Jump to content
Sir Blocksalot

[RFD] [M] Round 21: Arsenal vs Aburro

Recommended Posts

2NR (1288 words)

 

 

Counterplan

 

Extend conceded perm offense – Hegemony turns have same magnitude because they use EU. US imperialist so perm leads to double the imperialism. Extend Brimmer 02 – No solvency because they step on each other’s feet.

 

Extend perm makes them extra-topical. Cross-apply extra-topicality bad – Allows aff to gain extra advantages. Both conceded – independent voter for fairness.

 

Reciprocity – Must go for perm if I go for CP because conditional advocacies on aff worse than on neg because aff is bound to plan.

 

 

Topicality

 

Overview

 

1AR topicality answers weren’t responsive to anything said in 1NR. Extending something only works if you answer the opposing team’s argument, and the 1NR argued every point made in the 2AC. Check the flow! I’m winning this 100% even after 1AR.

 

A concession of aff burden means they must comply with the interpretation or lose for not having prima facie case. Extend aff isn’t topical until they prove it – conceded. A concession of potential abuse is a voter means even if there’s no unique abuse, you still vote neg to set a precedent for future debates.

 

Extend topicality comes before all other arguments, even other theory, because it’s a gateway issue to fairness, education, and prima facie.

 

Extend that even if I don’t prove abuse, you’ll vote on lack of prima facie case because aff hasn’t met burden of proof.

 

1AR Line-by-Line:

 

Group 1 and 3 –

 

a. They have the right to interpret, but only with definitions backing their interpretation up. Extend answer to 2AC 10. Hold them to the standard of defining through definitions.

 

b. Extend answers to their interpretation and to 2AC 6 – They have no warrant for why topicality isn’t a stock issue. Debate requires logic; without logic we’d have fallacies where I could say “voting aff leads to nuclear war”.

 

2 –

 

No warrant to topicality not being stock issue. Extend Birkholt and Diers 02 – conceded. Topicality is a stock issue because it’s the only way for the aff to prove that they’re within resolution. Classic presumption theory means that the aff isn’t topical until they prove that they are, not the other way around.

 

4 –

 

No warrant – As long as I win interpretation, you’ll vote neg because it’s an aff burden.

 

5 –

 

a. Extend answer to their interpretation – Illogical interpretations destroy education.

 

b. My education outweighs – Cross-apply education standard. Education we get from them proving topicality outweighs any loss we have from this argument.

 

c. Don’t prove how theory distracts – Hopefully this made you finally realize that you need to prove topicality!

 

6 –

 

a. Cross-apply my analysis on the ground standard – I lose all ground to anything that has to do with interpretations of resolution.

 

b. They have no warrant for us even having to prove unique abuse. Look at the flow! Nothing was dropped. Extend potential abuse is a voter – goes conceded. Outside abuse matters since I have to research every topic. Don’t penalize me for preparation. Punish them so they prove topicality in their 1AC next time. Everything sets a precedent – Voting aff means you allow everyone to get away with not having prima facie case.

 

c. Even if I don’t win ground, fairness still a voter because of limits.

 

7 –

 

a. Extend answers to grouped 2AC 2,3, and 5 – It wouldn’t take much time. They time skew themselves because it’s easier to just go “interpretation, we meet” in nine points total. They can’t complain because they got a longer 1AC. That was the compromise! And even if there was time skew, they concede that time skews are inevitable and key to strategy. There’s a check since aff has first and last speech.

 

b. Topicality fairness outweighs – Had they proven topicality, I wouldn’t have had to run this argument in the first place.

 

c. Extend no RVI – This argument was necessary. Voting me down would be like the taxi driver throwing the passenger out for asking how many miles left to go. Fine, next time there won’t be a compromise and you’ll lose right then and there!

 

8 –

 

a. Double bind makes no sense. Of course they have to define every word! Extend that they don’t meet because they need to give definitions. They need to prove what words actually mean in order for us to know how they meet resolution. Words like PHA mean different things to different people. Cross-apply 5 and 7 from above – I don’t hurt fairness or education because my theory is necessary.

 

b. All my analysis about why they don’t meet their own interpretation conceded – It’s detrimental because each is an independent voter since it shows how their own explanation makes them non-topical. Keep in mind that it’s also a reason they should give definitions. Extend all of them:

 

i. They increase the budget, not PHA. At best effectually topical, and that’s bad because it delimits, no predictability, and mixes burdens. With the right story, anything can be effectually topical. This isn’t solvicality!

