Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maury

Round 173: ??? vs. The Win Store (Mullins and Murray)

Recommended Posts

T - Substantially, consult CP, the 2nr position with his overview thing ontop.

T - Substantially

 

Prefer in round abuse standard - Only reason you should vote on T is if we made it IMPOSSIBLE to debate. T shouldn't be a search for the best interp because these rounds don't spill over and it distracts from substantive debates about real policy means we have a DA to "best interp."

 

They overlimit - we'd debate one aff every round, alternative energy. The negative would out research the aff and it would lead to stale debates. Overlimiting kills aff ground and tips the scales in the negative favor.

 

If we win overlimiting is bad then their limits key to ground argument is irrelevant. Ground key and outweighs limits - without ground the negative couldn't argue as many positions as the aff on the topic.

 

Extend linberg - substantial must be a real change in incentives, we have the most grammatically correct interp because substantially modifies increase means you CANNOT qualify incentives NOT alternative energy means there's no violation and takes out their offense on limits.

 

He misunderstands our ground argument - alt energy now is not inevitable under our interp because we force negatives to research links to specific aff's which gives them better DA ground and forces specific counterplan research. also, means we link turn there research argument.

 

aff ground outweighs - the negative block creates pressure on the 1AR - flips the structural advantage of the 2AR (first/last speech) and infinite prep.

 

no warrant for why advantages solve education. your interp allows stale debates about alternative energy - only qualifiying certain alternative energies allows aff innovation and is the best internal link to education.

 

Education outweighs - its the reason we debate - no one joined saying " I hope I have good ground this debate!" only the education we get in debate will have an effect on us . We don't unlimit you can only qualify 7 forms of alternative energy

Gokay, International Relations Keele University, 2006, The Politics of Oil: A Survey, ed. B. Gokay, p. 123-4

THE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CLASSIFIES THE FOLLOWING FUELS AS ALTERNATIVE FUELS: biodiesel, electricity, ethanol, HYDROGEN, wind, geothermal and solar energy.

 

potential abuse is arbitrary - the negative can always say we could've done something and we lose. Also, all they'd have to do is run T every round and neg always wins.

 

Reasonability not arbitrary - reasonability allows the judge to determine if our aff is fair or not. compt interps bad - allows a race to the bottom to limit out our aff.

 

2AC 5 my seasons over and there's 2 tournaments left on this topic - voting negative does NOTHING to deter me or teams from running these aff's in the future.

 

Consult CP

 

XAP theory is not a voting issue analysis means you dont vote on T.

 

Space CP overview

 

Human Extinction is inevitable from peak oil - if we win a risk that without colonization extinction isn't inevitable then you vote aff because stevens functionally conceding an extinction scenario - peak oil outweighs - flynn says the peak is within the next 3 yrs means its try or die for the aff and you vote aff to allow humainty longer to survive.

 

no impact to bostrom - we access an extinction scenario too.

 

Let me make this shapiro evidence clear - you CANNOT xap evidence from CX, only the exact formatting of the card from the 2ac means they access none of this shapiro bullshit. Either way, if you didn't get it, he is making fun of stephen hawking and all the people who think colonilization is possibile.

 

There's no obligation to space colonization - timeframe arguments above answer this - let some other policy maker solve his impacts 100's of years from now when we have impacts that will occur in the immeadiate future.

Group his scenarios thing.

Avoiding nuclear war is crucial for a transition to a Type I civilization

Kaku in ‘4

(Michio, Prof. Theoretical Physics @ City College New York, “Parallel Universes”, p. 360-361)

Our grandchildren, however, will live at the dawning of Earth's first planetary civilization.If we don't allow our often brutal instinct for self-destruction to consume us, our grandchildren could live in an age when want, hunger, and disease no longer haunt our destiny. For the first time in human history, we possess both the means for destroying all life on Earth or realizing a paradise on the planet. As a child, I often wondered what it would be like to live in the far future. Today, I believe that if I could choose to be alive in any particular era of humanity, I would choose this one. We are now at the most exciting time in human history, the cusp of some of the greatest cosmic discoveries and technological advances of all time. [end page 360] nature, with the ability to manipulate life, matter, and intelligence. With this awesome power, however, comes great responsibility, to ensure that the fruits of our efforts are used wisely and for the benefit of all humanity. The generation now alive is perhaps the most important generation of humans ever to walk the Earth. We hold in our hands the future destiny of our species, whether we soar into fulfilling our promise as a type I civilization or fall into the abyss of chaos, pollution, and war. How we resolve global wars, proliferating nuclear weapons, and sectarian and ethnic strife will either lay or destroy the foundations of a type I civilization.Perhaps the purpose and meaning of the current generation are to make sure that the transition to a type I civilization is a smooth one.

