Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
delichtig

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

Recommended Posts

I'll attempt to have my ballot up by Saturday. Like I said before, college is fairly time-consuming. I apologize for the delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decision: Neg

RFD: I vote on START outweighing aff and the risk of turning case

 

Too many concessions come from the aff, and there isn't enough work to cover up for the concessions that give the neg room to win. The condo argument is weak out of its beginnings seeing as the neg has one conditional advocacy, and the uphill battle isn't helped when your arguments on his condo C/I isn't fully responsive to it. I think the aff's problems start out of the 2AC when you concede an econ advantage that you involve in your heg impact, but read a random Iran add-on and 13 answers on ASPEC. The round would have been much more manageable if your 2AC has better allocation of offense/defense and better allocation of arguments per flow.

If you guys want more specifics(ie "What did you think of this card?", "Why didn't you like (insert whatever)?") I have my flow and would be happy to answer questions, just PM me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Decision: Neg

RFD: I vote on START outweighing aff and the risk of turning case

 

Too many concessions come from the aff, and there isn't enough work to cover up for the concessions that give the neg room to win. The condo argument is weak out of its beginnings seeing as the neg has one conditional advocacy, and the uphill battle isn't helped when your arguments on his condo C/I isn't fully responsive to it. I think the aff's problems start out of the 2AC when you concede an econ advantage that you involve in your heg impact, but read a random Iran add-on and 13 answers on ASPEC. The round would have been much more manageable if your 2AC has better allocation of offense/defense and better allocation of arguments per flow.

If you guys want more specifics(ie "What did you think of this card?", "Why didn't you like (insert whatever)?") I have my flow and would be happy to answer questions, just PM me.

 

Yeah, can you point to the places that I specifically conceded? Like, it would be helpful if your rfd was longer than a sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote affirmative. I'm unable to spend much time writing a detailed RFD, so I'll post the basic explanation of why I'm voting the way I am. I didn't have to evaluate the theory debate to make my decision. You can ask me questions though, and I'll be free to answer them. Great job to both of you!

 

The hegemony debate was pretty interesting. The 1AC makes the claim that the longer we stay in Afghanistan, the more committed we become to it (because we're spending a bunch of money there and keeping our troops there), which is bad because it hurts our global reputation. Whatever happened in the 1AC cross-examination regarding having to solve only one internal link to solve hegemony is simply bad analysis. Regardless of how strategic it might be for you, it doesn't make any sense at all. Just because the economy won't collapse doesn't mean that we won't get a bad reputation because of troops staying in Afghanistan. The Forbes evidence cross-applied to the hegemony flow from the economy flow in the 2NC doesn't assume the situation in Afghanistan. I think the Johnson evidence needs a much more specific response than just “the market is doing fine.” On the other hand, the Twinning evidence is really good. It analyzes both the current situation, showing that the U.S. is actually powerful now due to its persistence in Afghanistan and the option of pulling out, which it says is really bad for our global position. The 2AC is basically non-responsive to the Twinning evidence (I don't buy the theory argument about explaining the evidence, because I'm the one judging whether the evidence is explained correctly, not you). The 1AR puts a bunch of nonsensical (and not very well-grounded) points on here, which makes the negative kick it. I think you could have stuck with it and maybe even won the debate with this. By the end of the round, I just don't think there is any substantial defense here for the negative. I think the affirmative fully wins the hegemony debate.

 

The START debate was a bit tricky to judge because of all the points made on both sides. But once a few things were settled, I really didn't have to look much deeper into the debate in order to resolve the issue. I think hegemony outweighs the impacts of the START disadvantage. The collapse of U.S. hegemony makes war with Russia (and other nuclear powers) pretty likely. Neither of you had particularly good time frame claims though. Global warming might be the biggest impact in this round, but I really doubt that START is actually going solve global warming. Even if I give the negative the global warming impact, I think there's enough good defense on the link debate here. When it's one disadvantage with substantial defense on it against one advantage with almost no defense on it, and the impact debate is pretty close, the affirmative generally ends up winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The START debate was a bit tricky to judge because of all the points made on both sides. But once a few things were settled, I really didn't have to look much deeper into the debate in order to resolve the issue. I think hegemony outweighs the impacts of the START disadvantage. The collapse of U.S. hegemony makes war with Russia (and other nuclear powers) pretty likely. Neither of you had particularly good time frame claims though. Global warming might be the biggest impact in this round, but I really doubt that START is actually going solve global warming. Even if I give the negative the global warming impact, I think there's enough good defense on the link debate here. When it's one disadvantage with substantial defense on it against one advantage with almost no defense on it, and the impact debate is pretty close, the affirmative generally ends up winning.

 

How did you resolve the START key to heg debate? I'm assuming, based off the rfd, you flowed that aff, but what made you completely disregard the turn?

 

What defense was he winning that greatly mitigated the DA to the point where heg entirely outweighed it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How did you resolve the START key to heg debate? I'm assuming, based off the rfd, you flowed that aff, but what made you completely disregard the turn?

