Jump to content

Round 162: TheHutt/svfrey (Aff) vs twdcjgads (Neg) - see page 8 for the lulz

who do you think won this debate?  

60 members have voted

  1. 1. who do you think won this debate?

    • aff
    • neg

Recommended Posts

Roadmap is an overview, Bovicide, Spasmodic, T-A-N-G, Zymurgy








1. He says perception: that’s nonresponsive to Wald. Nuclear power can’t trade off with oil; cars don’t run on nuclear, and oil-derived electricity comes from peaker plants, meaning it can’t be replaced by continuously-running reactors. There’s no loss of oil demand for Russia to perceive.


2. He says link turn: this never answers our argument; the plan would foster cooperation, preventing relations from tanking in the first place, that’s Rood




Timeframe/Probability: he says speed matters:


1. No warrant in Yomiuri: all it says is that the stimulus “needs” to be passed in mid-February, NOTHING about economic collapse




Faler 01-21-09 [brian. Bloomberg News. “Stimulus money may flow slowly.”

January 21, 2009, http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/21/stimulus-money-may-flow-slowly/] [13]


At least one-quarter of House Democrats' proposed $825 billion economic stimulus plan wouldn't be spent until at least 2011, according to a report that suggests the package may take longer than expected to boost the economy. A Congressional Budget Office analysis said most of the plan's $355 billion in appropriations for programs such as highway construction wouldn't be spent until after 2010. The government would spend about $26 billion of that money this year and $110 billion more next year, the report estimated. It projected the government would spend $103 billion in 2011, $53 billion in 2012 and $63 billion from 2013 to 2019. The plan, crafted with President Barack Obama's economic team, is aimed at helping lift the economy out of recession through a combination of tax cuts for families and businesses and $550 billion in new federal spending on infrastructure projects, expanded jobless benefits, renewable energy initiatives and scores of other initiatives.


This is devastating: his entire scenario assumes immediate spending so Faler takes out the internal links. He also can’t access his timeframe arguments since the stimulus WON’T be implemented quickly - collapse is either inevitable making the D/A non-unique, or collapse won’t happen at all meaning case automatically outweighs, or there’s no threshold meaning case always wins a faster timeframe to extinction


We’ll win timeframe/probability - pull through 2AC analysis from the K flow. He’s also conceded Barry who says relations are teetering on the brink now - immediate-term policymaking will be critical to stabilizing the direction of the relationship. And, pull through his Freedman evidence from the case flow, collapse of relations means Iran goes nuclear, accelerating timeframe on Iran even further.


2NC 5: Stimulus Bad


a) Nice job of taking our evidence out of context - King is outlining the other side of the argument so that the warrants in the card can respond to it


B)There’s multiple reasons why a LARGE stimulus is BAD that you’ve basically conceded - King indicates the stimulus would risk “sudden stop” which literally collapses the entire economy on the weight of federal deficit, turning the disad - USFG can’t spend money it doesn’t have, causing a breakdown in the economic system that cascades into the private sector and wipes out the market. He also concedes that the economic theory of increasing returns that the stimulus assumes has never been established, which means functionally it doesn’t improve the economy in proportion with new spending


2NC 9: Not going for the perm - reject the argument not the team; permutations aren’t advocacies they’re just tests of competition. If the counterplan competes, hurray, not reason to drop us though

2NC 10: He says plan’s illegal: So what? He never impacts this, and it’s too late to do so in the 2NR. Fiat still ensures the plan functions. And, it’s not illegal: normal means is that Congress allocates 100% of the funding for the plan. The DOE merely enforces the appropriation of funding



Perm do both:


a) Group the disads: they don’t link, the plan and the counterplan can be implemented simultaneously as two separate policy options. Loan guarantees aren’t “regulations” like RPS, two separate versions wouldn’t mutually exclude or conflict with each other. He would have his link if the plan were 20% RPS and the reg neg was arbitrating the exact %, but that’s not the case.


B) The counterplan could only ever be the plan: the plan is the most desirable possible outcome the industry can get. They would sit down and immediately concede that the USFG’s position is best, meaning the perm isn’t perceived as unpredictable. Any elements that get added in the reg neg would be plan plus and wouldn’t preclude the plan.


