Jump to content
twdcjgads

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
      38
    • neg
      22


Recommended Posts

are you to fucking stupid that you don't understand the CP consults with businesses over the plan? i said that in cx, what else did you want me to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont understand this wsj evidence. if the evidence says the shit will pass in the STIMULUS - the freaking disad im running why would you even give the argument any weight? it wouldn't make the da inevitable b/c it gets passed IN the stimulus.

 

WSJ says regardless of plan, obama's pushing Alt energy in the stimulus bill. You don't change that as the neg. This means unless your link is specific to Nuclear energy, the disad is nonunique because alt energy is going to be pushed with the stimulus WITH OR WITHOUT THE PLAN. Your link is Ae prevents stimulus passage. Seems like a pretty damned clear n/u to me.

 

another question, the 2ac made the wsj xap in the 2ac on ptix he extended it on the k but not the da, why would you even evaluate a new 2ar xap that was on the flow but not extended? that seems illigit to me and unpredictable for the 2nr.

 

Well the way I evaluate that is I have two competing extensions (your ptix DA and their wsj ev) on different flows. The claim is still a claim that I have to resolve in terms of my ballot, and insofar as they even link their WSJ ev into your link ev to prove their point. Plus, even if I don't evaluate the WSJ ev, I'm pretty sure they're ahead on the "ur disad is empirically denied" arg which means there's no impact to the disad, meaning I'd still vote aff. I even went and read the wsj article after reading the card, and the not underlined portions of the card to make sure there was nothing I was missing (which there isn't).

 

also WOGO you say, "counterplan has no net benefit" how is an argument the da inevitable offense? its pure defensive and when they concede the U debate that it will pass now then I would control the direction of link which means there's only a risk it will pass, why wouldn't that be sufficent enough to win a big enough risk of the disad? also granted they get the perm wouldn't a CONCEDED da turns the case be a sufficent enough for a ballot.

 

Impact inevitable and Impact empirically denied means even granting you win the U and the L debate, you've got no unique benefit to the CP. They don't need offense at the point where they've taken out your impact on 2 levels.

 

Also, the CP links to the DA, Christian. Insofar as the CP consults BUSINESSES, it does nothing to fix congresses perception. Plus the block ev about why the way in which we implement AE is what causes the link never came, so you never had a real reason the DA didn't link to the CP. It's still an AE policy, which, per the 2nd 1nc link card, links to the disad.

 

poneill you said "no coherent clarification of the CP until the the 2nr" in cross-x i said "We consult with businesses" how is that not an answer?

 

 

Here's your arg in cross-x

 

we fiat they negotiate over the plan, what dont you get?!

 

here's the 2nr analysis:

 

the nuclear regulatory commission will license who builds and how they manage plants under there standards as per your plan text. That would be a direct regulation on businesses effected by the plan, because they say what those constructers can and cannot do. You also uncap loan guarantees which was a previous regulation means you have an effect on previous regulations. Either way this argument is soooo stupid, its irrelevant whether the plans a regulation or not, the counterplan CONSULTS with businesses over the substance and implementation of the plan i.e what we think about this treaty, uncapping loan guarantees etc.--there's literally no impact to this argument or the luce evidence and directly answers his no solvency arguments because we do the plan but negotiate with businesses first. think of this like a consult counterplan--we consult with businesses over what the plan does.

 

Up until the 2nr, there's some vague idea that we negotiate parts of a treaty (which doesn't really make sense, it's a yes/no question with the aff. you can't modify/improve it, which is for sure in the 1ar). Then, in the 2nr, you explain what the negotiation consists of, all the stuff about the nuclear regulatory commission, etc. I'm not getting a clear story as to how the CP functions in the round until the 2nr. If that was your cross-x answer, I'd have to do a lot more thinking to figure out a bunch of issues. Plus, you drop CP is plan-plus, and I'm not really understanding that time tradeoff argument in relation to how the CP wouldn't link.

