Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
THodgman

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

Recommended Posts

I am so sorry guys, I have had hardly any time to work on my ballot, so if you guys want to find another judge that would be fine with me. If you want to wait for my ballot, I think that I could get it done by Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am so sorry guys, I have had hardly any time to work on my ballot, so if you guys want to find another judge that would be fine with me. If you want to wait for my ballot, I think that I could get it done by Friday.

 

Friday is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cjiron

3-0 for the aff

 

MY ballot

RFD: Case O/W DA and case turn

 

I hate intervening but when both teams dont do the best job comparing arguments and leaving questions that I have to figure out.

 

Impact cal, lack of comparison by both teams forces me to have to intervene and figure out who outweighs. The aff had two extinction impacts, the negative has a nuclear war impact and regional war. Aff is extinction, after the nuclear war happens in there scenario there is no going back, while the negatives is only nuclear war, people can survive that nuclear war. aff your impact cal in the 2ac should have been like this

Case outweighs

A. magnitude- <insert brief impact scenario> Our impact is extinction, theres no going back, whereas the negative is nuclear war, people can survive that nuclear war, only we have an internal link to extinction, vote aff for the greater good. BAM, game over if the neg wouldve given the impact cal they gave the entire debate. See it's not that hard, but Thodgman you NEED to make that distinction, If he wouldve given better imopact cal and had a better defense on peak oil it coulve been a different decision.

 

Neg, you need to spend a ton of time in the 2nc and 2nr giveing impact cal, everytime I give impact cal I spend a minute at like 350 or more words a minute giving it, making the right arguments with impact cal and even with a low risk of biz con and little defense of peak oil, and you win.

 

First, either read a card nuke war leads to extinction, and win timeframe or

You could win timeframe, spin your timeframe agressively, your disad is perception based businesses act quickly and irrationally to regulations. Win timeframe, make a turns the case argument, win turns the case and you would win, why? your nuke war happens first, that nuke war would kill all chances of peak oil (turns case) even if theres no good defense of peak oil you would win because in the world after your nuke war, there impact wouldnt occur for whatever reason, destorys infrastructure etc. this is why impact cal is important, even if you have no good defense on case, good impact cal could win it, especially if the aff gives none.

 

compare your arguments, what happens if you win them, make these arguments more and it lets me not intervene.

 

now specifics

 

Biz con

 

Negative controls unqiueness but wild never says this. This means you control the direction of the link, so theres like a 50 percent risk of the link. I bought the aff analysis on the link debate so the risk of the DA is 40 percent or so.

 

Aff your 2ac was amazing on biz con, your cards are very good on it, which leads me to why didnt the 1ar consist of more of these arguments. One you extend an empiracally denied this is little defense and doesnt do to much, the analysis isnt good, you need to extend uniqueness and read like one more uniqueness card, read more link evidence, this helps you more. Your extensions arent good, they need to be better, spin your cards better.

 

Same for neg, READ MORE CARDS, spin your evidence, compare more, you dont to much.

 

PEAK OIL

 

The strategy in the 2nr to take this out is bad, instead of extending his gelbspan card it suits you better reading more cards that peak oil wont happen, cause theres lots of cards that are good on it.

 

so 1nc read 2 cards it wont happen, and in the block extend those cards and like read 2 or 3 more, create an evidentary imbalance, this helps you and could possibly limit the timeframe a ton.

 

Dependence

 

Your turn had potential, you had unqiueness for it good link evidence, all the aff had was analytics, but your impact SUCKED, read an impact addon that a middle east war escalates nuclear, and theres lots of cards a middle east war leads to extinction. You could have won on this turn alone with good impact cal and defense of peak oil.

 

Any questions ask. By the way the solvency argument was a waste of time to run.

 

aldjzair ballot

I vote Aff

 

Biz Con

So there are four independent arguments on this at the end of the round. I think the aff is winning that plan goes only to consumers and that businesses don’t fear this because it’s literally impossible for the same thing to happen to them. The neg is doing a better job on the China/India consumption turn, but I’ll get to this on the Peak Oil flow. Then comes the empirically denied argument: First - it’s new in the 2nr, so I shouldn’t evaluate it, but even when I do, Neg tells me that Pipes and Zycher answer empirical denial while Aff tells me that stat quo situation shows that Pipes and Zycher won’t happen. Neg also says that empirically denied doesn't mean it won't happen and Aff doesn't give me a good answer. The DA is a wash, because neither team closes the doors on the argument.