 

That’s key to rip the worm hole and avoid the big freeze

Kaku in ‘4

(Michio, Prof. Theoretical Physics @ City College New York, Discover, “How to Survive the End of the Universe”, 12-3, http://discovermagazine.com/2004/dec...nd-of-universe)

To journey safely from this universe to another—to investigate the various options and do some trial runs—an advanced civilization will need to be able to harness energy on a scale that dwarfs anything imaginable by today’s standards. To grasp the challenge, consider a schema introduced in the 1960s by Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev that classified civilizations according to their energy consumption. According to his definition, a Type I civilization is planetary: It is able to exploit all the energy falling on its planet from the sun (1016 watts). This civilization could derive limitless hydrogen from the oceans, perhaps harness the power of volcanoes, and maybe even control the weather. A Type II civilization could control the energy output of the sun itself: 1026 watts, or 10 billion times the power of a Type I civilization. Deriving energy from solar flares and antimatter, Type IIs would be effectively immune to ice ages, meteors, even supernovas. A Type III civilization would be 10 billion times more powerful still, capable of controlling and consuming the output of an entire galaxy (1036 watts). Type IIIs would derive energy by extracting it from billions of stars and black holes. A Type III civilization would be able to manipulate the Planck energy (1019 billion electron volts), the energy at which space-time becomes foamy and unstable, frothing with tiny wormholes and bubble-size universes. The aliens in Independence Day would qualify as a Type III civilization. By contrast, ours would qualify as a Type 0 civilization, deriving its energy from dead plants—oil and coal. But we could evolve rapidly. A civilization like ours growing at a modest 1 to 2 percent per year could make the leap to a Type I civilization in a century or so, to a Type II in a few thousand years, and to a Type III in a hundred thousand to a million years. In that time frame, a Type III civilization could colonize the entire galaxy, even if their rockets traveled at less than the speed of light. With the inevitable Big Freeze at least tens of billions of years away, a Type III civilization would have plenty of time to develop and test an escape plan.

 

All life anywhere dies - biggest impact in debate

Kaku in ‘4

(Michio, Prof. Theoretical Physics @ City College New York, “Parallel Universes”, p. 19-20)

Unless something happens to reverse this expansion, within 150 billion years our Milky Way galaxy will become quite lonely, with 99:99999 percent of all the nearby galaxies speeding past the edge of the visible universe. The familiar galaxies in the night sky will be rushing so fast away from us that their light will never reach us. The galaxies themselves will not disappear, but they will be too far for our telescopes to observe them anymore. Although the visible universe contains approximately l00 billion galaxies, in 150 billion years only a few thousand galaxies in the local supercluster of galaxies will be visible. Even further in time, only our local group, consisting of about thirty-six galaxies, will comprise the entire visible universe, with billions of galaxies drifting past the edge of the horizon. (This is because the gravity within the local group is sufficient to overcome this expansion. Ironically, as the distant galaxies slip away from view, any astronomer living in this dark era may fail to detect an expansion in the universe at all, since the local group of galaxies itself does not expand internally. In the far future, astronomers analyzing the night sky for the first time might not realize that there is any expansion and conclude that the universe is static and consists of only thirty-six galaxies.) If this antigravity force continues, the universe will ultimately die in a big freeze. All intelligent life in the universe will eventually freeze in an agonizing death, as the temperature of deep space plunges toward absolute zero, where the molecules themselves can hardly move.The cosmic expansion will leave only a cold, dead universe of black dwarf stars, neutron stars, and black holes. And even further into the future, the black holes themselves will evaporate their energy away, leaving a lifeless, cold mist of drifting elementary particles. In such a bleak, cold universe, intelligent life by any conceivable definition is physically impossible.The iron laws of thermodynamics forbid the transfer of any information in such a freezing environment, and all life will necessarily cease. The first realization that the universe may eventually die in ice was made in the eighteenth century. Commenting on the depressing concept that the laws of physics seemingly doom all intelligent life, Charles Darwin wrote, "Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress." Unfortunately, the latest data from the WMAP satellite seem to confirm Darwin's worst fears.

 

Jackson doesn't say hydrogen can't solve or we can't solve in general - prefer our specific evidence.

 

He reads blodgett - No risk of black hole or strangelets

R. L. Jaffe, Professor of Physics at MIT, et al, 2000 (“Review of Speculative "Disaster Scenarios" at RHIC,” Rev.Mod.Phys. 72, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910333, Kunal)

We discuss speculative disaster scenarios inspired by hypothetical new fundamental processes that might occur in high energy relativistic heavy ion collisions. We estimate the parameters relevant to black hole production; we find that they are absurdly small. We show that other accelerator and (especially) cosmic ray environments have already provided far more auspicious opportunities for transition to a new vacuum state, so that existing observations provide stringent bounds. We discuss in most detail the possibility of producing a dangerous strangelet. We argue that four separate requirements are necessary for this to occur: existence of large stable strangelets, metastability of intermediate size strangelets, negative charge for strangelets along the stability line, and production of intermediate size strangelets in the heavy ion environment. We discuss both theoretical and experimental reasons why each of these appears unlikely; in particular, we know of no plausible suggestion for why the third or especially the fourth might be true. Given minimal physical assumptions the continued existence of the Moon, in the form we know it, despite billions of years of cosmic ray exposure, provides powerful empirical evidence against the possibility of dangerous strangelet production.