Perm do the CP: not going for it - group the theory, cross-apply reject the perm not the team from politics.


He says no clue:


a) No solvency: all his evidence is predicated off of “energy regulations.” WE ARE NOT CAP AND TRADE. You’ve read NO evidence that loan guarantees and a treaty constitute “emissions standards” or “energy regulations.” You can’t even explain what there is to negotiate. How do you negotiate signing a treaty? How do you negotiate loan guarantees that are uncapped? Isn’t that what the industry WANTS? And, REG NEG IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH INCENTIVE-BASED SYSTEMS - ISSUES ARE TECHNICAL IN NATURE, NOT BUREAUCRATIC - PROVES THERE’S NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE


Luce ‘94 [Henry R. Luce Professor of Jurisprudence (Law and Political Science), Yale University. TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ISSUE: COMMENT: CONSENSUS VERSUS INCENTIVES: A SKEPTICAL LOOK AT REGULATORY NEGOTIATION, Duke Law Journal, April, 1994, 43 Duke L.J. 1206] [47 words]


Of course, regulatory negotiation and incentive systems need not be mutually exclusive alternatives; they could be complements. For example, the regulations that are needed under a market scheme could be produced by consensual methods. However, the commitment to least cost solutions, which is a precondition for incentive-based systems, would rule out some of the political compromises that might arise under regulatory negotiation. The regulatory issues in the design of incentive schemes are usually technical and informational -- not the kind of bureaucratic problems that can be solved by negotiation.


B)Extend Elmore - “Analysis of policy choices matters very little if the MECHANISM for implementing those choices is poorly understood.” If he can’t articulate a clear story for how this counterplan functions in a world in which there’s nothing to negotiate, reject the counterplan on solvency deficit.


He says no link to politics, group it:


a) He doesn’t clash with our 2AC analysis: his evidence talks about environmental protections building consensus but the 1NC indicates an alternative energy transition will strip Obama of his political capital, this still occurs in the world of counterplan. He just says “but it’s consensus building!” without any real warrants to how it avoids political capital repercussions linking Obama. Counterplan is still perceived.

B) Cross apply Luce and the B) subpoint from the permutation: since there’s nothing to build consensus over he can’t access the internals to any of these cards - presumption flows aff without a net benefit





At the top, stick him to his explanation of alt solvency: “The alternative is to engage in meditative thought---this will allow for new ways to think about the world.” This is so unwarranted that you’ve got an easy way out on inevitability because there’s absolutely no explanation about how that solves for the problem-solution mindset.


Perm: do the plan and engage in meditative thought in all other instances.


His lack of specific evidence saying nuclear is uniquely managerial/technological thought means an easy aff ballot when he’s losing the inevitability debate. It also means he has no terminal uniqueness for case turns.


2NC 2/3: He says racism/all instances, this is flawed since racism is always bad, but technological thought isn’t. I need to enframe nature as a tool to fucking eat, drink, and breathe. The K debate simply devolves into relativism, meaning the perm solves back any residual link. If every instance is key, then why don’t you have a specific link?


Drop down to 2AC Zizek: he misunderstands our evidence:


Zizek indicates that when we engage in meditative thought to find an ontological truth, a certain way of relating to nature, we always fail because there is none. You become so focused on determining individual ontologies that we don’t allow for any concrete political action. Two impacts:


1. We allow the worst atrocities to be committed in the name of ontology. We can’t stand back and think about how we relate to the world while genocide and nuclear war go on all around us. The k doesn’t turn case; our impacts are disads to the alternative, plus we have external genocide and extinction da’s to the alt


2. The alternative has no solvency because disengagement of the ontic from political action means that we can never realize our true relation to being. Ontological questions devoid of concrete action means that there can be no authenticity to our ontic engagement. Just sitting around and jacking off to our ontologies without engaging the real world means that the alternative is functionally useless.


Go to the inevitability debate


Extend WSJ: your alternative doesn’t stop Obama from pushing alt energy.You precludes real-world solvency because people will still want to manage the environment. This only proves the perm solves better than the alt itself. Also proves he has no uniqueness for his “turns case” args, and they’re inevitable anyways.


