Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maury

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

Recommended Posts

He made the argument that there were many variations on those, and that those variations could be exponentially applied to different targets of the incentives.

 

 

I didn't accept new 1ar arguments or new 1nr arguments. I took the easy way out and used Steven's analysis to moot new rebuttals arguments. From there i'm left with the skeletal core of the T flow, which is basically offense/defense and reasonability. He extends offense/defense sufficiently, and when he wins it and his limits analysis he wins reasonability/the T.

 

 

I didn't evaluate the CP in the 1ar. I flowed retrospectively, by seeing what the 2nr went for before i began flowing.

 

 

definitely a good round though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballot:

 

A couple notes

 

 

Christian:

- Why do you not put some theory on the CP, or at least some explanation on why the CP isn’t competitive.

- You should consider actually flowing these things, it might help when you’re in a real debate. It also helps to identify arguments the 2NR has screwed up.

 

Murray:

- Thank god you didn’t go for that CP. Granted I probably would have had to vote for it, but seriously.

- Make comparative impact analysis on the T debate, things like “even if we overlimit, it’s not as bad as the Aff interpretation which sets no limits on the topic at all. Overlimiting is better than underlimiting…blah blah blah”

- 2NR needs to be better on the violation/we meet debate. You never actually engage that debate, and looking at the flow, there’s no direct response. You indirectly respond at a few points by saying “you have to limit them to the resolution”, but that’s a pretty skimpy extension, especially when the 1AR is making arguments that can be morphed into we meet arguments (the whole substantially modifies X argument).

- Also, even if they don’t extend a we meet, take 10-15 seconds at least, and extend your interpretation/violation somewhere at the top of the flow/the overview.

 

 

“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.”

 

- Please tell me this is a joke?

 

 

Also, I didn’t bother to read anything besides the T debate – I read the 1NC for kicks, and some 2AC stuff, but besides that I just stuck to the T flow.

 

 

RFD:

 

I vote Neg – Aff doesn’t meet, limits outweigh. The only issue that I had to think about is the violation debate (read the bottom of the RFD for that).

 

 

Christian, in the 1AR you say “if we win overlimiting is bad….”

 

Yes. If you win overlimiting is bad, you win that your interpretation is better.

 

In order to win your interpretation is better in a debate like this, you need to win:

 

1. Limits aren’t the end all determinant of the T debate (ground/fairness/education outweighs)

2. His interpretation overlimits/that’s bad

3. Your interpretation doesn’t kill limits on the topic (for example, other words limit)

 

 

Personally, I think 2 and 3 are the best options.

 

Anyways, the overlimits debate, the 1AR’s reason why overlimiting is bad is “it would lead to stale debates. Overlimiting kills aff ground and tips the scales in the negative favor.”

 

That’s all well and good – but a bit more analysis would help. You also then need to be impacting/comparing impacts on this level. Impact stale debates to education, and make impact analysis between that and limits. You do that on the ground debate, but it’s not really quality impact analysis. The only thing you say is “it means the neg gets more positions”

 

Murray does a good job answering that, especially in the context of the ground argument, in that there will always be Aff ground. You start to get to some of the arguments you need in the 2AR, but it’s not in the 1AR. You also don’t extend a warrant why overlimiting is bad. The other problem is you still underlimit – 2NR makes good analysis on how (and this is independent of your ‘AE = 7 things arg’) you can use the AE for anything, meaning it kills limits.

 

The competing interpretations/reasonability debate all becomes an irrelevant mess.

 

Anyways, the violation/we meet debate.

 

Steven doesn’t explicitly extend the violation, though throughout the speech he’s making arguments on why the Aff must simply defend the resolution.

He also makes the argument that it’s new, which is true. The perm arguments are irrelevant anyways, it’s just a question of what substantially modifies.

 

Sidenote: Steven, you should be making even if arguments, like “even if you give him this grammar argument, he still doesn’t meet because he is still qualifying the incentive by saying what type of energy it goes to”

 

Anyways, I think Christian, if you have a 2AC we meet, and spend more time on this in the 2AR (probably in the 1AR too but that’s not as necessary), including linking it back to previous speeches, so it’s not seeming new, you can win this. Without that though, you’re getting killed on the standards debate on the T flow.

