Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
THodgman

[ENERGY TOPIC] [M] Round 77: THodgman (AFF) vs. Wildcat 09 (NEG)

Recommended Posts

1. How does the judge evaluate political method in the round? (I.E. what context does he/she use?)

2. What is political method used for?

3. Am I allowed to define my own political method?

4. Where does the resolution provide context for debate over political method?

5. What falls under the domain of political method?

6. How do I scapegoat the other?

7. Who is the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. How does the judge evaluate political method in the round? (I.E. what context does he/she use?)

2. What is political method used for?

3. Am I allowed to define my own political method?

4. Where does the resolution provide context for debate over political method?

5. What falls under the domain of political method?

6. How do I scapegoat the other?

7. Who is the other?

 

1. the judges vote for whomever they determines political method is best. it is all about the impacts still it just comes before yours

2. the tools that we use to accomplish the desired results

3. you did when you said after the 1ac that you use tech as a tool to solve humanities problems

4. i would say that to take an action would require an examination of the method of that action.

5. incentives, coersion, technology, things we use to accomplish our goals

6. you say that i am the root of all evil for running a kritk and say that i am the reason for poor debate. this justifies my extermination.

7. in this instance on the framework debate me. i am the one who is different from you and thus must be eliminated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to look at the impact card but it's from pages 136-140 and the book review only goes up to 129. Is that where you copied it from? (btw post the 1NR anytime)

Edited by THodgman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry man i have the hard copy of the book and thats where im getting the cards from. the part of the book that card is from is basically a summary of the rest of the book with more doomsaying (which makes it great for debate evidence). i swear im not cutting it out of context. ill post the 1nr tonight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Order is CP, Biz Con, Case in order

 

Counterplan

 

 

Whoops that cp wasn’t competitive. Extend his argument that oil prices have doubled and the impact hasn’t happened as well as the argument that he does not affect oil prices. There really is no risk of the link turn and even if there were there is no risk of an impact as the federal government has bailed out the airline industry look at post 9/11.

 

Biz Con

 

 

1. his uniqueness evidence is terrible. It only indicates that biz con is at a 3 year low not an all time low. There is no indication of why a 3 year low is actually low in biz con in real terms. It also is only indicative of Midwest firms which is not indicative of the entire nation.

 

2. Extend our the Austin Business Journal evidence from the 1nc which indicates that biz con is high across the nation. Prefer this evidence because it gives the best method of actually measuring business confidence in that it actually polls the businesses. Their evidence is only an index that measures what should be the confidence not what it actually is.

 

3. Small businesses and multinationals are gaining strength-multiple reasons.

Paul R. La Monica, (Editor CNN Money), June 6, 2008, “Corporate America is getting nervous,” Online, http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/markets/thebuzz/?postversion=2008060610, accessed 6/27/08.

And according to Vistage's Pastor, he said more and more small and mid-sized businesses are increasing their businesses abroad, lured by a weaker dollar, stronger growth overseas and the relative ease of reaching international customers via the Web. Along those lines, many large multinational corporations have been holding up reasonably well because they have stronger growth opportunities outside of the United States. Plus, many of them have relatively low debt loads and lots of cash to keep them afloat. 4. He says that there have been tons of regulations but he ignores that all of those regulations have been either watered down by Republicans in Congress or have had parts repealed soon after and have been shaped by businesses. There was zero fear in terms of actual regulation of the environment in those cases because lobbying has led to watered down legislation. His plan would change that as it has no conditions that can be manipulated or watered down.

 

5. He says link turn but the warrant there is really lame. This is not a reason that the major industries would want the plan but more a reason that they may benefit in the long term. Also his argument is based on being at the forefront of the change as that is how we get the patents on the technology first and realize large economies of scale however regulations in other countries and innovation in the auto industry by the Japanese means that we would only be importing more technology and losing to all of those businesses.

