Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
delichtig

[RFD] [M] Round 330: [MILITARY] liampirate (aff) vs. delichtig (neg)

Recommended Posts

Reading an add-on on ASPEC... what has the world come to?

 

"And, ASPEC is an RVI - plan is key to solve Iran relations"

 

...it's either that or pofo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The block should be up sometime late tomorrow. I have something after school that will take my time and I have homework, cause I'm losing my study hall.

 

Then again, my OCD might just cause me to stay up late to finish it, I doubt it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX:

1. Are you saying that the only Internal Link into your Montreal Gazette evidence is via accidents?

2. whats the impact to " And START is a prerequisite to solving for Afghanistan and Iran-Russia cooperation"?

3. Explain the IL to warming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX:

1. Are you saying that the only Internal Link into your Montreal Gazette evidence is via accidents?

I am saying that the only internal link mentioned in the Montreal Gazette evidence that is impacted is accidents.

2. whats the impact to " And START is a prerequisite to solving for Afghanistan and Iran-Russia cooperation"?

I'm saying that unless there are strong Us-Russian relations, the Afghanistan and Iran problems won't ever go away. Basically, START must pass to have any hope of solving for your impacts, basically a turn.

 

3. Explain the IL to warming

The Kramer card indicates that for a long time, as nuclear weapons were disarmed, the nuclear material went from megatons to megawatts, it was used for energy and because nuclear energy is cleaner than other fossil fuels, increasing it would decrease overall C02 emissions. Because START dismantles a lot of nuclear weapons, there will be more nuclear material that will go to the Megatons to megawatts program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ill judge. My paradigm is on the posting, but Delicht may not want me since I just judged him neg..

 

I suppose we should have posted something but we got a 3rd judge already. If you can find the 5th or you have the round already flowed/ready to post a ballot, we'd be happy to have you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose we should have posted something but we got a 3rd judge already. If you can find the 5th or you have the round already flowed/ready to post a ballot, we'd be happy to have you.

I'd like to have him judge as well. If its a 2-2 decision, we'll ask a 5th person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. I've got most of the round flowed up to the 2NC, so if you want me to wait until a 5th person comes in, that's fine with me.

 

Don't worry about it, the 5th person will only be needed if its 2-2, so post a ballot when you're done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballot will be posted later this evening. Is there someone I should PM directly, or should I just post it on here like I did with the last round?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Comments and RFD are below. Good job to both.

 

OVERVIEW: Again, good round to both sides. Daniel, I think that this round was much better for you than the last, and I was very impressed with your answers in the bloc on START. Dealing with an 18-point dump in the 2AC with as many arguments as you put out on the flow in the 1NR (and many of them on offense) was a brilliant strategy. You need to be careful, though, that you lose a lot of depth in your arguments by having such breadth. I think you lost some of the impact of your arguments with the massive number of arguments that you had in START, but the ones you made were the right ones. Liam, you handled yourself well by answering the key arguments as well, and going for the ones that you thought made sense to you. Speaks to me this round were high.

RFD:

ASPEC – I really don’t know why Daniel didn’t push this argument more after the 2AC. When Liam started to make himself a moving target in the 2AC by saying that “plan doesn’t go through congress, and therefore does not have any political implications,” I was really expecting Daniel to jump right on this, highlight it and say, “See? Now we see the in-round abuse clearly because he didn’t specify the actor, and now Liam’s saying that we’re not even going through Congress!” Instead, the only argument that got pulled through that even linked to ASPEC in the 2NR was the extension of the CNN evidence demonstrating that Obama will be blamed for anything politically. AFF is correct in noting that this has no direct impact to case. None of this should have mattered because Daniel should have pointed out the specific in-round abuse all the way to the end, especially since the shifting advocacy had a specific link to his ground abuse argument, that specifying is key to his DA links. Instead, Daniel basically dropped all of the arguments in the 2AC, and ASPEC becomes a non-voter.

