just the generic "politics is bad" theory or "politics isn't intrinsic" gut-check argument. I think that K affs in particular could do a better job of using their aff to show exactly why politics is an awful argument that isn't just worth rejecting as an argument, but rejecting the team for running it. I keep seeing K affs (topical ones to be clear) just devolve arguments down to "util bad" which is the worst version of this argument. K affs should be actively telling me why the politics DA is the perfect example of the BS that policy makers say to justify racism, and you can find examples of this going back literally to the founding of the country, and running through reconstruction and the civil rights movement. All that said, I think it's an interesting debate because it really gives you a gut-check on the utopian nature of aff fiat. Neg teams should challenge "politics bad" arguments as a broad criticism to the notion of fiat in general. A quick history lesson for everyone. The reason politics DAs were invented depends on a theory argument that has long since fallen out of the common discourse. The theory, basically, is that the aff can fiat whatever they want, but that fiat power only extends to the minimum amount required to execute the plan. So, the aff can fiat that the plan passes, and we have to interpret that power to mean the minimum amount of fiat required to make that happen. That means, the president says "I want to do the plan," spends capital accordingly, and fiat ensures that the prez lines up exactly the number of votes required. Anything required to make that happen, like, say, getting Sen. Manchin to defund the police, has political ramifications. The theory argument (which has vanished from debate) is that the aff can't fiat that Manchin likes the plan or votes for it willingly. That would go above and beyond the minimum level of fiat needed to pass the plan. Ergo, the negative links - the plan wastes capital to get Manchin on board, the plan is a compromise to gives the prez capital, the plan is a flip flop, and so on.


k1ng_dav1d

How would a ptx da be run against a K Aff. For example, stimulus against an Abolition KAff (only one i could think of, better examples are encouraged).


ImaginaryDisplay3

Same as any other aff. The plan is a radical and unpopular policy that torpedoes Biden's political capital. If you're asking about non topical aff's that don't use the USFG, yeah, that's a different thing. Though I think politics is as good a DA as any to setup the framework/T debate.


arcanautopus

You can win every Neg round on T if you are well-versed and practiced and coached well enough. My point is, the argument matters less than your ability to argue and defend it. Run what you like, but do it better than your opponents.


ImaginaryDisplay3

This works up to a point, and that point is roughly octas or quarters of either the TOC or the NDT. Not knocking that strategy, just saying it ends the moment you face truly great teams who can give a fantastic 2AR. Honestly in modern debate, the results might be more limited. Maybe it's more like a 50-50 proposition in doubles of a major in high school.