 

6. Imposition of environmental regulations will lead to a free-fall of regulatory activity threatening all business

 

Sally Pipes and Benjamin Zycher 2k3 Attorneys General versus the EPA www.pacificresearch.org

 

Pipes is President and CEO of Pacific Research Institute and Zycher is a sr. fellow at the Pacific Research Institute

These studies are not directly applicable to the Attorney’s General Petitions, which attempt to force federal regulations of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles only. At the same time the available literature still is relevant, in that the imposition of such controls on vehicles inexorably would lead to similar controls on many stationary (and other mobile) sources. Once the environmental principle is conceded—that limits on carbon dioxide emissions are appropriate—it would be impossible politically to prevent this expansion of regulatory activity. More broadly, once the policy question shifts from whether to impose carbon dioxide regulations to the extent of such regulations, a political freefall would result. Regulatory policy can be used to create winners offering political support for an extension of the regulatory program. The prospect of an emissions trading program, in which relatively energy-efficient firms and industries can sell some of their emissions permits to others, is only one prominent example of this phenomenon. And so just as there is no such thing as slight pregnancy, there will be no program of carbon dioxide emissions limits – and attendant costs—that remains limited to vehicles, powerplants, or other narrowly defined sectors. Once regulatory policy embarks down that road, it will find no exits.

 

7. His no link arguments are flawed in that they assume that there is a fundamental difference between firms and consumers. All firms consume things and with shipping costs and cost of getting to work rising as a result of higher gas prices due to the plan there would be a resultant raising in input costs in terms of wages and higher costs of good used to make other goods. Businesses still have to buy things and the prices of those things would rise. Also extend the Schwartz evidence here which indicates that even if the plan only affects consumers businesses would perceive that they would be next in line and hunker down for the expected slumps in profit.

 

8. Extend his arguments on the Gelbspan evidence indicating that China and India will fill in consumption gaps by the US. While this argument may take out the second link scenario it also serves to take out his peak oil impacts as he says himself that consumption cannot go down as a result of the plan. This means that he cannot stop the negative effects and collapses of peak oil meaning that he has no impact leverage and nothing that outweighs this disad.

 

9. Extend the Brathwaite, Kudlow and Mead evidence as they all indicate that a collapse of biz con would be catastrophic. Our Brathwaite evidence means that we control the internal link to all economy impacts as business confidence is key to the econ and if it is high then we can recover from other problems. We also outweigh the case as we have the faster timeframe. Biz con turns on a dime and in the information age news travels fast that business will be chilled. The disad also turns the case as our Brathwaite evidence indicates that without confidence there can be no innovation which is his key to both the link turn and solving his case.

 

Solvency

 

 

 

He says that it is easy and that sending each person one card solves all of this but there is no reason that it is easy for the government to track all people that are drivers and how much each person should receive. Also there is no type of system for the trucking industry. Our Stein evidence also indicates that it is difficult to set the right cap in terms of how many permits should be distributed over the entire economy. All of this is conceded to be defense as to why there will most likely be only a small reduction in overall oil consumption which he concedes on the biz con debate.

 

Peak oil

 

 

 

He concedes that he cannot solve this debate on the biz con flow. Also he mishandles the Economist evidence which indicates that alternatives will come in the status quo due to rising prices with the coming of peak oil. Any reason that the squo solves his affirmative is a reason to vote negative on any risk of the disad. This evidence also solves the second advantage as a world in which we have alternatives solves oil dependence as well as the affirmative.

 

Oil dependence

 

 

 

He misinterprets the turn here he says that we have mixed alliances in the squo but our argument is that a world in which the US is no longer dependent on oil is one in which our alliance with Israel is no longer important. The only reason that we ally with Israel is that they have the ability to police the Middle East and that is an important region to us for oil. In the world of the plan we no longer have any strategic reason to occupy ourselves in the Middle East and thus no longer support Israel. This also serves to turn the China scenario as a world in which we no longer serve as a deterrent force in the area China will make a power grab and destabilize the region leading to the Steinbach impact. He never extends his terrorism scenario for this advantage as well as never extending a warrant for why the US will fight China over the Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1AR: Order Framework, K, Bizcon, Solvency, Peak Oil, Dependency. Line by line off block.

Framework

1. Extend my interp, neg doesn’t meet because he concedes he doesn’t defend a competitive policy option. Proving plan bad isn’t the same thing.

 

2A. I meet counter-interp – the second half is relating (political method) to policies enacted - weighing the plan’s impacts.

 

2B. He doesn’t meet his counter-interp – he flat-out refuses to relate political method to my policy – when he lets me weigh my impacts he’ll meet his counter-interp.

 

2C. His interp doesn’t claim method comes first – it says they should be considered together

 

2NC3. You take political method out of context by not weighing against plan,

 

2NC4&10. Your expanse of the literature base is unpredictable – he concedes only the resolution provides predictable limits. Concedes fair parameters most relevant to framework – we provide better predictable limits on education. Genetic engineering isn’t relevant to the topic, no I/L.

