This file was originally designed to read against Michigan KM in the finals of the National Debate Tournament.
That didn’t happen because they lost to a freshman/sophomore team in the semifinals, but it’s still a pretty good T argument.
This one’s a little pricier, but I assure you it’s still a bargain. It’s 118 pages on a K impact.
I’d read this against “high theory” teams. Reading it against teams with more identity-based arguments could be awkward.
genealogy PIC vs. North Broward
September 9, 2016
North Broward is an up and coming young team from an up and coming debate power center.
They were recently invited to the Michigan Round Robin for Juniors.
I have a lot of thoughts on their aff, as well as strategies against K affs. Interested master subscribers should inquire.
In the interim, here’s a strategy based on their use of the term “genealogy” in their advocacy text: “North Broward affirms a genealogy of the resolution that reveals the fissures in the linear teleological universals of diplomatic engagement between the USFG and PRC. ”
This counterplan pics out of the term. Since many teams use it, it’s going to have considerably broader application.
Nuclear Memory K
September 1, 2016
This criticism is highly relevant to the current LD topic. It also has permanent value as a detailed critique of nuclear war reps. It argues that melancholy over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the only appropriate response to discussions of nuclear weapons.
This was the primary affirmative and negative argument deployed by the Georgetown team of Max Hantel and Hao Shen for a full year, including a semifinals run at the Wake Forest tournament.
Further coaching advice available for master subscribers!
Pic out of ROC vs Westminster BH
September 8, 2016
Westminster BH won Wake Forest. They did so primarily reading an aff about arms sales to Taiwan.
Fair enough – but they called it the REPUBLIC OF CHINA. WHAAAAAT? China does NOT like that term. Not even a little bit. That Westminster plan text isn’t just misworded – it’s worded badly enough that it might start a war.
This counterplan rewords to a different term entirely. Will Westminster catch up? Unclear, but this is five dollars for a head shot.
September 10, 2016
A number of policy teams have been reading their affs as different version of a “quid pro quo” – exchange of one thing for another with the PRC.
We have a kritik of that! It is posted here as a standalone critique – BUT it also works as a net benefit to a counterplan. You can just counterplan to do the aff as NOT a quid pro quo.
Greenhill SK Says:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China by offering to withdraw United States military presence from the Korean Peninsula in exchange for the People’s Republic of China’s support for a peaceful unification of the Korean Peninsula.
You can say:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China by withdrawing United States military presence from the Korean Peninsula. The United States should ask the People’s Republic of China’s support for a peaceful unification of the Korean Peninsula.
This CP/K combo works especially well when they don’t have a really good defense of linking the two issues.