Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tennisguy1313

[RFD] [M] Round 205: [ENERGY] debater08 (aff) vs. tennisguy1313 (neg)

Recommended Posts

1. I realize my ballot is shorter and a bit concise, so if there's anything you want me to expand upon or explain, ask away.

 

2. I also realize that I accidentally forgot to send my comments for tennisguy1313:

 

A. I don't know if you were trying to pull some bad ass move or anything, but I don't see the utility in going 1 off T. But yeah, WhisperDebater kind of already covered that.

B. I feel like a more beneficial way of structuring your 2NR overview would be to focus on the impact level of the T debate. Your opponent is obviously conceding your link (the violation), so focus the judge's attention on what's going to decide the round (T v.s. Discourse).

C. There are multiple places where you could be a bit more efficient. I.e. don't quote entire paragraphs/sentences of your opponent's arguments, spending time on points that you're throwing out anyway, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I realize my ballot is shorter and a bit concise, so if there's anything you want me to expand upon or explain, ask away.

 

2. I also realize that I accidentally forgot to send my comments for tennisguy1313:

 

A. I don't know if you were trying to pull some bad ass move or anything, but I don't see the utility in going 1 off T. But yeah, WhisperDebater kind of already covered that.

B. I feel like a more beneficial way of structuring your 2NR overview would be to focus on the impact level of the T debate. Your opponent is obviously conceding your link (the violation), so focus the judge's attention on what's going to decide the round (T v.s. Discourse).

C. There are multiple places where you could be a bit more efficient. I.e. don't quote entire paragraphs/sentences of your opponent's arguments, spending time on points that you're throwing out anyway, etc.

 

A. Thread title: "Last debate". Also, I've never been much of a disad/cp guy. Jack was originally going to post Heidegger but he never did lol. I didn't have the evidence and I didn't feel like finding it either. I guess T ended up being enough though.

 

B. Yeah. Eh, it wasn't really clear until the 1AR that he was making brink arguments (and on T so I was still in the dark) so I thought I'd just include responses in the 2NR and they just seemed to fit better in the overview I set up like a disad.

 

C. Yeah if I was debating with speech limits I probably wouldn't have posted full paragraphs of text that he said lol. But I do think quoting him emphasized my points a little more, wouldn't you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a question for whisperdebater...

 

on framework vs. T: why is he winning framework when he doesn't attack it or do anything in the 2NC and concedes the apriori status and then can't really come back from that? i'm not understanding why he is winning this is all since this seemed to be the turning point for T

 

also good round to you too tennis... it was a very good one and let me stretch out some new strategies i've been meaning to work the kinks out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salope77:

 

1. can you point out where he discusses in the 2NC the apriori status of the framework?

2.what warrants were you looking for besides the ones i give on the five of framework and the shapiro 99 evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A. Thread title: "Last debate". Also, I've never been much of a disad/cp guy. Jack was originally going to post Heidegger but he never did lol. I didn't have the evidence and I didn't feel like finding it either. I guess T ended up being enough though.

 

B. Yeah. Eh, it wasn't really clear until the 1AR that he was making brink arguments (and on T so I was still in the dark) so I thought I'd just include responses in the 2NR and they just seemed to fit better in the overview I set up like a disad.

 

C. Yeah if I was debating with speech limits I probably wouldn't have posted full paragraphs of text that he said lol. But I do think quoting him emphasized my points a little more, wouldn't you agree?

 

Fair enough on A and B. On C, I feel like there's a fine line between rhetorical emphasis and redundancy. Perhaps it'd be better to maybe quote just one line or something, but I understand your logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salope77:

 

1. can you point out where he discusses in the 2NC the apriori status of the framework?

2.what warrants were you looking for besides the ones i give on the five of framework and the shapiro 99 evidence?

 

1. Firstly, the work he's doing on predictable ground/predictable limits on T is offense against your interpretation. I don't consider that too much of a cross application considering that the same debate is practically happening on both flows. Secondly, he explicitly says in the 2NC, "T outweighs discourse because it's a procedural" and then backs it up with warrants, which make it on to my flow.

2. No warrants made it into your 2AR. I can't give you either point when you don't even warrant or mention (the words "Shapiro" and "Fiat" weren't in your 2AR) the arguments you are trying to win on. It's not enough to say that an argument was dropped and that it's awesome and then move on. You're not doing deep enough analysis on the impact level of this debate in the 2AR and that's why you lost my ballot. As for specific warrants, do more analysis as to how they link into a state-centric approach, and why that would be worse than the project you're embarking on. There are three main claims that you need to warrant in order for you to have any chance at accessing your Shapiro evidence.

1. Why does running Topicality either justify or contribute to geopolitical discourse?

2. Why does that discourse in the debate round legitimate violence elsewhere?

3. Why does that violence outweigh procedurals?

Alas, none of these questions was answered, making it impossible for me to grant you any risk of that offense. There are three main claims that you also need to warrant in order for you to have any chance at accessing number 5 on Framework.