 

2NC5&6. Political method is evaluated by looking at consequences of policies, it only makes sense if we imagine plan passes. Look at what Wes says. Why is my method bad? Because its consequence is cybernetic eugenicism. That’s a consequence of my political method. He’s evaluating consequences so can I.

 

2NC8&9 -

 

A. He links too – he doesn’t let me weigh aff impacts.

 

B. C/A his #2 from perm debate, he attempts to set up predictable ground too – he links back to both through this.

 

C. I’m not scapegoating or policing – I’m trying to establish the framework that is the fairest for both teams.

 

D. Scapegoating on this level can’t turn case, it’s not a matter of political method or policy consequences, it fits in neither framework (same with Shapiro). Any risk of turning case also applies to turning alt b/c neg links too.

 

E. Only this debate matters, you concede judges should pick framework with fairest parameters , regardless.

 

11. He concedes all the analysis in 2AC subpoint C – that fair parameters is the biggest voter in this round - Framework should only be adjudicated in terms of who provides the fairest parameters. He claims it’s not a voter, but provides no warrants - I attached a voter to it - he makes no argument against its warrants.

 

12. Extend 2AC subpoint B2 – He concedes only the resolution provides predictable limits, for both teams– e/i my framework causes scapegoating or is the root of all conflict, fair parameters is still the biggest voter. He doesn’t claim his framework provides fairer parameters and concedes mine does.

 

13. If framework is muddled pick the middle ground – both teams weigh all impacts.

Kritik

 

Off overview, c/a 9C from framework.

 

Link Debate

 

2. This is irrelevant - Doremus talks about environmental representations coming first, not political method, about which Doremus makes no claim. You don’t K my representations or address what he says comes first.

 

3. Wes dropped that his Virilio cards never say this method of science in other areas lead to the same impact. Virilio only says this method in the field of genetic engineering causes the impacts, the same method in other fields doesn’t access the impact.

 

Perm Debate

 

Kick 2AC2+2AC4 - Perms are tests of competition – if we concede them neg objections go away.

 

Off 2NC1-4 in regards to 2AC3

.

1. Perm doesn’t include rejecting aff, because that’s competitive.

 

2. I don’t sever out of method – my method isn’t competitive with the second half of the alt – only the first half deals with rejecting current method.

 

3. This perm isn’t intrinsic – doesn’t add extra instances or create external conditions, uses the alt to deconstruct. 2nd half only applied to 2AC4.

 

4A. No solvency deficit – extend 2AC5 – eugenicism is already here. This means following the method Virilio critiques doesn’t matter anymore, only solutions matter - the second part of the alt.

 

4B. Any risk of perm linking doesn’t mean vote neg – perm has chance of solving, I can still weigh aff impacts – c/a framework.

 

5. The perm solves by enacting the plan and taking a step away from technology as the solution to all our problems. They’re not competitive - doing this part of the alt and the plan solves 1AC impacts as well as K impacts, for 2 reasons.

 

A. Extend 2nd Roberts 2k4 – He acknowledges that science isn’t an end-all solution – it can’t prevent peak oil, only soften the blow.

 

B. There’s a human component to the plan, independent of science, that the plan cannot solve without. My Feldstein cards indicate that incentives, consumer action, and automotive cooperation are necessary.

 

Impact Debate

 

1A. Virilio doesn’t claim doing more of this science method causes more of the impacts – eugenicism is already here, what we do about it no longer matters.

 

1B. You concede that taking a step back from technology does nothing to solve or halt eugenicism and Virilio never indicates it does,

 

2+3. Aff outweighs – we can’t destroy value to life if it’s already destroyed. c/a #3 from link, 1A+1B mean that K has no impact, Aff impacts outweigh, conflict is inevitable absent the plan.

 

4A. The plan doesn’t get passed if I win, but it’s relevant to weigh the consequences of the method with the consequences of the actual policy.

 

4B. You can’t solve for people watching you concede it’s not discursive – all that matters is the policy and method adopted.

 

Alternative Debate

 

1. He concedes neither of us literally solve the impacts in his framework – if he can consider implications of political method I can consider policy implications.

 

Bizcon

 

He concedes 2AC2 – This takes out the entire bizcon DA – it’s empirically denied – there’ve been tons of regulations since his links were written – This takes out 1NR6 also, it would’ve already happened.

 

Off 7 – There is, firms aren’t incorporated in the plan.