 

ii. They missed the words “its” and “should”! If anything, this should signal neg ballot right away because they’re being shady. The fact that they gave themselves the burden to interpret and failed at it means you can’t possibly allow them to keep their interpretation.

 

iii. Extend Merriam Webster 07 that “its” is a possessive pronoun and that plan must be directly from USFG. I used this to demonstrate why it’s detrimental to miss that word.

 

iv. Extra-topicality abusive – Lets aff claim extra advantages; in-round abuse because they claim all advantages and CP perm. And the double bind means either they lose on extra-topicality or they have no solvency.

 

9 –

 

a. I used these to show how they don’t meet their own interpretation. In the context of answering their arguments, mine make complete sense.

 

b. Reciprocity – They got to run new arguments in 1AR on counterplan and a card that contradicts Lopez from 1AC.

 

c. I warned them in 1NC that if they didn’t do enough to prove it I would bring up violations. They knew about it going into 2AC.

 

1NR Extension

 

1NC extension goes conceded:

 

Extend dropped interpretation and violation and cross-apply “they don’t meet” and answers to 2AC 7 and 9 – Aff must prove all five stock issues to even contend the ballot. There’s no way to prove topicality without defining – conceded. The plan itself and the resolution prove nothing.

 

Extend every word matters because that’s how legal system functions and it checks aff bias.

 

Extend standards –

 

It’s their burden to prove topicality, not mine. If two teams walk into a round and not a word is said, neg wins.

 

Proving topicality good for education because we become better thinkers. Cross-apply every word matters – Lets us study the resolution like in legal system, which means more depth.

 

Knowing how they meet essential to ground – My links based on interpretations. This includes disads linking to certain regions of SSA, forms of PHA, or how substantial an increase is; kritiks dealing with resolution; counterplans dealing with alternative forms of PHA. Throughout this round, my links have sucked because I had no idea how they met resolution. My kritik is based on rhetoric; my counterplan is based on another agent, but then when they perm it, they tell me it’s okay since the EU is supposedly part of the USFG. That’s unique abuse!

 

Limits – Not proving topicality lets them run any case, and that’s an impossible research burden.

 

Extend voters –

 

Education is the reason we debate. The plan won’t actually be passed, so education comes before advocacy. We’re even winning definition education because we defined “its”.

 

Cross-apply ground and limits as to why they violate fairness.

 

Extend Shively 00 – Fairness is a precondition to debate because we can’t debate if we don’t agree on the rules.

 

Cross-apply interpretation and aff burden – In order to even have a prima facie case, they must prove topicality. They have the burden of proof – conceded. This means that you have to vote neg by default because they haven’t even made it to the ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to be mean or anything but is this round dead? If this is delay is going to continue I would say that an ext. could be fair for the 2ar. Do other judges want to give an ext. if all prep time is used up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Sir Blacksalot talked to me a few days ago and I'm fine with it. Sorry about not informing the judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP

 

I didn’t go for the perm because I conceded his reasons why it was abusive, but he never proved I was bound to it. He says reciprocity means I have to go for Perm for him to have to go for the CP but he is flat out wrong. First, this is a new argument in his last speech and isn’t mentioned at all till the 2NR!!! Punish him for doing this!!! Given his earlier conceded arguments that the Perm is abusive, it also represents a double bind for him to say “perm is so bad that it shouldn’t be run” while simultaneously insisting “it must be advocated”. Extend my reasoning of perm as a theoretical test to competition only, which proves that it’s not “Aff conditionality” especially given that he proves it is abusive and demands I must drop it to save his ground. Perm extra T voters are new and dumb, if it is extra T it increases his ground and perm isnt new plan text its just a test to competition.

 

He DROPPED cold the turns on the CP which straight turn it per the Layne ’02 card which indicates that US Heg causes all case impacts and their NB’s to the CP (and extend that this case turn was conceded by Neg means he MUST go for the CP). His only response at all is that I have to go for the perm, but cross apply his own reasoning about Extra Topicality for why I can’t go for the perm because its way to abusive. All of his NB’s were turned also, see Taheri 03 stating soft power increased soft power causes their prolif impacts than extend NYE ’06 stating all the offense from the heg flow applies to the soft power NB as well. Extend Hilditch 04 and Wellowner 05 on the solvency flows which both indicate (and were dropped) the US is the only way to solve. He also dropped econ. All of this dropped action on his part cannot go unpunished.