 

 

I think the biggest issues in this round for you christian are that A) you're not very clear about the CP until the 2nr, and B) you're not engaging in the line-by-line/impact calc debate enough which makes it really hard for me as a judge to give you any leeway in this debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont understand this wsj evidence. if the evidence says the shit will pass in the STIMULUS - the freaking disad im running why would you even give the argument any weight? it wouldn't make the da inevitable b/c it gets passed IN the stimulus.

 

another question, the 2ac made the wsj xap in the 2ac on ptix he extended it on the k but not the da, why would you even evaluate a new 2ar xap that was on the flow but not extended? that seems illigit to me and unpredictable for the 2nr.

 

also WOGO you say, "counterplan has no net benefit" how is an argument the da inevitable offense? its pure defensive and when they concede the U debate that it will pass now then I would control the direction of link which means there's only a risk it will pass, why wouldn't that be sufficent enough to win a big enough risk of the disad? also granted they get the perm wouldn't a CONCEDED da turns the case be a sufficent enough for a ballot.

 

the non-unique translates into terminal offense in the impact calculus flow. This is an important thing for you to learn, all things aside, in this round, because you seem unable to demonstrate this in your other rounds. Although by itself, a non-unique is defensive, when combined onto an impact calculus flow the way demonstrated by the aff in the 1ar, it can take away your timeframe access. And timeframe was what won the round from a policy standpoint.

 

And although you win that the stimulus will pass now, they also win the AE now, meaning the link will get activated regardless. From a policy standpoint, there is no net benefit to delaying the plan in order to cause a stimulus to pass which will fail regardless of the delay.

 

poneill you said "no coherent clarification of the CP until the the 2nr" in cross-x i said "We consult with businesses" how is that not an answer?

 

 

 

 

In your opinion, what is the "non unique" argument making?

 

That's be the WSJ '09 evidence that was never brought up by the neg since the 1nc. THe one that says "AE inevitable - stimulus increased funding"

 

 

 

 

What was the solvency deficit to the cp? Why does the aff get to weigh this?

 

 

Again, from above, timeframe. It was in the 1ar and the 2ar. The CP delays the plan, which causes the short-timeframe impacts from the 1ac, prolif for example, to go off before the plan can solve. That's a solvency deficit and a disad to the CP.

 

 

 

 

 

What was the net benefit to the perm? Did the aff really win a 0% risk of the link?

 

 

Of course there wasn't 0% risk of a link, but the combined policies would be more preferrable from a policy standpoint than either of them individually. CP alone gets the case as a disad, case alone, theoretically, gets the disad. Both solves.

 

 

[/size][/font]

 

 

Where did the 2ar make the argument that the delayed cp won't be able to solve Iran prolif (is their brink ev really that good?)

 

[/size][/font]

 

 

Yeah, dropping their Francona evidence killed the neg. It was good evidence, read it. I ran it in my own aff for a while. The brink warrants are strong. And it was in the 1ar/2ar, dropped in the 2nr

 

Wat? Is this even an argument?

 

yes, read the aff rebuttals

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quit being so cocky. You clearly don't understand debate.

 

 

 

 

 

Stop right there. This debate proves why reading politics uniqueness in the 1ac is retarded. It's never a good idea to forclose the ability to link turn politics in the 1ac. The WSJ ev is uniquness FOR the disad (it's saying that Obama's going to get stimulus passed now...)

 

no, it's not... Read it. It says Obama is pushing AE now...

 

 

What??? Clearly doesn't make any sense. If he's pushing AE IN the stimulus, that AE would never be passed in the first place because the plan LINKS. dur dur

 

 

No... you make the argument that stimulus is inevitable, question is TF. If passage is inevitable, aff can't stop passage altogether. N/U is still in play.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope you didn't vote on an argument that was never made in any of the speeches (that doesn't really make any sense either)

 

 

 

 

 

Dude... did you read the 1nc evidence? Also, this is just defense, I'm still not sure how "cp might link too" is a reason to vote aff...

 

 

 

 

 

err... case outweighs? when the cp SOLVES case???

 

yeah, this is the timeframe leverage argument above. the N/U allows him to access it, your misconception of defense lost you the round.