1. Why does your approach cut down on racist, sexist, and inappropriate discourse? (And why doesn't the negative's?)

2. Why does that matter?

3. Why would it outweigh maintaining debate as an activity after predictability is gone? (Aka comparison with his impacts)

 

Hopefully that answers your questions. Let me know if you have any more.

Edited by Salope77
Added more that I wasn't able to earlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i have a question for whisperdebater...

 

on framework vs. T: why is he winning framework when he doesn't attack it or do anything in the 2NC and concedes the apriori status and then can't really come back from that? i'm not understanding why he is winning this is all since this seemed to be the turning point for T

 

also good round to you too tennis... it was a very good one and let me stretch out some new strategies i've been meaning to work the kinks out

 

Well, in general, a concession of A priori isn't a concession of the argument. That just means I must weigh your F/W above T, which I did.

 

Now, your original A priori point read as follows:

"Lastly, note that our argument is not that fiat impacts shouldn’t be in debate. Rather, they just need to be evaluated after we discuss the discursive level, so their arguments aren’t offense unless they justify why fiat should be at the same level as the discourse."

 

This is kinda pointless. I don't see why you talk about fiat at all, as fiat is irrelevant to a T. The F/W kinda morphed into a debate about discourse vs T, but it started off as a critique of fiat. In general, I found the F/W to be a waste of time. I evaluated it as best I could given the sloppiness of the flows and the morphing of the topic, but in the end, even though I went with your A priori in weighing F/W above T, the F/W still failed to hold its own, and the T came through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salope: i'm not trying to be rude i'm just trying to understand but what warrants does he have? all i see in that speech is what you just posted in that speech. How does the number five on framework that I'm pulling through every speech since the 1AR not give you the warrants you wanted when we tell you that discourse comes first to check that neither team is running racist or sexist discourse and then what were you wanting as far as to tell you why those are bad? I though those would kinda speak for themselves

 

whisper: what should i have done on framework? I mean i'm putting way more ink than he is on this particular flow when he is just grouping it all and not attacking any of the specific warrants there.

 

also for anonymous neg rep: i don't think i won. i'm just asking and clarifying what I should have done better to have won. I honestly don't give a shit about this round because I would never run this aff and was actually slightly pissed he ran this. Only reason i stayed was so that the round could finish and i could just get the practice in. so fuck off essentially

Edited by debater08
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wii Sports

"DISKORSE CUMS 1ST LOLOLZZ IT'S CONCEDED JUDGE LULZ"

 

doesn't count as a warrant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you put more down, but I feel his grouping was correct. The F/W was initially about Fiat, not T. I would have run the discourse vs. T position from the first, and edited out the bits about fiat. I also don't feel that you had enough on why you should be allowed to be un-T if your discourse is good. As the Neg said, if the Aff's discourse always outweighs, they'll just pick a vital but random topic, which would destroy debate according to the T, and then your discourse wouldn't get out anyway. So in short, more on why non-T doesn't mean the end of debate, more on why discourse in general is more important than T, and more on specifically your plan that says your discourse is more important than T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salope: i'm not trying to be rude i'm just trying to understand but what warrants does he have? all i see in that speech is what you just posted in that speech. How does the number five on framework that I'm pulling through every speech since the 1AR not give you the warrants you wanted when we tell you that discourse comes first to check that neither team is running racist or sexist discourse and then what were you wanting as far as to tell you why those are bad? I though those would kinda speak for themselves

 

First he has the Preston evidence (which I do grant him a slight risk of).

The predictability claims are stated and warranted in multiple places on the flow in the 2NC. Same with the T outweighs analysis. Like if you want me to post the paragraphs verbatim I will, but if you read through the 2NC the warrants shouldn't be too hard to find.

By the way, saying "THIS ARGUMENT WAS DROPPED, EXTEND IT" does not constitute "pulling an argument through every speech." The phrase "DISCOURSE COMES FIRST" means nothing when you're not extending a reason for why. I think my mention of how the words "fiat" and "Shapiro" weren't even in the 2AR is telling of what I am describing. As for what I'm looking for, I want you to be making impact comparisons. Perhaps something like this:

 

"The racist and sexist discourse he justifies outweighs predictability, three reasons. 1. People leave the activity because of exclusive language, not because of unpredictable debate, meaning we turn their impact. 2. Even if our interpretation collapsed debate, that would be better than letting an exclusive institution exist. 3. Exclusive discourse has a real world negative on debaters as opposed to their speculative claims, so prefer our impacts." And then dig into the warrants on the line by line.

 

Anyway, in general, I felt like most of your arguments could use more warrants. Nothing speaks for itself in debate. That, and you should've used case more as offense against T.

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...