 

Here’s the main reason you vote in this round:

 

He chose to run a CP dispo and even though I straight turned it, he still didn’t go for it. This is INCREDIBLY ABUSIVE, I means seriously, this is the one time you actually can vote on pure abuse. You need look no further than my 1AR in which I clearly spent 90% of my time on the CP because of the straight turns, ready to fight that flow out, banking my ENTIRE strategy around him advocating the CP he was bound to. In him dropping it, he skewed the fairness and predictability key to all education and limits. This is a straight reason to pick me up because it is ridiculous and needs to be punished. However, worst case scenario is you see the abuse flow become somewhat of a wash between this and the T and see how his dropping the CP moots all of his T flow because it turns all of his impacts and accesses the internal links to his standards much better. Strategy is based almost entirely on what one thinks his opponent is bound too and thus dropping a turned dispo CP is the worst violation of rules possible. At worst you weigh my abuse impacts against his and see I control all standards and impacts better. (you will see that impact calc below)

 

T

 

He confuses right to interpret with right to define. He thinks my burden of proof means I get the “right” to have to give a definition and we meet for all words in the resolution. This is flawed as seen by my right to INTERPRET the stock issues as Significance, Harms, Inherency and Solvency. This is already a large burden to fill and thus adding T justification on twenty word definitions, each with a we meet and definition and standards is abusive. This doubles up with the massive abuse on the CP flow to prove Aff outweighs on the abuse theory. Since my interpretation from the 2AC (which he conceded has to be taken) concludes T is not a stock issue and thus need not be justified explicitly and additionally is not a prima facie burden, the only issue that matters in the round is theoretical abuse. You will see that the theory arguments (which are all that matter left in the round) flow massively aff because on each flow, the neg chose tactics that are abusive and destroy debate.

 

He says T comes first but only to the extent that it controls fairness and education and it’s a stock issue.

 

1. Since he conceded my interp from the 2AC as T NOT being a stock issue, that vanishes.

 

2. Fairness is skewed by him so much in this round- first from the dispo CP flow (see above) and then from an abusive interp of Aff needing to explicitly define, meet and standard each word in the resolution in addition to fulfilling all other burdens fully and upholding case and fighting a CP.

 

3. Education- theory distraction exists, what do we learn about from this round in the end besides doing grunt work of going through same mechanical steps of justification of definitions every round? He cant provide warrants as to why he preserves education and this is why we control this standard.

 

He says he loses ground but first extend that cross ex checks cause he can always ask if he needs a link and I did an analyt we meet which provided all the links he needed cause I defended the entire resolution word by word. Extend that we meet here

 

Extend how his specific word violations are new in the 1NR and are ludicrous, adds to abuse flowing AFF

 

His limits argument is also void because I do provide analyt we meets for every word in the res and that solves back his offense

 

 

Because he himself dictates that fairness is the key, vote him down on the dropped dispo CP that was straight turned, no unique reason that T fairness comes before CP fairness, all are key.

 

 

 

CP abuse flow controls all his standards:

 

 

 

1. Limits- it is critical to predictable limits because I need to be able to count on him to stick to something, this is even more set in stone than T because its such a clearer brightline, rather than arguing over definitions, you can see clearly that he either dropped the CP or didn't

 

 

 

2. Ground/Predictability- to the extent that we both spent the majority of the round on this, it is key to the entirety of the round for me to be able to bank on him going for the CP, this is seen when I spend almost all of my time in round on it

 

 

 

3. Education- we learn NOTHING in this theory debate, much better off to learn to the CP vs. Plan because then we are learning about something, some education better than theory education cause theory applies to nothing but policy debate

 

 

 

4. Fairness- THIS IS WHERE YOU CAN PULL THE TRIGGER...he advocated this is the most important issue and therefore you will see that because of all the inequity he will get away with if you vote neg, you will really destroy all fairness in round, opening the floodgates for massive abuse in the future as well

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have all the judges been notified? We need someone to collect ballots.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll collect ballots pm all your ballots to me. My ballot is already finished.

And can someone please pm all judges and notify them that ballots are due and to pm them to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YoungGun:

Round 21 Decision

Sorry for the delay.

 

I vote neg. I'll post my RFD later.

 

TheAgambenator: Ballot for Vdebate

I vote aff

 

- kicking straight-turned dispo CP is a bad idea, you need to at least mention why going for T means you can kick or something to that extent.