 

 

 

Here's how I see the debate:

 

the 1AR fails when he doesn't make a solvency deficit that actually makes SENSE. Saying that "you can reg neg treaties" is just retarded, and isn't a solvency deficit, it's just defense on the net benefit. Because you screwed up in the 1ac and couldn't link turn politics, and because the cp solves case, there's a better chance that the plan links to politics than the cp, so neg seems like the winner here...

 

.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ill try to respond to your post as nicely as i can.

 

the non-unique translates into terminal offense in the impact calculus flow.

what? da inevitable turns into offense? please make sense.

This is an important thing for you to learn, all things aside, in this round, because you seem unable to demonstrate this in your other rounds.

please dont try to teach me, you obviously have no clue or little knowledge about debate. theres not one reputable person who has a clue what your saying. da inevitable is defense, it doesnt translate into anything.

Although by itself, a non-unique is defensive, when combined onto an impact calculus flow the way demonstrated by the aff in the 1ar, it can take away your timeframe access. And timeframe was what won the round from a policy standpoint.

da inevitable is defense no matter where it is on a flow. if something takes away from timeframe thats still defense because the aff isn't saying that something is bad their saying theres a longer timeframe before the impact happens and in this context makes no sense (proves how stupid you are) b/c their saying the shits going to happen anyways which doesnt make the timeframe for the impact longer - it means it going to happen no matter what which the only way it could be tied to impact cal is saying (disads going to happen anyway so you might as well do the plan) thats pretty sad if you don't know the difference.

And although you win that the stimulus will pass now, they also win the AE now, meaning the link will get activated regardless.

no it doesn't - that only proves all the reasons why political capital will be key to get it passed and a reason to not do the plan - theres only a risk the aff will prevent it from passing. Also, learn to read evidence, it says LOAN GUARENTEES are going to pass in the STIMULUS, are you to stupid to understand? it wouldn't activate the link b/c its going to pass IN the legislation. seriously, learn to use you're brain.

From a policy standpoint, there is no net benefit to delaying the plan in order to cause a stimulus to pass which will fail regardless of the delay.

this goes back to offense-defense - all he has is da inevitable which is hardly defense even if its conceded b/c a risk of the da is always a reason to prefer the CP.

 

That's be the WSJ '09 evidence that was never brought up by the neg since the 1nc. THe one that says "AE inevitable - stimulus increased funding"

no it doesn't - I should have never asked you to judge. it says loan guarentees will pass in the stimulus (my freaking da). This makes no sense either way and proves how much of a dumbass you are. Even if alt energy passed that means theres no link uniqueness and the impact should have happened - not that it's inevitable. And have you ever heard of "my link evidence post dates or my evidence assumes this" the stimulus passed october 3rd 2008, my link evidence is from december 12th and obviously takes your argument into account.

 

Again, from above, timeframe. It was in the 1ar and the 2ar. The CP delays the plan, which causes the short-timeframe impacts from the 1ac, prolif for example, to go off before the plan can solve. That's a solvency deficit and a disad to the CP.

there was never a delay argument in the 2ac, 1ar, or 2ar so your choosing to intervene - fuck you.

 

Of course there wasn't 0% risk of a link, but the combined policies would be more preferrable from a policy standpoint than either of them individually. CP alone gets the case as a disad, case alone, theoretically, gets the disad. Both solves.

oh really? so a 1% risk of the da(there was a large risk) with a counterplan isnt preferable to the plan. Get the fuck out!!! nuh-uh.

 

Yeah, dropping their Francona evidence killed the neg. It was good evidence, read it.

I just read it and its shitty as hell.

 

I ran it in my own aff for a while. The brink warrants are strong. And it was in the 1ar/2ar, dropped in the 2nr

I dare you to post a warrant in this card. Theres no timeframe for the evidence and never a delay argument(i have answers to the delay) - so this is you intervening and making shit up again.

 

yes, read the aff rebuttals

I bet if I would've said in my 2nc or 2nr and if the aff dropped it "the counterplan will make the world perfect!" you would've voted on it too, right? no. there elmore argument was blipply and terrible which is why I didn't waste time answering it (even tommy or poneill didn't evaluate it).

