Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest svfrey

Round 76: [Energy Topic: M] svfrey vs. lawlruschang

Recommended Posts

Guest svfrey

I love how much neg reo I've gotten for the direction i put this debate into after the 1AR.

 

 

it's pretty funny.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, yeah. Almost forgot to say, good round lawlrus.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

if i remember correctly, it's around the bottom of the K flow, around page 5-ish.

 

I'll double check on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cjiron

sorry, im the 3rd ballot, ill get it in within today, ive been very busy with debate, and then the hurricane ike, its been a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to say because it builds suspense.

 

I vote aff

 

Theory

So I evaluate the round in terms of competing interpretations (conditionality vs. LLC), and Sean tells me “THERE’S ZERO RISK THAT CONDITIONALITY IS NET BETTER THAN LLC”. In the 2NR there’s little to no offense on LLC, and any offense on why condo is good is solved by LLC. Lawlrus drops that fairness is the best internal to education which means that which ever interp (condo/LLC) is “fairer” is also better for debate.

 

Potential Abuse

Lawlrus tells me that “I only kicked one advocacy in this debate, which I would have been able to do under conditionality, so I shouldn’t be held accountable for reasons why kicking out of both is worse than kicking out of one.” but Sean tells me that the ability to kick out of multiple advocacies is what’s bad. Pot. Abuse flows aff.

 

RFD

I buy that Sean wasn’t planning on going for theory from the start, but that Lawlrus’s strat forces him to. I buy that conditionality is abusive and that Sean had to double turn himself. At any rate, I buy that LLC is better than conditionality, which means I vote Aff.

 

 

I vote negative for three reasons:

1. sean if your going to go for theory you need to impact it out be like ok, then ill concede that conditionality is good and kick your 1ac and read a new one in the 1ar that would have been a ballin way of impacting it out and say this is why multiple conditional advocacies are bad or even start reading multiple affs in your 2ac as justification.

2. I honestly don’t think your claims are very legitimate and I think multiple conditional advocacies are key to 2ac clarifications and neg flex. I think if you are going to make this argument I don’t think you go for limited conditionality solve your offense. NEG I think you say on theory screw you im the negative suck it up you get first and last speeches you set the debate. I also really buy your justification argument that multiple perms checks multiple conditional advocacies. I think you need to make a clearer analysis on how 2ac clarifications are the biggest reason we get multiple positions. Theory is reject the argument not the TEAM! ONLY EXTEND REJECT THE TEAM IS THEY DROP EASY BALLOT OTHERWISE DON’T CARE.

3. Potential Abuse:

Sean you go for this argument and I think is really sketchy. You make these utopian claims that is you were to debate it out you would end up double turning yourself. I think you should go ahead and double turn yourself if out of the 2ac this is the position you think you are going for so that way you really have an abuse story. I don’t really think your story is all that well articulated and I think potential abuse is somewhat retarded because I think you are to some degree winning some risk that obama becoming president is bad the US-China money drop. Look sean you know hes not going for the K it’s a waste time position, politics you need to just impact turn its faster. CP I think you should be owning on the CP plenty of evidence indicating that its to late for the npt to solve these arguments need to be articulated.

Negative: I love how your like stop whining and debate I love your 1ar all in on politics although I think you drop the china war scenario (correct me if im wrong) you need to be like dude lets have it out on the flow and I think your really should articulate more how him going for a theory debate in his 1ar and 2ar is a unique reason to reject him on the basis that it turns any reason why we would debate reduces education or something. I think you justify making this argument by saying look he goes for it in the 1ar and its all he is going for.

4. the flow:

Politics:

Sean: you need to get Iran strikes good evidence its quite abundant I think its far easier to win the impact turn on this flow than anything else. I do like your turns to it though i.e. china but I also think its easy to beat him out on the logic of this flow go with some burden of proof arguments. (want ideas hit me up) spend more time on it. This is the position he will most likely go for in terms of impact calc.

Neg :

I think you handle yourself quite well on the flow although I think you should really capitalize more on 2ac screw ups and for impact turn he reads three point and read another card or two. I also think you should have really consolidated in the block maybe CP kick K and big case dump personally I love case dumps I think it really pushes the aff team to make more strategic arguments(reason why neg condo good makes them : 1. Get faster or/and 2.Get smarter)

 

 

 

I really had a hard time deciding on this round. I think there is very little analysis by the aff on why the fact that the arguments contradicting themselves mean he has to double turn himself to gain any offense. Between actual and potential abuse, I think the neg wins potential abuse. He doesn't kick both, and he shouldn't be voted down for doing something he could have done. Also, the 2AR analysis is farily skimpy on that front. Also, in the 1AR and 2AR i'm not seeing any analysis on why he should be voted down for the entirety of the round and not just those positions. At the end of the debate I do think that the aff is winning that the CP/K contradiction is bad, but the DA and case arguments aren't an implication of having multiple conditional worlds. Disadvantages and case arguments, while still possibly linking to the advocacies of the CP and the K, are not in and of themselves a result of running a CP and K at the same timem and the aff should just point that out instead of making it part of a theory argument. I therefore don't evaluate the CP and the K due to the contradiction, BUT the 2NR includes extensions of the solvency deficit and elections DA, so I vote neg on elections+solvency takeouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks everyone for judging.

 

do you guys feel like there's some sort of answer that i was missing and could have made, or that i just should have run 1 conditional advocacy?

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...