Now, I know that my paradigm says that I hate topicality (which ASPEC is not, though it has the same structure, etc.), but in this instance you had ACTUAL abuse! And, since there was actual abuse, ASPEC no longer becomes some frivolous argument that you’re making for the sake of a timesuck. There’s a difference between whining on most specification arguments, and the concrete evidence that I have on the flow that the Affirmative is shifting its ground.

Oh, and as a side-note, the Iran add-on advantage on ASPEC was weird. But, it was kicked in the 1AC, so it was a non-voter.

Rules of Engagement – All of the arguments the 2NR made were dropped by the Affirmative in the 2AR, so the only major voting issue I have here is whether conditionality is a voter. Having one conditional counterplan does not seem to be as abusive as running “a million,” and there was plenty of offense on the flow from the Affirmative in the 2AC, which basically got dropped in the 1AR. In the end, this becomes a theory argument to me as to whether I should punish the negative for merely running a single conditional counterplan. Plus, the abuse to the affirmative seems to be nill because there is no actual moving target here. The theory arguments become a non-voter when it was dropped in the 2AC, but even if it wasn’t, I vote NEG on the point that there is plenty of offense on the flow regarding conditionality, and there is no actual abuse to the AFF.

Hegemony: The crux of this debate comes down to whether I buy the Innocent card, or the Twining card because one or the other will make the case link (or not link) to the impacts. I agree on the outset that the NEG has completely dropped the impacts here, so the link is really all that I have to go with. The Forbes evidence is indeed talking about the national debt rather than hedge specifically, though I am taking into account that spending (and debt) can lead to the US losing its status as the global hegemon. But, I also acknowledge that the economy is actually growing now. However, the Innocent card is talking about military hegemony, and not the US as the economic superpower. The Forbes’ evidence talks about how the economy is growing now, but this misses the point – hegemony is about more than just the economy.

So, it comes down to the Twining card. This card is definitely over-tagged. Twinning is saying that the US will lose some of its leadership, and essentially that the US will have egg on its face when it withdraws, but there’s absolutely nothing in the card that says that global democracy will collapse, just that “rivals will increase their influence at American expense.” That’s nowhere near the collapse that is claimed in the tag. So, this ultimately becomes very easy. The Pilar/Innocent evidence clearly outweighs (and is actually on-point in arguing its claims) than what is being represented in the Twining evidence. Hedge flows AFF.

START: The massive number of arguments on this flow made it a bit difficult for me to pick out what the key voters were for this disadvantage, but I think it’s basically these. For the NEG, the key issues that were pushed onto me were: (1) Without START, there will be global warming because of megatons to megawatts; (2) Voting for START is a pre-requisite to AFF’s solvency because of our position with China; (3) Plan will hurt Obama’s chance at passage, and we need to protect him now before November 15th when START is on the Senate floor. AFF’s voters are (1) START can’t solve for global warming even without megatons to megawatts; (2) There’s no impact because we’ve been without START for 300 days; (3) There’s no impact to the leadership/China debate; and (4) accidents can still happen post-START passage. I think that the timeframe issue is the most important voter. What is never clear to me is why the plan is going to prevent START from passing since everyone’s evidence says that START isn’t going to be voted on until post-midterm. If that’s the case, then why does passing plan now lead to Obama’s inability to pass START later on when Congress’ fate is decided after the elections. The VoR evidence seems clear to me that there’s really nothing that’s going to affect anyone’s vote once the mid-terms are over, and that seems to be a fairly important argument here. Otherwise, I agree with the AFF that there are no impacts to this debate since we’ve been out 300 days since the treaty was agreed to, and the Parry’08 evidence stating that any olive branch Obama extends will fail. In any event, the key decision maker here is that accidents could still happen post-START. So, there does not appear to be a net benefit to me on its passage, especially when there is a clear advantage through Hege that our global standing will be salvaged post-plan. START flows AFF.

Good round to both.

Speakers:

Liam – 28

Daniel – 27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I flowed the round. I could submit a ballot if you guys wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, I kinda did. Ok, so, here is the RFD--

 

I vote NEG for Delichtig.

 

I vote on a risk of the DA’s external impact and turning case, versus a mitigated risk of case solving.