 

yeah, this is the timeframe leverage argument above. the N/U allows him to access it, your misconception of defense lost you the round.

misconception of defense? please tell me your joking? maybe you need to go back to debate one, get a new coach/mentor or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. But, the aff also wins the impact calculus on the disad. This is what seals the debate for the aff.

yeah since the counterplan solved none of the case....

 

The 2ac/1ar analysis on impact calc is very clear, and the evidence on the aff is more conclusive –

theres ZERO impact calculas done in the 1ar on iran. ZERO. you let the 2ar get away with a cheapshot application and you let the 2ar do two parapgraphs of impact cal when it wasn't in the 1ar? i want to hear the justification for this. Yeah and since my boston globe evidence says the economy will collapse in a few weeks oh yeah defitnly.

 

Iran proliferates in months, which accesses all of the disad impacts plus more.

what? lol accesses the impacts? where was this in the debate?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In your opinion, what is the "non unique" argument making?

 

The WSJ ev specifically states

 

"Mr. Obama has pledged to double over three years the amount of U.S. wind, solar and geothermal generating capacity, which is currently around 25,000 megawatts. In a down payment on that effort, House Democrats unveiled an economic-stimulus package Thursday that calls for $20 billion of tax cuts for renewable-energy production and an additional $54 billion of spending to modernize the country's aging electricity grid, and to make homes, vehicles and buildings more energy efficient. For wind power, the bill would extend by three years a production tax credit currently set to expire at the end of 2009."A renewable-energy economy isn't something pie-in-the-sky, it's not part of a far-off future," Mr. Obama said. "It's happening all across America right now. It's providing alternatives to foreign oil now. It can create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries if we act right now." "

 

The stuff I bolded specifically states that AE IS PART OF THE STIMULUS DUMBASS. OBAMA HAD PROVISIONS IN THE SITMULUS PACKAGE THAT GIVES AE INCENTIVES (non-nuclear incentives).

 

 

What was the net benefit to the perm? Did the aff really win a 0% risk of the link?

 

Assuming for a second that the negotiations solve the stimulus, in a world in which the neg concedes the cp is plan-plus, perm do both would solve pltx.

 

Wat? Is this even an argument?

 

Yeah, it's an argument. Go read the 2ac. Elmore is in it.

 

 

Quit being so cocky. You clearly don't understand debate.

 

It's not my fault christian tells me to specifically read a piece of evidence that answers the only neg offense and has been cold conceded throughout the entire round.

 

 

Stop right there. This debate proves why reading politics uniqueness in the 1ac is retarded. It's never a good idea to forclose the ability to link turn politics in the 1ac. The WSJ ev is uniquness FOR the disad (it's saying that Obama's going to get stimulus passed now...)

 

It's says obama is tying AE to the stimulus. Read the article yourself if you don't believe me.

 

What??? Clearly doesn't make any sense. If he's pushing AE IN the stimulus, that AE would never be passed in the first place because the plan LINKS. dur dur

 

Huh? Remind me where this arg was in any speech? Oh yeah, that's right, christian conceded the WSJ ev in every speech. Plus, it kinda did pass, so your arg is just false.

 

 

I hope you didn't vote on an argument that was never made in any of the speeches (that doesn't really make any sense either)

 

I thought I made it clear that it was just a thought I had, not something I voted on.

 

 

Dude... did you read the 1nc evidence? Also, this is just defense, I'm still not sure how "cp might link too" is a reason to vote aff...

 

It's not "cp might link too" its "cp links 100%".

 

here's the tag from the 2nd link card " An alternative energy transition will cost Obama all available political capital"

 

Hmmm, so plan does AE, CP also does AE, but does nothing to affect the mood in congress about AE, so therefore we have:

 

Plan (which is ae) and CP (which is ae and negotiate with BUSINESSES (not congress) over the plan)

 

 

err... case outweighs? when the cp SOLVES case???