C/A 2AC3+4 from Airlines – He concedes oil prices won’t change and industries don’t pay extra for gas – cards are only given to individual consumer, not companies - Feldstein 2k6 – this takes out his Schwartz link – Businesses won’t fear they’re next when oil stays the same.

This means firms don’t have to pay extra for shipping or anything else, 100% no-link.

 

Off 8 -

1. He concedes peak oil happens in 5 years – not enough time for China and India to become dependent.

2. China and India don’t consume a lot of oil now – they’re just starting to consume

3. The only evidence read in this round indicates that America reducing its consumption stops peak oil – not other countries.

 

He concedes 2AC7 – his impacts are inevitable absent the plan – he concedes the ONLY RISK of being able to solve is the plan, that’s 2AC8.

 

Solvency

 

No tracking necessary – the USfg distributes cards to all adults and they use them when they buy gas, for however much they need – he drops that Feldstein says distribution is possible. The last Feldstein 2k6 shows it’s easy for government to set the cap – he drops all my analysis why none of this proves I can’t solve.

 

Peak Oil

 

1. I still solve – c/a from bizcon flow

2. He drops all 3 of my answers to his Economist ’08 – No new 2NR analysis

A. e/i tech available, it has to be adopted

B. Squo is failing – Honda’s hydrogen economy failed.

C. 2nd Roberts 2k4 shows we can’t wait.

3. Extend both Roberts ’04 – if we don’t start an immediate soft landing all wars and economic collapse are inevitable, making his DAs both inevitable in the squo and only preventable by the plan – the terminal impact of this is Bearden 2k – global nuclear war.

 

Oil Dependence

 

1. He concedes we solve root cause by preventing terrorism – Luft 2k5

2. His China turn is backward and unsupported by the evidence – 2nd Luft 2k5 shows US-Sino competition causes the impacts in the ME. He concedes why this outweighs – China will give nukes to middle-eastern countries, giving me the best access to Steinbach 2k.

Edited by THodgman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so sorry that this took forever for me to post. School is such a nuisance and well i decided i should probably start some real work for debate this week. So here it is the long awaited 2NR

 

Order is Framework, Biz Con, Dependence, Peak Oil Solvency

 

Framework

 

 

Extend his interp. I have to advocate a competitive policy option. One of those is the status quo meaning that as long as the kritik goes away I don’t violate the framework. If there is no violation there is no reason to vote for the framework debate. That would be akin to voting for a team for saying racism is bad without a link. There is no reason that conditionality is bad so any time skew arguments that tries to make are new and not a reason to vote.

 

Biz Con

 

 

Overview

Tom Tom should have known this would be in the 2NR. It would then follow that he would use more of his 1ar on this flow however as it is there is massive undercoverage and that is going to kill him in this debate. I mean he drops arguments on this flow like Will dropped him at camp (inside joke ask later). This time he won’t end up with a busted nose but he will end up losing the debate. He concedes that biz con is key to him accessing any solvency for his affirmative as well as that biz con is the key internal link to all of his economy impacts. He doesn’t articulate a reason why his China scenario would outweigh this disad so even if he wins that argument he loses the debate. Biz con is the fastest impact in the debate and he concedes the Kudlow evidence which means we get the internal to the world economy collapse. This triggers the Mead impact which includes world nuclear war most likely involving China because hey if we are going to have a war they want to be in on the party.

 

Line-by-line

 

He says that I have conceded his empirical examples of regulations that should have set off the link scenario but the spillover evidence from Pipes and Zycher is more specific on the question. It indicates that vehicle regulations spill over quickly. This evidence makes a key distinction and his evidence never points to an example when there was a mass of regulatory activity at once. Also his arguments only assume a world in which businesses were able to manipulate the legislation where in the world of the plan they would not be able to. Even if he wins this argument there is still a risk of the scenario happening. He gives no reason why empirically denied means that it can never happen. Our evidence is more conclusive on the question.

 

Next he says that he regulates consumers not firms but firms are consumers in terms of buying raw materials there is no answer to this. He can’t give a single reason why this distinction matters at all. He also misinterprets the Schwartz link because it is based on perception not on oil prices. This means that any reason that businesses would think that they are next to be regulated means there is a risk of the link. Our Pipes and Zycher evidence only supercharges this argument when it indicates that there will be a free fall of regulatory activity.