 

 

2AC1

You know the perm is to do the plan and the counterplan - cross-x checks - ask we clarify, solves all his tears. The permutation solves- we can do the plan and the counterplan. There is NO disad to the plan, no reason we can't do both. The net benefit to the perm is the oil and heg advantages - perms the best option.

 

I don't care if your a policy test - you need to prove that we can't do the perm. theres no impact to his congress person and funding thing, so when he explains it in the 2nr ill answer it. The perm accesses baumol best - this is an issue where we have to weigh funding issues between two policies.

 

No reason the perm's intrinsic - we don't add anything to the plan or counterplan - no new 2nr explanations because my 1ar strategy is based off his concessions. Intrinsicness good

1. key to check CP's with no net benefit.

2. Forces debate about the Aff – checks neg from running generic arguments. Forcing negative to research case specific strategies increasing education.

3. intrinsicness perms make the neg research all possible ways their impacts can be solved - leads to better clash and education about the oppurtunity costs.

4. Not a moving target - we can't spike out of a DA b/c you have NONE.

 

permutations don't have to be topical - perms only testing the direct cost to the CP means theres no impact to the counter interp - doesn't solve any reasons why intrinsicness is good.

 

counterperm isn't net beneficial - still doesn't solve the case.

 

If I was into space stuff and wrote for mars society.com I would think all funding should go to mars too! - reject bias evidence.

 

2AC2

Not responsive - oil will peak within 3 years - you cant colonize space by then. Turns the CP - A world of global nuclear war we would spend money fighting and the infrastructure would be destroyed - our aff is a prerequisite to the CP.

 

Hydrogen is the only alternative to oil because of electricity storage - thats lokey means the SQ doesn't solve.

2AC3

Impact evidence assumes US influence i.e the liberal order. Dunn says hydrogen is key to it means we access it.

 

The effects of a nuclear winter would be devastating, leading to the worst ice age in global history and starvation that would lead to extinction.

Robock*, et. al., 2007 (Alan, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, April, “NUCLEAR WINTER REVISITED WITH A MODERN CLIMATE MODEL AND CURRENT NUCLEAR ARSENALS: STILL CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES”, Journal of Geophysical Research- Atmospheres)

The amplitude of the climate changes from the 5 Tg, 50 Tg and 150 Tg cases are compared to those from global warming of the past century in Fig. 8 and climate change of the past 1000 yr in Fig. 9. In both cases it is clear that all cases would produce unprecedented long- lasting climate change. The 50 Tg and 150 Tg cases produce cooling as large or larger than that experienced 18,000 yr ago during the coldest period of the last Ice Age. Harwell and Hutchinson [1986] clearly described the impacts of nuclear winter. They assumed that there would be no food production around the world for one year and concluded that most of the people on the planet would run out of food and starve to death by then. Our results showthat this period of no food production needs to be extended by many years, making the impacts of nuclear winter even worse than previously thought. Agriculture would be affected by many factors, including temperature changes, precipitation changes, and changes in insolation [e.g., Robock et al., 1993; Maytín et al., 1995]. As an example, Fig. 10 shows changes in the length of the freeze-free growing season for the third full growing seasons in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Such large reductions in growing season would completely eliminate crops that have insufficient time to reach maturity. Also, global ozone loss is likely [Toon et al., 2006], with effects on downward ultraviolet radiation [Vogelmann et al., 1992] and atmospheric circulation. Further analysis of these and other effects, which is beyond the scope of this paper, is needed.

 

even if wars inevitable caldwell describes conflicts years from now means our impacts occur first.

 

His next caldwell card goes aff - it says warming will happen in an industrialized civilization the plan solves this - thats sahin.

 

no impact to matheny - says we should value probablities over long timeframes but you concede two extinction scenarios one of which will occur in 3 years - no offense. Magnitude outweighs

(Jonathan, The Fate of the Earth) Schell 82

To employ a mathematical analogy, we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional, the stake is, humanly speaking, infinite, and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. In other words, once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species.

2AC4

space colonization causes nuclear war thats gagon. impossible to reproduce in space.

Giuseppe Lippi, professor and surgeon at the University of Verona, February 26, 2008, Abolishing the Law of Gravity,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/178/5/598

 

 

As the International Space Station moves us closer to the possibilityof colonizing space, it is becoming increasingly important tounderstand the effects of altered gravity on mammalian reproductivephysiology. There is evidence that hypo- and hyper-gravity induce changes in male and female reproductive processes.2 Findings from studies using a variety of experimental conditionsto simulatehypogravity raise questions about whether reproduction is possible when gravity is reduced.Studies using the Holton hindlimb suspension model, which providesa practical way to simulate the major physiologic effects ofhypogravity, are providing evidence that hypogravity might exert pronounced effects on male reproductive processes and reduce the rate of implantation during early pregnancy in rats. Moreover,the cardiovascular deconditioning, bone demineralization and decrease in red blood cell concentration associated with hypogravity might affect the ability of female rats to sustain their pregnancies.Similar findings from experiments during space flights raise questions about whether early pregnancy can be sustained in humans when gravity is reduced.2 Additional research is neededto fill in the gaps in our knowledge about reproductive physiologyunder conditions of hypo- and micro-gravity.