 

Errr, CP can't just claim "solves case" that's elmore 80. You have to show a specific solvency mechanism in order to actually claim solvency. Insofar as the CP doesn't do that, even if I don't evaluate it as a CP takeout, it minimally means CP solves none of case.

 

 

the 1AR fails when he doesn't make a solvency deficit that actually makes SENSE. Saying that "you can reg neg treaties" is just retarded, and isn't a solvency deficit, it's just defense on the net benefit. Because you screwed up in the 1ac and couldn't link turn politics, and because the cp solves case, there's a better chance that the plan links to politics than the cp, so neg seems like the winner here...

 

Too bad there's no analysis as to how the CP even functions until the 2nr. Otherwise you might be right, Clifford...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian:

I think you were in a much better position to go for the disad alone, because you get to claim inevitability of alternative/nuclear energy out of the stimulus, which solves their impacts. The counterplan was idiotic, though, and entirely unstrategic, since it doesn't actually avoid the disad and can never solve case as well as the plan, since reg negs can fail. Kind of like consulting...

But in conclusion, I would have ended up voting aff on the perm. Negative answers were sheisty and blippy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian:

I think you were in a much better position to go for the disad alone, because you get to claim inevitability of alternative/nuclear energy out of the stimulus, which solves their impacts. The counterplan was idiotic, though, and entirely unstrategic, since it doesn't actually avoid the disad and can never solve case as well as the plan, since reg negs can fail. Kind of like consulting...

But in conclusion, I would have ended up voting aff on the perm. Negative answers were sheisty and blippy.

why the perm? i made it clear it should be a test of comp.

 

The stuff I bolded specifically states that AE IS PART OF THE STIMULUS DUMBASS. OBAMA HAD PROVISIONS IN THE SITMULUS PACKAGE THAT GIVES AE INCENTIVES (non-nuclear incentives).

yeah since you forgot the specific nuclear energy links i read in the 1nr(remember he indicted the 1nc link card and I went for different cards) also that doesn't mean he's spending political capital only its part of the package which means it would have to be seperate legislation for it to trigger a link. even if its being debated now that proves all the reasons why PC is key to get is passed(link can only go one way. stimulus will PASS NOW meaning this is hardly defense for the aff.)

 

 

 

 

Assuming for a second that the negotiations solve the stimulus, in a world in which the neg concedes the cp is plan-plus, perm do both would solve pltx.

please don't tell me you voted on a plan plus on perm do both. also there argument was if something gets added in negotations its plan plus but they never prove something would(it was a dumb argument). Also they conceded it the 2nc and 2nr perm is only a test of comp which means you still evaluate the disad.

 

 

 

Yeah, it's an argument. Go read the 2ac. Elmore is in it.

dont tell me you voted on this blippy argument too. my answer that we consult was clear in cx, you just actually believed your stupid argument they cant negotiate a treaty, well no shit, the counterplan consults with businesses over the plan. if thats not clear enough for you then thats sad.

 

 

 

It's says obama is tying AE to the stimulus. Read the article yourself if you don't believe me.

answered above. if they concede it will pass now then theres only a risk they prevent that (link debate 101. plus it wasnt like a plan popular debate only an inevitably argumentt means it hardly D for them)

 

 

 

Oh yeah, that's right, christian conceded the WSJ ev in every speech.

this is a lie i answered it in every speech except the 2nr. And why would you accept a 2ar xap like that? it was on both flows in the 2ac but not extended in the 1ar on politics, how is that predictable for me?

 

 

 

 

It's not "cp might link too" its "cp links 100%".

 

here's the tag from the 2nd link card " An alternative energy transition will cost Obama all available political capital" Hmmm, so plan does AE, CP also does AE, but does nothing to affect the mood in congress about AE, so therefore we have:

 

Plan (which is ae) and CP (which is ae and negotiate with BUSINESSES (not congress) over the plan)

a tag for a card says so much about it. I bet if I would've tagged a card "the CP will bring world peace" you would've bought that too right? maybe you should read the cards and actually flow my speech. It says reg-negs overcome legislative gridlock and have a psychological effect on those invovled which makes the shit popular.

