Jump to content
TheHutt

[ENERGY TOPIC] [M] Round # WGAFF* (80) - TheHutt (AFF) vs. aldjzair (NEG)

Recommended Posts

since the other judges are busy they can just post their rfd's as they see fit but we do have a decision. It is a 3-0 for the affirmative

 

Max:

 

This was a fun/difficult round to judge. I only wish the CP debate had been better developed; I think this is an excellent CP in general against nuclear affs.

 

Decision

First thing I evaluate is theory. I think TheHutt is right, but I don’t think it warrants a loss, so I just ignore the oil scenario. The major issue in the round is at the link level. I think Aldjzair is crushing on the leadership flow, that not only is the econ key to leadership but the impacts happen a lot faster, but TheHutt is winning on probability. Thus, the round comes down to the link level of the DA. I’m never given a threshold, so I’m left guessing how much spending is going to trigger economic collapse. I wish the issue of co-op agreements and loan guarantees had been cleared up earlier in the round, and I’m a little afraid of intervention here, but I’ll go with what I take to be true; a cooperative agreement is essentially a grant with the giver of the co-op (USFG) expecting to be involved in the development of the new tech whereas with a grant, the giver isn’t very involved. Case in point; the co-ops do spend money, while loan guarantees don’t. I give TheHutt the link turn on the Yucca scenario- the new ev in the 2NR is pretty shaky- which is only being weighed against the co-op/grant spending. I’m never given a clear zero-point for the collapse of the economy, but I don’t think the plan spends enough money (and if it did, that’s made up for by the Yucca scenario).

 

RFD: The link level for the DA is too sketchy. I vote aff.

 

FPS:

Sorry I don't have time for a more in depth ballot but I'm prepping for Wake Forest.

 

Anyway I vote aff

 

The negative doesn't do any analysis as to how Nuclear Energy is an alternative to oil. Electricity has only 2% coming from oil whereas 68% is from coal/natural gas. I don't see why it would displace oil.

Without a solid link to the disad I vote for prolif.

 

debatesquad06:

 

Nice round guys but I know your both wanting to hear the decision so:

 

RFD: I ultimately vote aff on this round. The CP was shit and shouldn't have been run and should have been kicked way before the 2NR. I voted on the Prolif and Econ issues, look below for details.

 

Prolif: I vote aff on this issue. If i read the 2NR and the 2AR in a vacuum its clearly seen that the aff easily wins this. NEG: you could have done more work on the lack of an increase in leadership means that rogue states won't go for it. You could have also asked how does the aff ever overcome the inherent barrier of the US doesn't deal or trade with states they have label as rogue. You should have gone for this because this could have lead to a snowballing of things.

 

Econ: I'm going to break it up so I make sure I discuss every issue but it goes aff as well

 

1. Leadership: I vote aff here. Why? because the 2NR completely misses the evidence that says the thing it says but also discusses the technological stuff it needed to at the very end. So... in essence the leadership is won by the aff Especially looking to the negs argument on the disad wins the case. Since he wins the turns coming out of the 2AC he proves that he helps the economy and that just bolsters the affs position here

2. Oil Prices: This also goes aff. He answers the scenario coming out of the 2AC. You also never really give me any reason to vote for the oil prices because you never show me a significant decrease in the demand for oil. you never show that going to nuclear power is going to significantly lower the demand enough. I mean what about vehicle usage? there is still enough oil demand out there from the American driver . Plus I buy the cheating shit... damn dude... thats not just new evidence in the rebuttals which i'm ok with thats a whole new angle on the argument made in your last speech and thats just not cool.

3. Line-by-line:

Lake: NEG: i don't believe your claim here on what the evidence says and he does answer this in the 2AC. "also extend Lake 06 that the electricity market is currently very favorable to inexpensive nuclear power" thats his stance from the 1AC and you miss it

you had some shaky uniqueness from the beginning along with an almost non-existent link story which he throughly beat

 

Again guys, good round. Any questions just ask... send in a pm or post on here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for judging, it was a good round. (Spectators: don't forget to + rep the participants). I have a few questions but I'll hold off until the other two get their RFD's up.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well john is going to take a bit until Wake Forest is done... and i don't know about Shree... has anybody even contacted him?

 

My bad-- been overloaded with papers and stuff. I'll try to get to this ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote Aff, I'm going to echo a lot of things that were said-- if you have any specific questions though, PM me.

 

I didn't really look at theory, I think it's just a reason to ignore the oil scenario. On Prolif, the aff wins based off of the 2NR and 2AR (I thought it was relatively obvious... please ask if it isn't). When weighing the prolif advantage against the disad, I think that the disad is severely mitigated because loan guarantees don't spend money (blame my previous knowledge for that) and that even if they do, is hard pressed to find an answer against the Yucca Turn. So I defer to the prolif adv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max: what do you think about the oil prices scenario? do you not consider it because of theory? who's winning it? etc.

 

FPS: the reason you cite for why oil demand wouldn't go down, while very possibly true, is not an argument that's made in round. Why do you make it for him? Why don't you buy the goodstein evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you would assume that I was doing work for him, in reality I just decided to not do work for you. You extend no warrant in the 2nr for how he would cause oil prices to go down, you just assert that it is true. Warrantless debating = no link if he calls you on it. He did so you don't get your link.

 

EDIT: Goldstein says "alternative to oil" you never prove how his plan is an alternative to oil over the status quo.

Edited by FPS9_16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max: what do you think about the oil prices scenario? do you not consider it because of theory? who's winning it? etc.

 

I think you're winning it as of the 2NR... but mostly because of the new OPEC evidence. If it had been introduced in the block, then you'd definitely have made your link. Unfortunately, I buy his theory on this front and just decide to reject the scenario.

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...