 

2AC5

Shapiro goes aff - things like disease, famine, black plague, war all prove that the things the negative is talking about wont happen - means getting off the rock won't cause or prevent extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No really, offense-defense paradigm is best for T:

In round abuse is an arbitrary standard that is nearly impossible to quantify. What counts as abuse? You cussed at me a lot, that seems like abuse…do I win? These wafty interpretations of how to vote on T lead to rounds where the aff doesn’t link out of dumb arguments because they are afraid of T.

Voting for the BEST interpretation of the topic is good. T has to be a voting issue because it tells the negative what to research.

Round spill over is irrelevant – if you do not have a good interpretation of the topic we never should have had this debate. It is unreasonable to expect me to have DA’s specific to a non-topical plan, means I access your abuse standard. I extended steal the funding for god’s sake, proves there was what Christian calls abuse.

In round abuse doesn’t resolve the limits debate in the slightest because we will certainly always have some shitty generic DA to read against the plan – at least until a thousand affs become topical. They allow giving ethanol to: Native American reservations and they can choose any tribe - Lakota, Navajo, Shoshone, Cherokee

minors,

people in political asylum,

migrant workers,

green card holders,

 

!!! Even if we underlimit to a single plan text, you cold concede our argument that you would always have unique ground via advantage areas that would allow affirmative creativity. Vagueness of the resolution prevents the negative from reading a PIC to win every round.

He also concedes our better internal link to limits: debaters. We are too damn smart and we make sure there is absolutely NO limit on the topic. The proliferation of GOOD T CARDS means the only realistic limit on the topic is the resolution itself. The analysis for this is in the 2NC overview, I am not going to repeat myself. Just remember the affs that are considered topical this year:

clean coal, LNG, wind mills, flying wind mills, solar panels, solar panelled cars, nuclear space ships, RPS, cap and trade, ITER, brownfields, environmental justice, removing the tariff on brazilian ethanol (we all know that aff is too good anyway), WORKING WITH JAPAN ON NUCLEAR POWER

 

the ONLY way to resolve this limits crisis is by tying the affirmative down to the resolution and providing the negative large quantities of all-purpose ground.

 

Limits outweighs everything because if there were a thousand affs, no matter how good of a researcher you were, you could never ever ever be prepared for all of them. Hell, just look at the types of nuclear power that are topical:

Thorium

Uranium

Sodium cooled reactors

GHTMR

Lead cooled reactors

NUCLEAR FUCKING SPACE SHIPS

 

 

Your grammar arguments are non-sensicle and brand new in the 1AR – reject them because the block is predicated off the 2AC. You say the increase has to be real, I say it has to be both real AND without qualifications means you cannot modify the term “alternative energy incentives” – the permutation is not dealt with properly in the 1AR.

 

Your ground argument is vacuous. Limits outweighs and we solve ground anyway because the negative will always have to deal with problems of uniqueness, our interpretation provides enough negative ground to effectively solve that dilemma – unique link turn on this standard.

 

Structural bias has nothing to do with ground – you speaking first proves the limits arguments. You can give alternative energy to:

student visa holders,

military bases,

over 18000 different cities, towns, and municipalities - Austin, Houston, New York, LA, San Antonio,

Federal buildings

Gitmo

Debate camps

University campuses

Computer industry

Dairy farms

US Postal Service

Paper factories

TV station buildings

 

He never explains this education business. I will call this bluff: you concede a broader topic means more research on both sides means more education about the topic. DO NOT ALLOW THE 2AR TO BLOW THIS UP BECAUSE SO FAR IT MAKES NO SENSE.

 

 

Your alt energy definition only defines alternative fuels which doesn’t answer my case lists above because those are energy, not fuel.

 

 

Potential abuse does NOT mean “neg wins” – it means you have to prove your interpretation is good for debate, not just that your case didn’t hurt anyone. This is all above. Remember they allow cases to go to:

Ford cars

US ambassadorial vehicles

The White House

Puerto Rico

Banks

Malls

Only Joe's Crab shacks

 

HOW DO I ANSWER THAT?

 

You say reasonability, I will now drop the hammer:

First and foremost – you never say what this framework means. This makes it structurally impossible for the judge to vote affirmative as long as we are winning the limits standard.

 

Things you concede from the block:

Reasonability bad – arbitrary and no way to quantify it.

Cross-apply offense-defense paradigm – you have to justify your interpretation

The 2AC advancing of this argument is literally just the WORD “reasonability” – I don’t know what this means or how the framework operates. No new 1AR explanation without new 2NR responses.

Even if they win this framework they have to have reasons why they are reasonable, if our standards prove their aff was not good for debate, we win.

I DO NOT THINK THEY ARE REASONABLE, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT. PROVES HOW ABSURD THIS ARGUMENT IS.

 

New 1AR arguments on reasonability justify my hammer:

Competing interpretations good

1. Adds education – competing interpretations adds grammar as well as vocabulary to debate and forces comparison of definitions

 

2. Preserves linguistic integrity – forces both sides to justify their rationing through a concise interpretation of what is topical.