 

 

 

 

Errr, CP can't just claim "solves case" that's elmore 80. You have to show a specific solvency mechanism in order to actually claim solvency. Insofar as the CP doesn't do that

i made it clear. by the way the aff never mentioned how the plan solved in any speech besides the 2ac...why didn't you vote them down. (this goes back to dont vote on blippy arguments which make no sense in the context in which it was applied.)

 

even if I don't evaluate it as a CP takeout, it minimally means CP solves none of case.

what?

 

 

 

 

Too bad there's no analysis as to how the CP even functions until the 2nr. Otherwise you might be right, Clifford...

this is blatanly false. by the way stop calling him clifford he's alot better debater than you probably and you wouldn't like it if people started calling you dumbshit....

Edited by twdcjgads
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My RFD

So, I went back and I read the debate backwards from the 2AR to the 1AC and then from 2ac to the 2ar and then I read just the 1ar to the 2ar and then re-read the 2nr alone.

Christian, I think this debate is actually rather interesting – you have this ‘talk to the business’ over plan which supposedly avoids politics and solves case because, well, it is case. I think you’re evidence talking about how reg-negs avoid the political firestorm that would normally come without consulting or talking to businesses over plan. Your Percival evidence is quite terrible – it doesn’t go into detail on why ‘consensus building’ (Which, I think is a little different than reg-neg) actually changes the ‘political dynamics’ of plan or WHY it would do that. I also don’t think your Harter evidence gives a warrant for why public involvement or consensus building causes these issues to not cause a shit-storm in congress. Your best card on this issue is the mee evidence which talks about how negations between parties solves political disputes because it creates coalitions rather than subjugated groups. I don’t think this is your best argument as politics is a netbenifit. I think you should play around with this idea of your ‘fast-tracked’ impacts. Aff = plan now which causes the impacts. Neg = delay in plan because of the negotiations which allows stimulus to get passed. The affirmative makes this stupid argument on Elmore which is spun interestingly between the 2AC to the 1AR to the 2AR. Essentially it’s a gut-check against the CP – if you can’t explain what the specific mechanism of how the CP works then reject it on value because of solvency issues (no solvency against cp’s = offense). You’re argument back to that is ‘It says those affected by the plan negotiate i.e nuclear regulatory comission--thats clairification.’ I have no clue what that means. And they did ask in cross-x…pretty clearly. Your 2NR answer should have been the cx answer or in the 2NC. It’s rather new by this point in the debate and I am giving a lot of weight to this ‘reject the cp on face’ elmore cheap shot theory/stupid argument. As a result I through out the CP. Which allows them to hedge a lot of offense against the d/a and you’re right – ALL of their offense is solved for by the cp. I think you’re even right on this question of the wsj evidence – I don’t think you’re right on this question of the imapacts though. And coupled with their case outweighs arguments and the newness of your arguments I think there’s only a risk of voting affirmative.

Good debate though. Positive rep for you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what about the conceded "da turns case" why wouldn't that be a sufficient reason to vote neg?

Because that's not responsive at all to the aff advantages, which are largely perception-based. Ratifying Section 123 doesn't actually require that we build any plants.

 

And the reason I didn't address that specifically in the 1AR was because you hid it in a giant block of text at the end of a card without separating it with a line of space. I didn't even see the damn blip and I would not be surprised if the judges missed it either, so there. Be more careful next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because that's not responsive at all to the aff advantages, which are largely perception-based. Ratifying Section 123 doesn't actually require that we build any plants.

 

And the reason I didn't address that specifically in the 1AR was because you hid it in a giant block of text at the end of a card without separating it with a line of space. I didn't even see the damn blip and I would not be surprised if the judges missed it either, so there. Be more careful next time.

turning your solvency doesnt mean anything....please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what about the conceded "da turns case" why wouldn't that be a sufficient reason to vote neg?

That's a good question and it had me think. They should have went for the timeframe arguments though.