K doesn’t solve case: you’re in a double bind, either alternative only engages in meditative thought which doesn’t solve Iran or Russia, or the alt does more than meditative thought and shifting your alt from the 1nc to the block is a voting issue because of time/strategy skew wasting our 2AC alt work and new offense would be labeled sandbagging


Case outweighs (group role of the ballot here too)


a) He concedes extinction turns value to life because you can’t have value when everyone’s dead. Zimmerman assumes survivors but there are none. War also makes technological thought inevitable because the technological impulse will engulf policymakers, there’s only a risk we solve the k.


B) He says no SQ: bullshit, don’t let him say “their impacts are a lie because our authors say so.” He has nothing on Iran or Russia in a world absent the plan. We’ll win the K on specific links/impacts alone.



Brent Dean ROBBINS, doctoral student in clinical psychology at Duquesne University, 1999. “Medard Boss,” http://mythosandlogos.com/Boss.html [121]

"Death is an unsurpassable limit of human existence," writes Boss (119). Primarily, however, human beings flee from death and the awareness of our mortality. But in our confrontation with death and our morality, we discover the "relationship" which "is the basis for all feelings of reverance, fear, awe, wonder, sorrow, and deference in the face of something greater and more powerful." (120). Boss even suggests that "the most dignified human relationship to death" involves keeping it--as a possibility rather than an actuality--constantly in awareness without fleeing from it. As Boss writes: "Only such a being-unto-death can guarantee the precondition that the Dasein be able to free itself from its absorption in, its submission and surrender of itself to the things and relationships of everyday living and to return to itself." (121) Such a recognition brings the human being back to his responsibility for his existence. This is not simply a inward withdrawal from the world--far from it. Rather, this responsible awareness of death as the ultimate possibility for human existence frees the human being to be with others in a genuine way. From this foundation--based on the existentials described above--Boss is able to articulate an understanding of medicine and psychology which gives priority to the freedom of the human being to be itself. By freedom, Boss does not mean a freedom to have all the possibilites, for we are finite and limited by our factical history and death. Yet within these finite possibilities, we are free to be who we are and to take responsibility for who we are in the world with others and alongside things that matter.

Edited by TheHutt
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

my ballot is in. I sent it to rhizome.

















i voted aff

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

quoting it ruins the spoiler effect, but i guess people have already viewed it. The aff was the clear winner.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

uhhh...not to jump on the bandwagon, but i was asked to judge and will fill in if needed.


Paradigm: I vote for the winning team, whatever that entails. granted thats a bit nebulous, so on specific arguments:


T/theory: probably used excessively, and since it wasnt really an issue in this round, ill be brief, but my nonsensical ramblings with probably offer you insight into my general (ill)legitimacy. as with every living human, ill only pull the trigger if the abuse is inround, or if SO much time is spent on potential abuse as a voter. In the words of Dallas Perkins, "abuse? boy, no one abused you, you dont have a mark on you". [paraphrased slightly]


CP: nothing particularly interesting in this field, i think that cp's shift presumption and all that nonsense. competition can probably be artificial, conditionality debates frustrate me, probably because ive won soooo many rounds on the substantive level, but dropped on condo. I think im probably more open to obstruse counterplan types that most people (i.e. minute pics, process cp's, etc.) hate and the DA/CP strat seems to be pretty solid.


DA: idk, if theres anything i can even write in this field. one time i was reading the infamous west coast theory handbook and stumbled upon the DA theory section and laughed for about 48 hours straight. I guess weigh a lot. I think politics is pretty contrived, but seeing as it was went for here, i GUESS i can look at it objectively, for fear of being excluded.


K: im probably one of those really annoying K debators no one really likes. I think theyre soooo strategic, and are soooo not non-unique disads with a utopian cp stuck in the end. that would be illegit ;-)

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey
im ok with poneill. just make sure you read evidence especialy this "WSJ" evidence.



i just <3 people telling judges things after the round is over.

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.

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.


  • Create New...