 

START –

 

Impact Calculus – this really isn’t too important, but I am definitely giving more weight to global warming. I know you didn’t expect to see his dedev impacts show up on the DA flow, but you probably should have realized (as Daniel did) that they could be cross-applied. Even the Michaels card would have been helpful, and a lot of GW defense can be shortened to a few lines. Anyways, the conceded Mongabay and Guardian cards give me a unique reason to prefer GW (when the magnitude is the same, irreversibility makes a big difference) and a definitive timeframe. Your 300 days argument isn’t very persuasive, because, simply put, its not that long. So off the bat, I am giving more weight to global warming. As I opened with though, the impact calc level of the debate becomes a lot less important than the lbl level.

 

Uniqueness – I would just like to say that the U debate on this DA was phenomenal. Very well done. That isn’t to say that there isn’t a lot of room for improvement, its just that compared to the usual, this was very in depth. Not sure if I would have gone all in on U when Daniel read such a large U wall, and perhaps in the future go for the relatively undercovered link level. Although, you did extend a couple of different link turns so that you kept a turn option open for the 2AR, which was well done. On the evidence preference debate I end up ignoring dates, as Daniel recommends, mostly because you don’t directly respond Liam, and because 5 days is not big enough to be an argument on its own. However, I also give Liam’s evidence enough weight as being predictive to make this entire part of the debate rather moot. I end up giving a decent chance of U to the neg, say about 75%. Daniel is winning that they will vote after the midterms, in light of a non-responsive argument from the aff other than ‘no they won’t. NOTE: Liam, his argument is that the partisanship of not wanting to give Obama a win will dissipate after midterms. His link is bipart. POINT THAT OUT! He has given you a no link! Anyways, the senator uniqueness is ok, and the lack of impact cards (which would have helped you out tremendously Daniel) is mitigated by the brink (8 senators I believe). I think they can make enough impact to have U. The military U is doing better, but the lack of an impact stops it from getting the neg a solid victory here. Rushing ends up not being terribly important, as the warrants never really get flushed out, although it does hack away at certainty of U some. Now, Daniel does drop one bomb on the U debate you REALLY should have responded to Liam, and that’s that a close U debate should be decided at the link level. This can get deadly, and it doesn’t take much time to answer. Hell, he didn’t even give a warrant as to why I should. Now, the U debate doesn’t end up a wash, so I don’t look there, but if it were, I think that I would have calculated it by just using risk of link as the risk of U.

 

Link – overall, a 95% chance of link, which brings the risk of the DA to 71%.

Fiat Solves – The neg defeats this argument. The point of the ‘president gets the blame cards’ is that the president will still be blamed by congress. It doesn’t matter if the senate has to sign the bill or not, because its not a polcap link. Senators can still be pissed at Obama if they don’t sign the bill. Also, your normal means ev here is atrocious Liam. Two reasons: 1) The president can only do that within the first 60 days of the war and even then ONLY if the congress hasn’t okayed the war. Neither of those are true for Afhganistan, and 2) The card says that this has never been done, which throws into doubt whether its NORMAL means.

Innocent and the no link – the debate here is like two ships passing in the night. I (and I hate having to do this) have to intervene some, because your arguments against each other appear incoherent. The first link is that republicans and democrats are cooperating now, and that disrupting that will disrupt bipart – Monterey Country Herald. The second link is that if the dems support the war, the repubs will support the dems. Now, do you see why the Innocent card saying that dems and repubs support the war is not responsive? If anything, it gives U to his link. So, I intervene a little and make this explanation for David (there isn’t another way to resolve this part of the debate) and this just goes away.

The Olive Branch debate – this is not very important. For starters, the term ‘olive branch’ is really just more of a term of art in the Hindustan Times card, so I’m not giving the turn a ton of weight, and you spend almost no time (or words, as the case may be) on it, so its not very well flushed out. This will fade away, and is somewhat answered on the U flow. Afterall, if START will pass, what does it matter if olive branches ultimately fail. Its not a link turn at the level of the plan, since its not a reason that withdrawing will help START, so its not a very strategic argument. I have a feeling that you saw ‘olive branch’ and thought ‘I can turn that!’.