 

To me a few things played in -

 

A. Which happens first, case impacts or dis-ad impacts. I agree with you with the dis-ad impacts happening first.

 

B. So now it's a question of dis-ad impacts being good or bad (the stimulus debate). I think that it's fair to assume that as quickly as the dis-ad impacts happen, the aff turns would happen just as quick. That along with the case arguments for magnitude and probability and their defense on timeframe make it possible to not 'automatically' vote neg. They are small analytical mitigations as well and you have zero-case arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what about the conceded "da turns case" why wouldn't that be a sufficient reason to vote neg?

 

When you go for a counterplan, presumption shifts affirmative, because you've admitted that the squo is bad and something should be done. Now the burden is on the negative to prove that the counterplan is uniquely better than the plan. If the aff wins (at least a significant risk) that the disad links to the CP too, then we vote aff on presumption.

 

I voted on the perm because it proved a) the plan and counterplan aren't mutually exclusive and that B) if there's a risk that the counterplan solves disad, then there's no reason articulated that counterplan + plan wouldn't also solve for any residual link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why the perm? i made it clear it should be a test of comp.

 

Because you can't both kick the cp (ie perm works) and go for the cp.

 

yeah since you forgot the specific nuclear energy links i read in the 1nr(remember he indicted the 1nc link card and I went for different cards) also that doesn't mean he's spending political capital only its part of the package which means it would have to be seperate legislation for it to trigger a link. even if its being debated now that proves all the reasons why PC is key to get is passed(link can only go one way. stimulus will PASS NOW meaning this is hardly defense for the aff.)

 

That's not what your ev is saying. Your link ev says all AE policies, in the stimulus or not, cost obama PC. Plus, WSJ says not only is AE included in the stimulus, Obama is currently pushing to double the amount of AE used right now. That means squo links, dawg.

 

 

please don't tell me you voted on a plan plus on perm do both. also there argument was if something gets added in negotations its plan plus but they never prove something would(it was a dumb argument). Also they conceded it the 2nc and 2nr perm is only a test of comp which means you still evaluate the disad.

 

1. why not? If cp = plan plus negotiations (they say plan = best option, so nothing would get added/removed), then insofar as the 2nr goes for the cp (see above), the cp isn't a reason to vote neg without a disad that links to the perm (which the cp doesn't).

 

2. The arg you're making only works if you kick the cp/k alt, in which case the aff doesn't get access to the perm.

 

 

dont tell me you voted on this blippy argument too. my answer that we consult was clear in cx, you just actually believed your stupid argument they cant negotiate a treaty, well no shit, the counterplan consults with businesses over the plan. if thats not clear enough for you then thats sad.

 

Dude, Elmore is talking about solvency mechanisms/who's involved/what the negotiation process entails. Re-read my first response to your comments. You give a one sentence blip about hte CP in cross and refuse to answer any other questions about it, and then explain how the CP functions, what the negotiations consist of, etc. in the 2nr. This arg was also

 

answered above. if they concede it will pass now then theres only a risk they prevent that (link debate 101. plus it wasnt like a plan popular debate only an inevitably argumentt means it hardly D for them)

 

The way I learned debate, disad inevitable + terminal impact empirically denied = terminal defense. I don't know of any stronger D on anything other than "not only is your impact (stimulus won't pass) already going to happen, but

 

 

 

this is a lie i answered it in every speech except the 2nr. And why would you accept a 2ar xap like that? it was on both flows in the 2ac but not extended in the 1ar on politics, how is that predictable for me?

 

your 1nr was "2ac11

no impact to this---thats months away---the bill will pass before then."

 

It's not answered in the 1nc.

 

The issue is that this is incoherent. Even if I grant it's a coherent response, you still would have had to extend it in the 2nr for me to even consider weighing between the two args.

 

Re: new xap

 

Because as a judge, you don't just evaluate each flow in a vacuum. Everything interacts with everything else, and worst case, I just buy the 2ar extension from the K flow, at which point I have 2 competing claims, and I end up preferring the WSJ ev primarily on strength of link, but also based on the specificity of the evidence (link ev is pretty vague whereas the wsj ev is pretty damned explicit).