- aff does a good job impacting the problems with this action enough to outweigh neg IL to theory standards

 

CP

- you need to do some form of impact analysis for me to vote on extraT

- reciprocity arg is new and doesn't make much sense in a world where perm is a test of competition

 

T

- i don't see any reason given why definitions, and not just interpretations, are necessary

- there's also no true warrant for ground loss

- your argument that "Words like PHA mean different things to different people" probably ends up hurting you

- i'm sorry but i can't weigh "extend all of them" without some form of analysis

- no impacted ground analysis for the words you say they don't meet

- i don't even have a coherent potential abuse story

- aff is winning enough defense on T/offense against the interpretation for me to not pull the trigger there

 

Catalyst05: RFD for round 21: Arsenal vs Aburo

Some side notes for both sides starting with the neg.

(these side notes didn’t effect my decision)

 

Ok neg, I see what you were trying to do with this “argument.” But it is not strategic at all in my opinion (no offense.) Here’s why, it doesn’t limit the affirmative in anyway. Your interpretation is basically that the aff has to prove topicality and that topicality is a stock issue.You are basically allowing any affirmative to be topical as long as they read a card that says their aff is topical.

 

And secondly you can not make the extra topicality argument if you as the neg don’t give an interpretation that would be able to limit out an affirmative. There’s no way an affirmative would be extra topical given your interpretation.

 

aff side notes. You made this argument that it is abusive for the neg to go for topicality when you straight turned a dispo cp. This is wrong because the neg can go for a procedural/topicality because it precedes all other arguments. However, had they lets say kicked the dispo cp and then went for a disad that is where you would use this abuse argument.

 

And one thing for both sides. Don’t say that the other side conceded something they didn’t. That just pisses judges off. I looked back and clearly found the answer to the args you guys claimed were conceded. The word conceded should be hardly ever used in a debate unless the other team was really bad and conceded a truly enormous load of arguments.

 

the RFD:

Aff wins.

 

I buy the analysis of the 2ar on fairness. The neg just basically says they destroy fairness because they don’t prove topicality/ define every word. Now the aff actually puts analysis on this saying that forcing the affirmative to define every word is mega-abusive.

 

education standard: The neg says basically that the affs argument that theory distracts is totally unwarranted and that’s basically all the say. You also say that the edc. they gain from the aff proving topicality o/w. But you never say what that edc. is and how it actually o/w while the affirmative says that theory totally distracts from any sort of edc and that the neg is unwarranted as to what kind of edc. you get from proving topicality and how that edc. outweighs.

 

Ground: The neg never proves that ground was lost. So this standard is basically useless for the neg. In fact I’d say running this topicality violation makes the neg lose ground because of the fact it allows any affirmative to be topical that just reads a card saying “X” is PHA.

 

Limits: The limits debate was basically a big wash, there wasn’t any real clash on the limits debate and it didn’t effect my decision.

Edited by catalyst05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good round. I'm really looking forward to YoungGun's RFD now!

 

First of all, here's my question to the Agambenator: Was your RFD solely based on the theory impact calc? If so, when did I ever say I;m kicking the CP?

 

Second, to both judges: How did you look at the independent voters on how he didn't even have a coherent interp?

 

Finally, to both judges: Why was the ground analysis not sufficient? Why was prima facie not enough to vote neg?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second, to both judges: How did you look at the independent voters on how he didn't even have a coherent interp?

Why wasn't his interp coherent. part of your interpretation said that he had to prove topicality. He reads cleaning water is PHA. That's coherent. And then he reads another counter interp saying that t is not stock issue. Those are coherent.

 

 

Finally, to both judges: Why was the ground analysis not sufficient?

You never explained how there was in round abuse or any loss of ground. The fact is you just say that the aff kills ground. But what ground? There was no specific instance in this round where you lost ground b/c they ran this aff. You never mentioned any real in-round abuse.

 

Why was prima facie not enough to vote neg?

Describe more specifically what you mean by that statement.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, to both judges: How did you look at the independent voters on how he didn't even have a coherent interp?

Why wasn't his interp coherent. part of your interpretation said that he had to prove topicality. He reads cleaning water is PHA. That's coherent. And then he reads another counter interp saying that t is not stock issue. Those are coherent.

 

 

 

Finally, to both judges: Why was the ground analysis not sufficient?

You never explained how there was in round abuse or any loss of ground. The fact is you just say that the aff kills ground. But what ground? There was no specific instance in this round where you lost ground b/c they ran this aff. You never mentioned any real in-round abuse.

 

Why was prima facie not enough to vote neg?

Describe more specifically what you mean by that statement.