 

Peak Oil

The India/China evidence indict is good. The argument that only the US needs a soft landing is good. Neg isn't as responsive as the Aff, but I'm still uneasy about giving this scenario to the Aff because of the risk that the argument is inevitable. I'm not sure who I'd give this to if I had to evaluate it, but (hallelujah) I don't need to.

 

Solvency

Don’t know why neg went for it, even if he won it, it wouldnt’ve done much. Flows aff anyways.

 

Dependency

This is really the only argument that Neg is winning. Aff seriously mishandles this - he claims that he solves the root cause of terrorism, but Neg shows me that his impact is specific to a middle eastern war - not terrorism. Unfortunately, this isn’t enough for me to pull the trigger neg. Some impact analysis rather than the blippy solvency argument that ultimately amounted to nothing in the 2NR would’ve been nice. I can't do work for him and cross-apply the Affs middle-east scenario, so I don't.

The affirmative preempts my inner conflict by telling me to vote on the US-Sino conflict over this if things get too muddy, and that's exactly what I do.

 

RFD: I vote Aff because his mid-east scenario outweighs. Even if I don't vote on this, I think he's winning Peak Oil, and probably would've given it to him.

 

 

 

vords ballot

RFD: Peak oil flows aff – means aff gains all impacts.

 

Bizcon: This DA was a disaster for the neg from the beginning. This is because the no link is well articulated from the aff the entire round. The fact is that the price/amount of oil in the US wont change post-plan, but instead consumers will have to pay more of the taxes associated with gas. That was the first mistake. Second, the neg curiously dropped the empirically denied which kills your perception link. Even if you did not drop it, your answers were too weak to change the fact that the businesses should’ve perceived the past regulations negatively, thus bizcon should be dead. Thus I am left with a very slight risk of an empirically denied link to this DA. So even if I give the neg the risk of the DA, it would be very small and it would only help in a tie-breaker scenario.

Peak Oil: First on the bizcon flow – the neg repeatedly tries to argue that this adv is gone because china and india will use up more oil than the US, but the aff has you beat that this will happen in 22 years while peak oil will happen in 5 years. I personally think that this idea of peak oil coming soon is shady and I am sure there is good ev against it. Next you concede the Roberts card that the US must do the soft landing, which I am sure was not well warranted either, so an int’l agent CP might be able to capture the best offense on the China/India surpassing the US arg – just an fyi. Now onto the on case flow. First, you killed yourself on peak oil by not addressing the aff’s attacks on the economist which are well warranted and disprove that the squo solves quite well. So the risk that the aff solves the impact means I should vote aff. Another thing is that the aff’s impact of Roberts is continually conceded and that means that the impact of bizcon and Steinbach and everything else is inevitable if I vote neg and they will come in 5 years. So this alone is reason enough for me to vote aff.

Dependency: This flow was not handled very well by either side- the aff fails to address why terrorism would cause a strike against Israel, or provide an impact to terrorism, and the neg fails to provide uniqueness for the turn. However, even if I flow the US-Israel rels turn neg, that is outweighed by the China scenario. The neg messes up in thinking that this will be a US-China war, but it was articulated throughout the round that US-China comp in the middle east over oil causes china to give weapons to these nations for strategic purposes and that increases the likelihood of an attack on Israel and Steinbach especially. So neg has an iffy claim to Steinbach but the aff has good access to the impact.

Solvency: This came to be a waste of words for the neg since there is no articulated reason why everyone cant get these gas cards and there is no reason to reject the aff for missing a few people.

Edited by cjiron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good round, Wes.

 

Do any of the judges have comments or advice they could give on the K/Framework debate?

 

Thanks for judging all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bump because i would like to hear what the judges thought of the k/framework debate as well. also i would like to hear how each of you evaluated the spillover evidence being more specific to vehicle regulations making the empirically denied argument less important.

 

cjiron how did you evaluate the argument that brathwaite takes out solvency and controls the direction of economy internals.

 

thanks all for evaluating the debate

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...