 

What defense was he winning that greatly mitigated the DA to the point where heg entirely outweighed it?

 

You're right the I flowed the "START key to hegemony debate" affirmative. I think the affirmative wins this debate for several reasons. First, your Simes evidence is talking about China being able to have more power if the U.S. and Russia don't cooperate. While this might put a small dent in American leadership, I don't necessarily think the evidence goes all the way to say this will be a collapse of U.S. power in the world. Second, the affirmative is correct that their hegemony impact deals with American primacy (that's the Ferguson evidence), not leadership. Primacy has to do with responding to threats before they occur. Leadership, on the other hand, is about responding to threats through cooperation and global institutions.

 

I never said the disadvantage was completely mitigated. In fact, I think you win a risk of an impact. I just think the affirmative's advantage wins a bigger risk of an impact. The Innocent evidence as well as the fiat analysis aren't necessarily that strong, but they're enough to put at least a little bit of doubt in my mind as to whether the disadvantage links. In this round, that's all it took.

 

EDIT: By the way, I think this is a low-point win, because the negative does do a better job explaining things overall. Let me know if you have any other questions. This round was a lot of fun to judge.

Edited by aburo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the LOLOMFG-y late response

 

Meta things

1. Aff, don't waste your time with trash theory like the cite theory and fiat solves the link. It won't get you anywhere.

Fiat solves the link is a little different because it might end up going your way depending on the round, but needs more explanation for you to win it.

2. Iran add-on on the A-SPEC? What? lol, sorry. You can say "New sheet" at the bottom in a real round.

3. Good politics debate, lo me gusta mucho. The uniqueness and link debate were particularly good. However, when the round becomes really specific like that,

overviews become even more important because sometimes the debate gets too focused on micro-issues. There are random sentence fragments floating around like

"once again, unimpacted". I know this might be "being picky" but grouping the losers and explaining the winners would do wonders, especially since while I

flow the subpoints under the specific arguments under the uniqueness debate, for example, it becomes meaningless words

4. Finally, I think the aff should have used their case more. If you're going for answering the DA with the case, become a master of "heg solves that shit"

The number one answer, in my opinion, to disad turns case is "fuck politics, case outweighs and turns your disad because ______________"

(particularly with the afghanistan aff you can use the cullison and dreazen 9 card that afghan instability kills

russia relations

 

 

I decided based on the warming v. heg impact and it went neg

 

I agree with Aburo in that basically it came down to the impact comparison, but disagree on the decision

 

Essentially, the brief impact comparison in the 2ar was not enough to outweigh the DA. i agree that heg will cause multiple regional wars, but warming outweighs

 

I buy daniel's megatons--->megawatts args. the aff should point out the flaws in these cards and also point out that the impact is bigger than the internal link -

i.e. warming is such a big impact. if they win tickell, it means that only through heg can everyone bandwagon and solve warming

 

Daniel does well by narrating the debate into the direction of the link

Even if the aff wins a small risk of start not passing, the neg has the weight of the evidence. the ideology thing was a wash because in the end

it doesn't matter what party lines people vote for if it's after midterms.The tf args for neg were meh, but atleast they were better than aff's heg collapse

tf which is never since the US is awesome and nobody ever discusses it, so i assume that uq. o/w the link

 

on the ev pref, your first card is definitely descriptive. the second one is predictive. both teams should do well to use "even if they win ____, we'll win ____

and you prefer that because of ______" because often on the politics flow it's a wash

 

your number 10 on the link debate could have been essentially compressed down to "his evidence is not reverse causal" but it doesn't matter because he has TWO cards

that work together in teh 1nc shell

 

Daniel you should do a better job on the 1NC shell. make sure there are no big holes like this one might have been. although i buy that those two cards work in

conjunction, i think you should have ONE link - essentially, you have

uq - will pass

link - afghan is bipartisan

(??? troops deployed k2 bipartisanship)

bipart key to start

impact - start key to x

extinction

 

tighten it up so it looks like:

 

uq - will pass, gop

link plan wrecks gop support - they love afghanistan

gop k2 start

impact - start k2 x

 

2NC -

warming impact

HEG IMPACT OMFG DA turns case is so important your simes card is not good enough on this matter.

 

Last analytic on the start flow - i don't think it is enough to give a vote on since start continually expires, it has to be re-ratified so that arms inspections

and destructions continue. hence, if start has been passing for years, then global warming is being contained. plan wrecks that, which means i give the neg the impact

 

What would be helpful for you, Liam, is if you gave an impact calc on the heg flow and then impact comparison/case turns DA on the DA overview since you might be

slightly repeating yourself.

 

Good debate though, i really liked the start stuff and was confused why teh case debate died out

again - i love the coin aff. it would have been orgasmic if you talked about your aff being the biggest and best thing in the world, because putting most of

your speech into hedging against his gargantuan start DA looks like neg is winning

 

 

I don't know if i was supposed to do speakers but i dont really care... straight 28s i guess.

 

sorry for bad spelling

Edited by thefrozenone

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...