Edited by theglobalcowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

yes go over the CP. what I mean is, what should I have said to answer the perm with my 2ac interp? b/c you only said I should have read 60% to get out of the perm.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think that you do not have a responsive interp to this violation,

everyone else is spotting you that your interp is we get a plan text and stephen's is no you don't you get the res.

but you have no piece of evidence that says we get to qualify our increase, evidence along the lines of substaintial is X percentage or even "must be given meaning" which are pretty common pieces of evidence would have answered the perm arg and then the rest of the debate could have happend

 

I think without a competitive interpretation and with a conceded you don't meet the violation then I vote neg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rohan: on standards, what about the argument "the limits he provides is bad limits"? i know it was kinda new but seriously, he doesn't give reasons in the 2nr why his limits are good and he's dropping reasons why only defending the rez is bad i.e. no unique links, stale debates, kills aff ground etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote Neg

 

After a lot of thinking and looking at flows there are really only four issues that influence my decision at the end of the round: Overlimiting vs. Unlimiting, Limits vs. Ground, the “grammar” argument, and the question of how I should vote on T

 

On Competiting Interps vs. Reasonability: I look to Steven’s number 5 on why reasonability is bad “if we win a large enough magnitude of standards we win they aren’t reasonably topical” here is why. First, I think that overall Steven did give the best analysis on the question of why should I evaluate this debate by who has the best interp, I think he had the most offense, but this point sealed the deal. Even under your reasonability framework Christian I am forced to look at reasons presented to me as to whether or not you are reasonable. If the question was simply that hydrogen is not alternative energy I think that I could reasonably say that it is, but when looking at the question of should I limit the topic down to the resolution or an infinite number of cases there is no reasonable middle ground. This means I must look at standards.

 

Limits vs Ground: I agree that limits outweighs ground and here is why, first steven essentially makes the argument that limits are an internal link to ground, he says that an unlimited amount of cases means that there will always be ground loss. Even your ground argument Christian is predicated based off of the assumption that Steven overlimits the resolution, this means I look to whose limits are better.

 

Overlimit vs Unlimit: This is pretty much where the debate was won and lost, while I personally agree that Steven’s interp is extreme I buy Steven’s argument that even if he underlimits the topic aff advantages check. Christian, you don’t make any arguments to this until the 2AR, this is an argument that Steven makes in the block meaning that there is no way I can justify voting aff on this issue when Steven doesn’t get a chance to answer. I also buy Steven’s vagueness argument, vague resolution makes PIC writing hard because there is nothing to PIC out of, saying that his argument makes no sense is not an answer. You also concede that debaters are the real cause of this unlimiting and we must limit what debaters can do. Also Steven is clearly winning that your interp that substantially means “real” absolutely unlimits the topic and that this destroys all predictability and ground. Your lack of offense on the Overlimits debate means that I prefer overlimiting to unlimiting.

 

On Grammar: This is the last argument that could change the round for me and Christian, I really like this argument but it is just too late. This should have been a 2AC answer. I know that Steven’s 1NC T was a little more that a few lines but that leaves the door wide open for you to set a interpretation for the round, especially since steven doesn’t really give much analysis on what his interp is. I like the argument but you have no answer for why you didn’t make it in the 2AC, this is not a response to why we should prefer your interp to his, it is a new argument saying there is no violation. And while you spin it as how you interpret the resolution, your interpretation of substantially is that substantial means “real”; these are two separate issues. Due to Steven’s lack of good answers besides that its new I do look at it further but you run into problems because since you brought it up so late Steven’s 2NR answer that substantial refers to the phrase “alternative energy incentive” means you can’t qualify anything, the type of energy or the incentive. And while you are right Christian in assuming that the 2NC perm doesn’t solve back offense on the grammar debate, Steven’s analysis on the phrase “alternative energy incentives” is effectually a new 2NR perm that I allow in response to a new 1AR argument. This seals the deal for me. However to be honest Christian, any analysis on this "perm" or had this grammar arg been newer I would have voted aff, but Steven is probably right his strat is predicated off of the 2AC, had this grammar been in the 2AC and had you extended it successfully in the block (not introduced, extended) Steven would not have gone for this in 2NR

Edited by Lemur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I have a few questions for any of the judges that i've asked several times and that no one's answered. so please answer.