 

3. Most objective standard – anything else requires judge intervention: only competing interpretations allow resolution of topicality based on debate

 

4. Competing interpretations inevitable – we have to decide between how to determine topicality, and the just still has to make an objective criterion based decision

 

5. Definitions check race to the bottom

 

 

Reasonability bad

1. Topicality must be a voter – it tells the negative what they should and should not be prepared to debate, only way to direct research and guarantee clash

 

2. Arbitrary – there are no brightline definitions of what reasonable is: this requires the ultimate in judge intervention

 

3. This isn’t aff wins – they still have to prove their interpretation is net better than ours which requires comparing standards.

 

4. I don’t think they are reasonable therefore they aren’t – proves arbitrary nature

 

5. Reasonability is only defensive – if we win a large enough magnitude of standards we win they aren’t reasonably topical

 

6. Explodes limits – anything that messes with technology is reasonably topical on this resolution

 

7. Gut check – they wouldn’t have made this argument if they were topical

 

AND JUST TO CLEAR UP THIS NONESENSE ON THE NATO CP, T IS DIFFERENT THAN THEORY. I SAID REJECT THE ARGUMENT – MEANS YOU REJECT THE AFF AND THEN VOTE NEGATIVE ON PRESUMPTION BECAUSE THEY FORGOT TO DO ANYTHING. THEORY ALWAYS HAS THE OPTION TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT WHILE T DOES NOT.

 

 

 

Race to the bottom is new:

 

 

  • No link – our interp limits down to ___ topical cases limiting out hundreds more – cross apply the limits analysis: their interp allows an infinite amount of cases all of which we prevent
  • No impact – there isn’t a reason a race to the bottom would be any more abusive then a case specific DA or impact turn.
  • Definitions check – this argument is an impact to predictability and proves why “only their case topical” is silly – err on the side of predictable evidence

 

 

The last argument is also new. Here are a few reasons T is a voting issue:

 

1. Everything in the overview

 

2. Vote on a large possibility of potential abuse – the AFF interpretation of this resolution allows for a near infinite amount of cases for each possible barrier.

 

3. Gateway issue – if the affirmative isn’t topical then nothing in the debate can be evaluated.

 

4. Topicality is an A priori issue, it comes first no matter what – we came to this tournament under the agreement of a decisive set of rules, one of which was the resolution – they have broken that rule and must be voted down in recognition.

 

5. Impact Skew – the aff has access to the increase part of their impacts as long after the actual policy goes through as they want – this means all of our increase related arguments happen after the impacts they have that are direct effects of passing the plan.

 

6. Jurisdiction – The affirmatives job is to get you the judge to affirm the decided upon resolution. If the AFF is not within that resolution then you can’t vote for them and affirm the resolution as your job is intended to do.

Justice Scalia, 1998 (Steel Co. v. Citizens for a better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, pg. 93-94)

In addition to its attempt to convert the merits issue in this case into a jurisdictional one, JUSTICE STEVENS' concurrence proceeds (post, at 7-13) to argue the bolder point that jurisdiction need not be addressed first anyway. Even if the statutory question is not "framed . . . in terms of 'jurisdiction,'" but is simply "characterized . . . as whether respondent's complaint states a 'cause of action,'" "it is also clear that we have the power to decide the statutory question first." Post, at 7. This is essentially the position embraced by several Courts of Appeals, which find it proper to proceed immediately to the merits question, despite jurisdictional objections, at least where (1) the merits question is more readily resolved, and (2) the prevailing party on the merits would be the same as the prevailing party were jurisdiction denied. See, e.g., SEC v. American [*94] Capital Investments, Inc., 98 F.3d 1133, 1139-1142 (CA9 1996), cert. denied, Shelton v. Barnes, 137 L. Ed. 2d 681, 117 S. Ct. 1468 (1997); Smith v. Avino, 91 F.3d 105, 108 (CA11 1996); Clow v. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 948 F.2d 614, 616, n. 2 (CA9 1991); Cross-Sound Ferry Services, Inc. v. ICC, 290 U.S. App. D.C. 39, 934 F.2d 327, 333 (CADC 1991); United States v. Parcel of Land, 928 F.2d 1, 4 (CA1 1991); Browning-Ferris Industries v. Muszynski, 899 F.2d 151, 154-159 (CA2 1990). The Ninth Circuit has denominated this practice -- which it characterizes as "assuming" jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding the merits -- the "doctrine of hypothetical jurisdiction." See, e.g., United States [***227] v. Troescher, 99 F.3d 933, 934, n. 1 (1996). n1 We decline to endorse such an approach because it carries the courts beyond the bounds of authorized judicial action and thus offends fundamental principles of separation of powers. This conclusion should come as no surprise, since it is reflected in a long and venerable line of our cases. "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 7 Wall. 506, 514, 19 L. Ed. 264 (1869). "On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the parties to it." Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, supra, 177 U.S. 449 at 453. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter "springs from the nature and limits of [*95] the judicial power of the United States" and is "inflexible and without exception." Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 28 L. Ed. 462, 4 S. Ct. 510 (1884).

