Jump to content
fish114

(another) who wins thread?

Recommended Posts

It really depends on how the voters are framed. One team needs to win a "X comes before Y" standard. Without that, you weigh the comparative impact claims on both sides and evaluate it like a disad.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I am sorry I did not explain this well enough.

 

The 2nr goes for t and the k, drops the cp and answers the theory.

 

I get absolutely no analysis of which one outweighs, the most I get is by the neg extending the "drop the argument, don't drop the team," which gets answered by the aff with in-round abuse (they run statism and a consult EU cp). I buy it, and it becomes in independent voter. But they completely butcher t from the getgo, they don't meet the neg def and dont even meet their own counterinterp (as you can tell not exactly the best round ever). Thus, the neg wins t through and through.

 

I never get any analysis on which theory to prefer, just that they are both voting issues, but one is never preferred more than the other, other than the drop the argument not the team which is successfully answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Drop the arg, don't drop the team" doesn't make sense in the context of conditionality (insofar as it questions the right of the negative to kick a counterplan/K).

 

I dunno, I'd usually say that T comes first because it forced the negative into advocating an unfavourable position(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have to intervene.

 

personally, i have theory blocks on "condo outweighs t" and the other way around.

 

condo o/w mainly because it's in round abuse, and the skew prevents aff flex and the best development of answers to t

 

t o/w because it preconditions neg flex - we felt insecure about our strategy since we couldn't prepare, so we had to run the cp condo

 

then it's kind of a aff/neg flex debate

 

but if none of this was ever addressed, you shouldn't feel guilty deciding which you think comes first. i'd go with t o/w because 1) i think aff flex can't ever outweigh since the aff gets nearly infinite flex but the 1NC is a reactionary speech (the only thing the neg can predict is negating the topic) and 2) the condo abuse only happened in the 2ac and possibly in the 1ar, but T prevented the best possible clash in all eight speeches

 

 

also,

answered by the aff with in-round abuse (they run statism and a consult EU cp)

 

negating the topic isn't in-round abuse. the aff can answer the conditional advocacy (with perms, impact turns, disads to the cp) without being forced to concede any part of the k or defend statism bad in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

without knowing any more specifics, I'd probably say I'd vote neg on T...

 

In my opinion, it really depends on how T was won though... if it was hands down neg win and the case was clearly non-topical I'd probably vote on T. But if it was more like the case was borderline and the neg sqeaked it out I might be tempted to vote on the conceded cond bad voter.

 

I could see a legit argument for either and I don't think that intervention comes into play. If they don't weigh it, you have to make a decision and they have no room to complain either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With no comparative analysis from either team I'd vote neg on presumption. It's the affs burden to be topical, so therefore it's their burden to explain why other stuff supersedes that.

 

That being said, conditionality is really bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno, I'd usually say that T comes first because it forced the negative into advocating an unfavourable position(s).

 

If this argument was made I would have voted on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you saw this debate in pennsylvania? really?

 

the not weighing arguments bit doesnt surprise me. but the arguments do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea it was La Salle B v La Salle C and I was the only judge, not exactly an amazingly important round, but it was interesting nonetheless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be analysis on this issue by teams, if there isn't any you have to intervene.

 

Really though, T does come first:

 

1. T is actually a 'rule of the game' unlike theoretical arguments like "no conditional counterplans" - that's the whole point of having a resolution.

 

2. T is a jurisdictional voter, theory isn't.

 

3. The abuse happened first - the entire neg strategy starting in the 1NC was affected by the aff running a non-topical aff, so any abuse that happened there can be written off as "fruit of the poisonous tree."

 

4. The abuse stemming from non-topical affs is, at least potentially, far greater than that stemming from conditional counterplans. Aff running some random shit that the neg has no links to = much worse than the negative kicking their counterplan.

 

5. While 'reject the argument, not the team' is a nonsensical argument on conditionality in ordinary circumstances (such as if the negative had kicked the counterplan and gone for a disad or something) but in a world where they're going for T, their in-round advocacy becomes irrelevant. T is a gateway issue that you look at first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say condo comes first, and vote aff.

 

The whole idea of abuse on condo bad is the time skew and strat skew.

 

There are a million ways in which the aff would not be able to answer T effectiely because of the time and strat skews, like not enough time to cover

 

 

However, the aff being untopical doesn't give the neg an excuse or justification to kick out of an advocacy, and it's not a reason why conditionality would be good.

 

The only time I would vote on T first is if the neg could give a sweet story about how like vague, extra-topical advantages or abusive parts of the 1AC screwed over the counterplan to the point where the neg couldn'tbe sure about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm one of the few judges out there that will vote on T so long as the arguments make some sense. Since the topic is the only "true" framework of a round, it is always a voting issue.

 

My ballot goes neg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ballot would go Neg because for me, in order to win a con bad independent voter you have to win that it is necessary for it to come before anything else in the round. If they didnt do that, they don't get my ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my ballot would go neg

if no arguments were made weighing the 2 theoretical violations, topicaliy comes 1st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...