 

He tries to save the peak oil debate but his evidence doesn’t support any of his claims. His argument was originally that India and China are filling in for US consumption meaning that any drop in US consumption doesn’t hurt. This also means that the demand for oil in the status quo and the world of the plan is exactly the same meaning that he cannot solve his peak oil advantage. He claims that his evidence says that only the US decreasing consumption can solve peak oil but there is no warrant for this claim. Demand and consumption are the same around the world and prices are based on worldwide consumption. This is a 100 percent takeout of his advantage and he read the card for me.

 

He says that the only risk of solving the economy is oil but there is no founding for that claim. We actually have evidence on this question in the form of the Brathwaite evidence. It indicates that the economy’s direction is determined by business confidence. This means that we control the internal to the economy impact meaning that even if we he accesses peak oil we still control the direction of the impact.

 

Dependence

 

 

He doesn’t do enough work here to extend his impacts and win the debate because really it is the only impact that he is winning. He concedes that there is literally no reason why the US would fight a war with China and that the US serving as a deterrent in the region prevents Middle East conflict. He says that this is unfounded in the literature but there is no reason that it is untrue. At worst there is an even risk of both of the scenarios happening. He also never answers our argument on the Israel debate that the US leaving the Middle East would collapse the relationship. This serves as a tiebreaker to the Steinbach evidence meaning that we control the impact direction of the two biggest impacts in the debate. He also never extends any terrorism impact or any reason that outweighs so even if you grant him that scenario it is outweighed by biz con or Steinbach as both at least have terminal impacts to evaluate.

 

Peak Oil

 

 

Extend the Economist evidence it indicates that in the near future the alternative fuels will become economic. This is a result of peak oil meaning two things. One is that peak oil is desirable because there is no risk of the other impacts and the peak oil impacts will be solved by the emerging fuels from the market. Once we hit peak production prices will rise and alternatives will emerge solving the impact. Second is that the status quo solves all of the impacts meaning even if I lose every other argument you vote negative on presumption. Really he doesn’t articulate how his answers are responsive or what interaction they have with the Economist evidence. He argument that we need to act now is never articulated to show any timeframe that could limit out the Economist argument.

 

Solvency

 

 

Yeah this argument is horrible and defensive but he concedes that there is a risk that not everyone gets the gas rights that they need and thus part of the solvency for the affirmative. If there is any reason that people would not get the gas rights that they need and that there would be uneven distribution is a mitigating factor for the aff and a reason to revert to the squo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aldjzair is fine with me - sorry Zac, I think we shouldn't have someone from one of our schools.

Edited by THodgman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2AR: Peak Oil, BizCon, Dependency, Solvency

 

We still need someone to collect ballots, and we need to agree on a 3rd judge.

 

 

Peak Oil:

 

He extends his economist, but all the 1NR did was extend the card and claim I “mishandled” it - he dropped 3 attacks against it. No matter how much I articulated my attacks, it’s more than the silence you heard from Wes in the 1NR.

 

First, he won’t anywhere when he once again concedes 1AR2B – his own card says the squo is failing – Honda’s hydrogen economy failed miserably in the squo.

 

Second, his answer to 1AR2C was “that I never articulated it” this is new, and look to my 2AC, I explained how my second Roberts 2k4 shows immediate action is necessary - if we sit around and wait for the squo to solve it’ll only trigger the impacts. Don’t punish me because he dropped this in the 1NR – I extended it.

 

Third, even if he wins the economist card 100%, his repeated concession of 1AR2A means it gets him nowhere. It doesn’t matter HOW MUCH alternative energy the squo is developing, because ONLY the plan gets it adopted.

 

---

 

Peak oil debate from bizcon:

 

He says squo and plan demand for oil is the same - that’s untrue. The card actually says China and India will equal our demand by 2030 – and he drops my answers that China and India consume very little, and so won’t have time to fill the gap because peak oil happens within 5 years.

 

Extend that only the US needs to do this to stop peak oil – he has no good answer to this - the only evidence in the round - my 2nd Roberts 2k4 – says the US needs to develop solutions, the US is unable to have a soft landing now. He offers no reason why this isn’t true. Even if other countries need to reduce, solving the US still is 25% of consumption.

 

---

 

Finally, he concedes my 1AR impact analysis – all wars and economic collapses are inevitable absent the plan – it doesn’t matter if he has “the best internal link” to the economy – Braithwaite just says bizcon is an internal link, not the internal link.