 

 

a tag for a card says so much about it. I bet if I would've tagged a card "the CP will bring world peace" you would've bought that too right? maybe you should read the cards and actually flow my speech. It says reg-negs overcome legislative gridlock and have a psychological effect on those invovled which makes the shit popular.

 

If you read a card tagged "the cp will bring world peace" and the aff never contests the claim "cp --> world peace", then yes, I would vote on that. They're extending the ev as saying that, you're not contesting said extension, so I'll give them the full weight of the arg.

 

i made it clear. by the way the aff never mentioned how the plan solved in any speech besides the 2ac...why didn't you vote them down. (this goes back to dont vote on blippy arguments which make no sense in the context in which it was applied.)

 

They explain plan solvency in the 1ac/2ac. That's sufficient because elmore's arg is when a policy is being proposed (ie constructives), we have to have an understanding of how the policy works in order to engage in the proper debate over it. You don't do this until the 2nr, which is waaayyy to late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your dreaming because there is no such thing as red highlighters. *pinches the fat guy*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

none of what the judges are saying make sense. the neg won, it wasn't even close. perm do both links to politics regardless b/c they concede "perm is a slap in face to businesses s they say no" thus the perm isnt strong enough to overcome. CP doesn't link, the aff is dropping all this block evidence how the reg-neg makes the plan popular. I agree that this elmore argument is stupid and function of the CP is clear(elmore should have been answered though, but still it was to cheapshot to vote on). WSJ doesn't make sense b/c it says its going to pass in the stimulus and even if its inevitable that only proves all the reasons why PC is key. risk of the da when the CP solves ALL of the case is to damning to even consider voting aff.

 

EDIT: please tell me what I don't get neg repper? i'd be glad to discuss it with you.

Edited by papajohn
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
none of what the judges are saying make sense. the neg won, it wasn't even close. perm do both links to politics regardless b/c they concede "perm is a slap in face to businesses s they say no" thus the perm isnt strong enough to overcome. CP doesn't link, the aff is dropping all this block evidence how the reg-neg makes the plan popular. I agree that this elmore argument is stupid and function of the CP is clear(elmore should have been answered though, but still it was to cheapshot to vote on). WSJ doesn't make sense b/c it says its going to pass in the stimulus and even if its inevitable that only proves all the reasons why PC is key. risk of the da when the CP solves ALL of the case is to damning to even consider voting aff.

 

EDIT: please tell me what I don't get neg repper? i'd be glad to discuss it with you.

 

 

I voted on CP solves, WSJ evi is whack and any risk of a DA, gotta vote neg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
none of what the judges are saying make sense. the neg won, it wasn't even close. perm do both links to politics regardless b/c they concede "perm is a slap in face to businesses s they say no" thus the perm isnt strong enough to overcome. CP doesn't link, the aff is dropping all this block evidence how the reg-neg makes the plan popular. I agree that this elmore argument is stupid and function of the CP is clear(elmore should have been answered though, but still it was to cheapshot to vote on). WSJ doesn't make sense b/c it says its going to pass in the stimulus and even if its inevitable that only proves all the reasons why PC is key. risk of the da when the CP solves ALL of the case is to damning to even consider voting aff.

 

EDIT: please tell me what I don't get neg repper? i'd be glad to discuss it with you.

 

you would be correct, if Cjiron had made some of these arguments and not dropped so much. Cjiron could have won the round, but he didn't make the right arguments. Too many drops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
none of what the judges are saying make sense. the neg won, it wasn't even close. perm do both links to politics regardless b/c they concede "perm is a slap in face to businesses s they say no" thus the perm isnt strong enough to overcome. CP doesn't link, the aff is dropping all this block evidence how the reg-neg makes the plan popular. I agree that this elmore argument is stupid and function of the CP is clear(elmore should have been answered though, but still it was to cheapshot to vote on). WSJ doesn't make sense b/c it says its going to pass in the stimulus and even if its inevitable that only proves all the reasons why PC is key. risk of the da when the CP solves ALL of the case is to damning to even consider voting aff.

 

EDIT: please tell me what I don't get neg repper? i'd be glad to discuss it with you.

THIS IS WAT YOU DONT GET

  • Downvote 1

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...