 

 

7. Just because we ran arguments doesn’t mean they will hit – T is a question of justifying

 

8. If we prove they don’t meet out interpretation of debate, or even that their interpretation is bad, you vote Neg to uphold the integrity of debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

overview, T - Substantially.

 

overview

 

first, I want to point out that steven shifted the T violation in the 2nr saying we can't qualify where incentives go too means you reject that analysis, its new, to late for us to garner offense. Hold him to his explanation of the interp in CX " you cant qualify what alternative energy you increase."

 

second, everything he's saying is arbitray i.e. I don't have da's or cps to this omg. It's quite easy to be neg on T and just say "i don't have answers" no way to prove this means you default aff on reasonability.

third, even if he wins we should evaluate under compt interps there's literally no way he's going to win he has the better interp.

fourth, reason to prefer our interp - we allow creative education - aff's can research better specific advantages to their cases and cool new mechanisms which forces better research for negatives to find the best case specific negs increasing overall clash in-round. The negative interp is vague, this is literally the only T case under their interp: The USFG should sub increase alt energy incentives in the united states. This interp destroys all education that can possibly be garnered from the topic because we talk about one thing all year long. Fucks over negative DA ground - the only links would be Alt energy but those all nonunique, we'd have generic shitty da's while our interp forces specific da work. You would then see a frenezy of non competitive pics out of some incentive, some alternative energy, somewhere in the united states unlimiting the research burden for the aff. serious gut check - what interp do you think is "better" for debate?

 

fifth, you say you increase all this da ground and allow all this shit but sadly thats all he says, he gives no examples or anything means you default to our interp.

T - Substanially

 

In round abuse is not arbritray - negative needs to prove an instance in round where us running this case made it impossible for them to debate - if they can't then you vote aff. This isn't a reasonability argument, this is an no impact to his T arguments - he ran two counterplans that we're fine and it gave him a good chance to win - don't punish me for his incoherent 1nc strat.

 

His spillover answer is possibly the most absurd answer i've seen, " if you do not have a good interpretation of the topic we never should have had this debate" this isn't responsive - we shouldn't lose because our interp is bad - we should only lose by what we did run - goes back to all the reasons best interp is bad.

 

Extending steal the funding doesn't prove abuse - it just proves he got beat on it and had to go for T.

 

in round abuse resolves limits - he ran two counterplans and 3 da's means its irrelevant what we justify.

 

He concedes he overlimits the topic, there's one case - Alternative energy. He drops overlimiting is bad because the neg outresearchs the aff on the topic which kills aff ground and makes it nearly impossible for the aff to win. He concedes aff ground outweighs neg ground which is a damning argument in this context because it means all our ground arguments outweighs limits and that the limits he provide are bad.

 

He says we concede advantages solve - This wasn't conceded. Advantages don't solve - under you're interp we can only claim advantages from "alternative energy" - negs can easily counterplan out of a specific type. My interp we can read advantages intrinsic to certain cases i.e hydrogen, I can read my eu - us relations advantage, auto industry adv. reasons this is good is on the overview.

I have no clue what his vagueness argument is.

 

We don't unlimit the topic - he concedes gokay - the DOE defines alternative energy as 7 things including hydrogen - if you really think that allowing 7 cases is unworkable then you should vote negative on competing interpretations.

 

limits don't outweigh - his analysis assumes when there's lots of cases but this is answered above. Ground outweighs limits because the more ground the negative has the better they can debate on the topic.

 

our grammar argument wins us the debate - Subtantially refers to the increase in incentives - like you can't qualify the type of incentives you give but you can alternative energy means there is NO violation and ZERO fucking reason to vote negative. He has zero resolutional or defitnitional support for the violation. No reason we violate substanially means you vote aff on presumption. This isn't a new argument, you said in 2nc we should prefer your interp, I responded saying you should prefer mine.

 

 

Permutation solves none of the reasons why specifiying past alternative energy is good.

 

Steven never explains or gives examples of how he increases neg ground - he just asserts it means you default to my analysis. His argument makes no sense - under his interp we only run alternative energy, negatives would never be able to win a unique link because there's massive funding for alternative energy now the only difference would be to specify one of the 7 alternative energies. It doesn't matter anymore if the negative has a more limiting interp or if in general limits are good because in this instance the limits he provides are bad limits(overview) i.e. just alternative energy shit - even if limits in general are better for debate in this unique instance the ground we provide is better than the limits he provides means our ground arguments outweigh.

 

education debate

 

we link turn his argument because more alternative energies on the topic the broader. our interp we discuss a variety of aff's and advantages, we force more research into specific plan mechanisms, da links, k links etc. which increases innovation on the topic which is the internal link to education. He drops this means we get the full weight of it.

1. Education is a prerequisite to fairness - the more equal the division of knowledge and topical education to both sides the more fair the debate will be because each side will have learned intuitive arguments and research bases that are necessary for in-depth and fair debate. Remember the resolution assumes are aff, means there's no reason to prefer a limits.

 

2. Education outweighs – debate is an activity whose core purpose is to foster policymaking education - fairness is an important byproduct of good debate but should never be held above education as long as the core purpose remains so.

3. if we win they don't provide good limits then you shouldn't prefer it over education.