 

1. i asked him in cx what the violation was and he said "you qualify alternative energy" then in the block it becomes a debate where his standards are based around that 1nc cx explanation of the violation. I then read the gokay ev in the 1ar which says theres only 7 forms of alternative energy, I impacted this in the 1ar as a reason my interp didn't unlimit the topic and he dropped it, then I think i did an okay job by saying in the 2ar thats not unworkable for the neg....so I guess I'm asking is why would my interp unlimit the topic if the aff could only only have a 'real' substaniall increase for only 7 forms of energy?

 

2. Reasonability debate: the judges have just said so far he won it but no reason why, so can you go indepth on that?

 

3. and what did you think of the fact that he conceded that even if limits in general are good he provides bad limits i.e. no unique links, shittt aff's little advnatages etc and that was a reason to prefer education and ground?

 

thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the #1 is directed to me, i bought his argument (mostly because it was dropped by the aff) on how even if there were only 7 forms of AE, that the aff could target a nearly infinite amount of groups to be incentivized, and that there were so many variations of these types of energy that the topic would expand so exponentially it would become an Oort cloud of ground for the aff.

 

as for reasonability, the only argument in the 2ac was pretty much "reasonability: vote on it". You didn't characterize or warrant it, so i evaluated it as a blip with no warrant. When i discount new rebuttals arguments, that includes the 1ar reasonability stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if the #1 is directed to me, i bought his argument (mostly because it was dropped by the aff) on how even if there were only 7 forms of AE, that the aff could target a nearly infinite amount of groups to be incentivized, and that there were so many variations of these types of energy that the topic would expand so exponentially it would become an Oort cloud of ground for the aff.

 

as for reasonability, the only argument in the 2ac was pretty much "reasonability: vote on it". You didn't characterize or warrant it, so i evaluated it as a blip with no warrant. When i discount new rebuttals arguments, that includes the 1ar reasonability stuff.

not you. by the way his incentivize argument wasn't anywhere wasn't anywhere in the debate until the 2nr so why didn't you reject that? dont respond please.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. and what did you think of the fact that he conceded that even if limits in general are good he provides bad limits i.e. no unique links, shittt aff's little advnatages etc and that was a reason to prefer education and ground?

 

thanks.

 

You're not doing enough to warrant why your limits are better/why his are bad. Especially in the 1AR.

 

I would post more, and I probably will later, but....well....between opening day, the NCAA finals, new episode of 24, and a shocking episode of House, my night is booked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok I have a few questions for any of the judges that i've asked several times and that no one's answered. so please answer.

 

1. i asked him in cx what the violation was and he said "you qualify alternative energy" then in the block it becomes a debate where his standards are based around that 1nc cx explanation of the violation. I then read the gokay ev in the 1ar which says theres only 7 forms of alternative energy, I impacted this in the 1ar as a reason my interp didn't unlimit the topic and he dropped it, then I think i did an okay job by saying in the 2ar thats not unworkable for the neg....so I guess I'm asking is why would my interp unlimit the topic if the aff could only only have a 'real' substaniall increase for only 7 forms of energy?

 

2. Reasonability debate: the judges have just said so far he won it but no reason why, so can you go indepth on that?

 

3. and what did you think of the fact that he conceded that even if limits in general are good he provides bad limits i.e. no unique links, shittt aff's little advnatages etc and that was a reason to prefer education and ground?

 

thanks.

 

1. I feel that steven's argument that you dont answer for the creativity of debaters still means that he wins the limits debate, debaters will always try to be shifty w/ their affs and we need to pin them down. This is explained further in the 2NR when I am given examples of the multiple types of nuclear reactors there are, also if im not mistaken, your aff is an example of this b/c you only give hydrogen to vehicles

 

2. I gave plenty of reason why i voted on competiting interps, on a question of topicality where there is no real gray area, I am left to decide either for the resolution only or for you christian, I have to have something to reasonably persuade me so i still look to the line by line

 

3. I think the no unique links are a symptom of unlimiting the topic and i feel steven does a good job pointing this out. also on a topic where you only defend the rez simple alternative energy links would be specific and i just dont buy 'shitty affs' you would probably get the biggest affs while just defending the rez

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RFD: Neg

 

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

 

i vote against liars

 

 

also, this:

 

youarecancer.png

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...