 

I meant the Birkholt and Diers 02 evidence about how the judge must default neg if the aff doesn't prove topicality. I extended that specifically on his interpretation about how T isn't a stock issue. How did you evaluate that card and the claims I made in the overview and at the bottom of the 2NR talking about how abuse doesn't matter if the judge can only vote for a prima facie case? That was the premise of the entire argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, to those two people that gave me neg rep for this round, understand that this is a virtual debate where I get to experiment with certain arguments. I had the intention of going for it basically from the beginning, which is why I asked the judges if unusual theory arguments are okay. I'm fine with losing as long as the RFDs tell me how to improve the argument. Aff burden T is a pretty famous argument that a few debaters ran back in the 80s (or even before that). It's something that isn't run now because most people think it's more strategic just to run T, but I think it's a fun argument to go for, especially since it makes more sense that arguments like OSEPC and other junk time suck arguments. All I wanted was to try the argument out and have a decent theory debate.

 

Thanks to Sir Blacksalot for making this an enjoyable round.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) nope, in my rfd i listed the aff's defense on the standards/offense against your interpretation (8 min plan text, abusive nature of it, etc.) as reasons why I didn't pull the trigger

2)like catalyst, i didn't find a reason why the interp wasn't coherent. it made enough sense to me

3) ground - there was no specific instance of ground loss addressed, I just could not find a coherent story as to how/which ground is lost and why that ground would be key to debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit, i squirreled again. Now nobody's gonna want me to judge...oh well. It happens.

 

CP:

I dont end up believing the abuse, especially since he never said "im kicking the CP" or "not going for it". He may have given very minimal coverage in the 2NR, but that doesnt equal kicking it in my book.

 

T:

This is where i pull the trigger. The argument made by Aburo that T comes first because it is a precondition to fairness and education and all that jazz goes conceded by Sir Blocksalot. So even if I do believe the abuse story on the CP, T comes before that anyway. Neg covers T much better than the aff in the rebuttals.

 

Thus i vote neg. Questions?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy shit, i squirreled again. Now nobody's gonna want me to judge...oh well. It happens.

 

CP:

I dont end up believing the abuse, especially since he never said "im kicking the CP" or "not going for it". He may have given very minimal coverage in the 2NR, but that doesnt equal kicking it in my book.

 

T:

This is where i pull the trigger. The argument made by Aburo that T comes first because it is a precondition to fairness and education and all that jazz goes conceded by Sir Blocksalot. So even if I do believe the abuse story on the CP, T comes before that anyway. Neg covers T much better than the aff in the rebuttals.

 

Thus i vote neg. Questions?

 

Thanks, and don't worry about being the squirrel. Sir Blacksalot PMed me before posting the 2AR and said that I had probably won. I guess others thought differently. I have no problem with you judging me in future rounds! :)

 

As far as the actual argument goes though, was the prima facie voter actually making enough sense? I can see why the ground standard was a little iffy, but was it still enough to vote on especially with the conceded potential abuse voter? What did you think of my analysis about the perm being an example of how they stole CP ground?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the actual argument goes though, was the prima facie voter actually making enough sense?

 

It made enough sense to me. I think that point wasn't argued very well by Sir Blocksalot. He argued that T isnt a stock issue, but didnt really give warrants as to why.

 

I can see why the ground standard was a little iffy, but was it still enough to vote on especially with the conceded potential abuse voter?

 

Yeah, I think you would be better off without the ground standard. In fact, i was skeptical at the beginning of the round that there actually was any abuse. But the conceded potential abuse voter made up for that.

 

What did you think of my analysis about the perm being an example of how they stole CP ground?

 

I think it was a lil shady, but made some sense. I mean, without him defining what USFG means, it could be anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the actual argument goes though, was the prima facie voter actually making enough sense? I can see why the ground standard was a little iffy, but was it still enough to vote on especially with the conceded potential abuse voter? What did you think of my analysis about the perm being an example of how they stole CP ground?

 

Your perm argument is bad in my opinion because almost every affirmative team will perm a CP. There's no unique ground lost because they ran that affirmative.

 

As for your potential abuse voter you didn't do enough analysis on it. Regardless, if it was conceded or not the analysis wasn't enough for me to pull the trigger. And also most judges won't vote on potential abuse alone especially if you don't spend a bunch of time on it.

How did you evaluate that card and the claims I made in the overview and at the bottom of the 2NR talking about how abuse doesn't matter if the judge can only vote for a prima facie case? That was the premise of the entire argument.

 

You give no reason or warrant why the judge has to vote for a prima facie topical case besides the fact they must...

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...