 

Impact – this part of the debate received a lot of defense, other than warming. Daniel, I’m guessing you were banking on warming since you drop accidents.

Accidents – cut and dry. Lowther goes conceded. There is no risk of accidents, and no hairtrigger alerts. No risk of accidents. Risk of DA resulting in an accidental nuclear war and a resulting extinction – 0%.

Relats – Now, since no one ever said what this is an I/L to, I have to assume that its to the case turns in the overview, that Russia is key to solve Afghanistan. They a subpoint that START is more important is warrantless, and I disregard it. The b supboint that coop works best with trust is pretty intuitive and gets Daniel some link to better coop. The alt cause is not very well responded to though, other than a weak Link Outweighs type arg, but the alt cause isn’t very well impacted either, so I can give it neither no weight, nor terminal defense. All in all, a 50% chance that the DA solves for relats, bringing the total risk of DA leading to better relats to 35.5%.

Case Turn (Coop K2 Afghanistan and Heg) – First, I don’t know what the impact to terrorists in Russia is. Terrorism isn’t impacted at this point in the round. China counterbalancing however, is a BIG deal. The defense on this is pretty bad. First, leadership and heg may not be synonomous, but there are close enough. Oh, and China counterbalancing is a pretty big turn on heg. Just saying. The China turn is devastating, because it has a U component. That is, when Daniel says that without relats China will counterbalance, he is saying that China will counterbalance now unless we pass START. That means that this straight turns heg, as opposed to a simple link turn. Due to a general lack of defense here, the odds that without relats heg goes down is 98%, and that brings the odds that the plan stops heg from going up to 34.5%.

Warming – No defense on warming. Odds that he solves warming 90% (accounting for the minimal defense on whether or not you meet the tf and its possible negotiability) and odds that warming casuses extinction in 68 months (or becomes irreversible, whatever) is 100%. Total odds that START is key to stop extinction by warming, 64%.

 

 

HEG –

 

Uniqueness – To start with, I think that I believe Liam that Forbes doesn’t non-unique. Here is why. Daniel, you are right that an economic collapse would trigger the link, but that doesn’t mean that no economic collapse resolves the link. “The self-inflicted wounds of the Iraq war, growing government debt, increasingly negative current-account balances and other internal economic weaknesses have cost the United States real power in today's world”. To put it in debate terms, there are other links including government debt and negative account balances. So Liam wins Uniqueness that Heg will collapse unless those are dealt with. However, this becomes moot, because of the afformentioned China counterbalancing argument. Heg will collapse no matter what, unless START is passed. That means that since there is a 71% chance of the DA up to the link level, there is a 71% chance that heg collapses even with the plan. In other words, (since link and impact are conceded by the neg) there is a 29% chance that the affirmative solves heg.

 

Underview :D – I end up weighing a 64% chance of death by global warming and a 34.5% chance of solving heg (voting neg) against a 36% chance of not dying by global warming and a 29% chance of solving heg (voting aff). In light of this, I voted neg.

 

Pointless theory –

Card cite theory – this was retarded. Waste of words. Liam, you have no offense on the flow, so even though Daniel doesn’t either, I have no reason to vote. I’ll take away the card, like both of you agreed, but you had conceded defense on accidents anyways. It gets you NOWHERE.

New args (connection between demo and heg) – Daniel never impacts demo, so there is no abuse here. You never label it a voter in your 1AR, so I default to rejecting the arg, like you kind of recommended in the 1AR. This was stupid and pointless, as well as underdeveloped. I hated it. Don’t do this again >: ( Seriously though, these pointless theory arguments get you nowhere, clutter the flow, and waste time (or words). I would drop the habit of running them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never mind the round is over, my bad. lol

 

What did you say before you edited that would require the round to not be over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can submit a ballot if you would like an additional

 

We were going to wait to see if we needed the 5th ballot, but seeing as you've volunteered to be the 5th judge, I'd be happy to have you, assuming you vote on ptx or heg based advantages.

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...