 

Even if I don’t get full solvency for peak oil, the only risk of being able to solve is the aff – the neg has no offense here. Because this impact makes all the other impacts happen, that’s an immediate reason to vote aff, it’s the only risk of solving any impact in this round, and this clearly outweighs-

 

A. Probability – He concedes peak oil makes war and economic collapse inevitable.

B. Timeframe – The impact happens within 5 years and can only be stopped if we act now – he says bizcon is faster but provides no warrants or evidence backing this up – at least I have evidence saying when peak oil will happen

C. Magnitude – This is clearly the biggest impact because it triggers ALL war scenarios and economic collapse scenarios, which is never contested and results in nuclear war and extinction through Bearden, Mead, and Steinbach.

 

Bizcon:

 

Wes claims bizcon is key to accessing solvency and the key internal link to economy impacts, but he only can claim these if he gets substantial weight on bizcon - not happenning.

 

First mistake Wes makes is not extending uniqueness in the 2NR. Because you have no idea where business confidence is now, Wes can only win this disadvantage if he wins without a doubt that the plan will plummet business confidence.

 

He tries to salvage the empirically denied debate, but he dropped this 100% in the block and shouldn’t be allowed new answers. My All Business 2k8 provides examples of 7 environmental regulations on businesses – the kind where the government ACTUALLY makes the businesses do things, and that actually link – his only answer is to cross-apply Pypes and Zycher. First, I already answered this at the top of the 1AR on bizcon, and he doesn’t respond – regulation spill-over is empirically denied as none of these regulations spilled-over. He gives no reason why my plan would uniquely cause a spill-over. Don’t punish me for under-articulation, he dropped this, and the 1AR said “Empirically denied means his impacts would have already happened”, so his scenario has been disproven to be true and regulations don’t cause his impacts.

 

The link debate is becoming ridiculous – he still claims firms are incorporated, but the plan only gives cards to individual consumers, to each adult in America, used whenever that individual buys gas at the pump, which is why the distinction matters. Cards aren’t given to businesses so businesses don’t pay extra at the pump. The only evidence on this question in the round, my Feldstein cards, claims it’s given to individual consumers. The distinction between individual consumers and businesses was conceded in the 1NR on airlines – he shouldn’t get to make answers against it. He also doesn’t access his perception argument because it’s empirically denied by actual business regulations. Even if he wins the link, actual businesses regulations empirically have not caused his impact.

 

He claims his Braithwaite evidence answers 2AC7+8, but they were dropped, he shouldn’t be allowed to make this argument. Extend my first Roberts 2k4 – when we have no more oil, it makes economic depression inevitable. He never answers this – so he can’t claim to have the only internal link to economic collapse. He never answered why it makes his impacts inevitable either –industries can’t survive if we run out of oil and they haven’t transitioned - only risk of survival is the soft landing the plan provides through Roberts 2k4. The bizcon debate is over when he concedes out of the block the only risk of solving is the plan.

 

 

Dependency:

 

First, he has no risk of offense here, because he concedes I solve the root cause of middle-eastern conflict – terrorism. That’s Luft 2k5. Even if he wins a full risk of US-Israel relations dropping, it doesn’t matter – the conflicts won’t need to be prevented, because their root cause is stopped.

 

The 2nd Luft 2k5 doesn’t say US-Sino war, it says our presence in the middle-east causes resource competition with China over oil – and this’ll lead China to give nukes to middle-eastern countries. He never answers this during the entire debate. He says the US serves as a deterrent but provides no evidence -my scenario served as a direct answer to that in the 1AR – US presence is far likelier to cause war. Finally, this scenario, even if he weighs both of his, always gets the best access to Steinbach and he concedes this in the block – if a ton of middle-eastern countries have nuclear weapons it’s far likelier to cause war than if just Israel does. This advantage serves as a tie-breaker if Bizcon/Peak Oil becomes too muddled.

 

Solvency:

 

He never contests that I have enough solvency to solve my advantages, so his attacks don’t matter, and he concedes none of this proves I can’t solve.

He says I concede a risk that not everyone gets gas rights – untrue – he never answered my Feldstein 2k6, which shows distribution is possible because it’s just 1 card per adult, bypassing household distribution problems.

Don’t go with the neg on presumption when I have a 99.99% chance of solving.

Edited by THodgman
small formatting changes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or shaiken you can post it. i mean we still may make fun of you and since you arent a judge i wont care but feel free to post thoughts

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...