 

Fuels and energy are the same thing even if they aren't you should prefer our def over his arbitray caselist.

 

don't vote on potential abuse - neg could run T every round and we always lose. even if you evaluate potential abuse we have reasons why our interpretation is good.

 

he says we allow for things like joe crab shack - but this isn't your T violation - your violation is we specify past alt energy - thats on the overview. Reject new 2nr analysis because its too late for me to garner offense.

 

If the judges think that our case is debateable then we are reasonable.

 

reasonability's not arbitray - its the know it when you see it paradigm i.e. you know hydrogen is topical but nuclear space ships aren't.

 

Where pretty reasonable - its freaking hydrogen for pete's sake.

 

compt interp debate

 

grammar inevitable - takes classes in school - debates about policy education - no offense

 

we impact turn judge intervention with topic education - when you create a compt interp framework it encourages negatives to go for topicality which trades off with substance education.

 

Def's don't check - I can find any def on the internet on a blog etc which makes this arbritray.

 

compt interps justify a race to the bottom to limit our aff and always go for T which kills education about real policy means we have an education DA to it - all reasons education outweigh is above.

 

reasonability

 

arbritrary answered above

 

doesn't explode limits - the judge can tell if a case to do alt energy to joes crab shack is T or not.

 

His nato answer isn't responsive - voting on T discourages teams from reading creative cases and researching original and cool advantages - this doesn't mean you should never vote on T, this means you shouldn't vote for which interp is best but rather vote on T against radical cases like joe's crab shack etc. even if he wins T's a voting issue this is a reason to default aff on reasonability.

 

you limit down to one case obviously means you limit out our case.

 

race to bottom encourages teams to always go for T - kills education thats above.

 

defs answered above.

 

T voting issue debate

 

group the 1-6 - xap grammar arguments above - were obviously T answers the apriori stuff. prefer reasonability over apriori - he gives you no reason to prefer it means you default to our explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ballot's done. Should i post it, or PM it? if PM, to whom?

 

if someone sends them to me ill post them.

 

it's the sunday before the ncaa final/opening day, i've got nothing better

Edited by theglobalcowboy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
panel is

 

theglobalcowboy

Craig

WoGAtog

Lemur

Calculus

 

with lemur and calculus being the cuts if Cjiron wants a 3 person panel

 

 

EDIT: whoever repped me about the waiting list should PM me. Definitely.

 

this post says otherwise. I'm not even in the cut-off list...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol. you don't have that ability. You and Steven have to make that decision together.

 

You can't just strike judges who've voted against you before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol. you don't have that ability. You and Steven have to make that decision together.

 

You can't just strike judges who've voted against you before.

Too bad this isn't why. I don't want someone who thinks da inevitable is pure offense for the aff judging, no debater does, I hardly doubt maury would either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe you should stop being ignorant and listen to what i was saying. I said:

 

a terminal non-unique can be translated into usable offense on an impact calculus flow in terms of a timeframe argument. Why don't you ask Steven if he agrees there. Cuz i'll bet you $$$ that he does. So do more than 35 people in that thread.

 

And like before, you dropped my other point: you AND steven need to make a collective decision to strike me

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe you should stop being ignorant and listen to what i was saying. I said:

 

a terminal non-unique can be translated into usable offense on an impact calculus flow in terms of a timeframe argument. Why don't you ask Steven if he agrees there. Cuz i'll bet you $$$ that he does. So do more than 35 people in that thread.

 

And like before, you dropped my other point: you AND steven need to make a collective decision to strike me

I'm not getting into a debate with you, this is the wrong forum. I'll just say its the dumbest thing i've heard. No one agrees with you given the pos rep i got "god, that kids a tool."

 

Obviously you dont know how striking works, if one debater doesn't want a judge, the judge doesn't judge, theres no consensus.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im gonna go ahead and veto your strike. This judge was decided before the round began, and he is one of the reasons I went for T over the trickier CP.

 

 

 

also...

Extending steal the funding doesn't prove abuse - it just proves he got beat on it and had to go for T.

This is untrue. I was crushing on the CP, T is just easier to type up.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

someone oughta come own up to this rep

 

??? vs. The Win Store... April 5th, 2009 11:56 AM yeah you are retarded - who the fuck is smithville - exactly

 

 

we're 3A state finalists and national qualifiers. Did you go 7-0 at NFL district last year? i didn't think so

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??? vs. The Win Store... April 5th, 2009 02:35 PM no one cares about UIL. UIL sucks, go to a real qualifier in dallas or compete TFA and you'll see what happens.

 

 

you'll see us next year. We're starting the TFA circuit.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If chris is who i think he is, I can vouch for his general badassery (I believe I worked with him at camp, but it might have been a different guy) and he definitely has some potential.

 

That said, no more rep posting please.

 

 

Christian, did you PM the judges?

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If chris is who i think he is, I can vouch for his general badassery (I believe I worked with him at camp, but it might have been a different guy) and he definitely has some potential.

 

That said, no more rep posting please.

 

 

Christian, did you PM the judges?

 

 

I was the kid who debated with Sarah Delgado. I remember you judging our round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is theglobalcowboy/Rohan still collecting? Everyone should send to him so we can end this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I finished mine as well i'm just going to post it in an hour if no one objects

I lied i talked to steven and he said it was cool so hurr's my decesion

 

I voted neg although I hate myself for doing it, though I love the negative for having the stones to go for this arg (and stone’s in general I’m a terrible sexist) regardless onto the decision proper

 

I resolved fairly quickly that the aff interp doesn’t exclude the neg interp, and that you can create a real not materialally (sp?) qualified change, so the neg gets their permutation on t this means that I probably don’t have to resolve the competing interpretations bad debate v. reasonability b/c the aff has no interp and since the aff clearly doesn’t meet the violation (either the 2nc articulation or the 2nr happy go lucky crazy fuck-fuck violation) I vote neg

 

If the aff had had an interpretation that was as simple as Substaintial is X or 60% or 50% I would have done the work making that responsive to their violation and this would have been a much closer round and a much harder round to judge (THANK GOD THAT DID NOT HAPPEN)

 

I did pause on this 2ar line

our grammar argument wins us the debate - Substantially refers to the increase in incentives - like you can't qualify the type of incentives you give but you can alternative energy means there is NO violation and ZERO fucking reason to vote negative.

The only problem I have with this is that I buy the 2nr arg that grammatically AE in the resolution modifies incentives so qualifying AE further qualifies incentives (this is the arg I believed him to be making in the 2nr on the perm).

(relevant part of the 2nr): I say it has to be both real AND without qualifications means you cannot modify the term “alternative energy incentives” – the permutation is not dealt with properly in the 1AR

What you could have done is said that “AE already qualifies incentives that means that further qualification is irrelevant since literally the rez doesn’t meet your definition at this point” or some such nonsense to be honest I’m not going to think the implications of that arg through for you but you get my point.

(relevant part of the 1ar): Extend linberg - substantial must be a real change in incentives, we have the most grammatically correct interp because substantially modifies increase means you CANNOT qualify incentives NOT alternative energy means there's no violation and takes out their offense on limits.

For future reference when making this arg try and make it a little clearer b/c halfway through that line I was convinced that it modifies increase and that you didn’t link but then you concede that that means you can’t qualify incentives and the 2nr is able to tie you back to this, you could have won by just saying since it modifies increase this means that if we qualified how much the increase was and/or the word increase itself, then we would link to this violation but as we don't (we only qualify the object of increase), we don't link and you vote aff

 

(also just for the record I was fine with you just saying “reasonability” in the 2ac to respond to this since it was the shortest violation ever, and again I was fine with everything new by both sides, true over new in a debate like this, save for evidence of course)

 

Hilarious debate all, happy to have judged (though I am probably wrong and stupid etc.)

Edited by Dart Throwing Primates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if Craig and i vote similiarly, i'll post after him

 

 

and in a strange turn of fate, he posts it

 

 

 

 

 

I vote neg. A few reasons:

 

 

 

1. Most of the aff arguments are new in the rebuttals – All it took was steven telling me not to evaluate new 1ar/2ar arguments to knock out your arguments against offense/defense and the new reasonability analysis. I’m not evaluating “the hammer” or your reasonability clarification in the 1ar/2ar, and taking the easy way out – new rebuttals arguments are illegit.

 

 

2. I thought I told you in my paradigm – I default to offense/defense, which means I am very accepting of this argument. When you dropped it in the 2ac, and he pointed it out/pulled it across, I almost voted right there. You have no objective offense coming out of the constructives regarding the counter-interpretation, and even any convoluted offense you could derive, would be immediately outweighed by his granules of defense. You dropped his interpretation in the 2ac – I know it seemed like a wash of an argument, but you can never drop T like that. Steven tells me clearly in the block that I should evaluate offense/defense, and after the 2ac drop, I do. You have no defense and only marginal offense, he has untouched offense (his limits standard did a lot of the work here) and defense on the counter-interp. Game over.

 

 

3. Standards – Even if I didn’t take the easy way out and evaluated the flow, the limits debate gives Steven a lot of room on the rest of the flow. He controls the only risk of solving an overly massive topic, which he impacts throughout the block. Even with ground, limits destroys education because we can never research and write negs to thousands of cases, which you drop the analysis on in the 1ar. Limits won him the proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even with ground, limits destroys education because we can never research and write negs to thousands of cases, which you drop the analysis on in the 1ar. Limits won him the proper.

what about the gokay evidence? theres 7 forms of alternative energy, how is allowing 7 forms blowing the lid of the topic?

 

craig: what would have done to answer the perm given I read the orignal sub def?

 

chris: why wouldn't you accept new 1ar arguments when the block has a ton of new arguments?

 

good debate. and what did yall think of the 1ar on the CP?

Edited by twdcjgads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good debate Christian *shakes hands* this was definitely much closer than the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

craig: what would have done to answer the perm given I read the orignal sub def?

 

good debate. and what did yall think of the 1ar on the CP?

 

I need clarification on the question it doesn't really make sense to me, and stephen murray told me the debate was over so i came back and just read the t debate, if you want me to go over the cp debate i can

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...