Jump to content
...Hi...

[RFD] [M] Round 361: [MILITARY] jnabs08 (aff) vs. ...Hi... (neg)

Recommended Posts

My opinion of this round: Not much better than round 1 of Bolton.

 

I especially hate a 2NR that uses like...100 words...when they have unlimited words...like...why? I would have beaten him over the head like a baby seal.

 

Please see what I did here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
will someone vdabait me?

 

i promise it won't suck nearly as much as this dabait

 

wow you're cool...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

k guys I will just be the first to post a public RFD on this one.

Personally i felt as if the round slowly degraded as it went on... :( All of you have to be making the proper mechanical extensions on the flow. its not hard just do it.

Coming out of the 2AC i thought neg was in pretty good shape but the Neg block mishandles quite a few arguments on the DA's. that being said, the aff mishandles a few cards on case in the 2AC. I will try to go flow by flow and give some analysis where needed. I will preface this by saying that I would have voted AFF. I just felt like the 2NR was a bad strat choice. I was hoping you would go for case and appeasement.

Overview of T- I felt like the clash was in all of the wrong places. There were better and more compelling standards that went conceded on both flows.

 

On the CIA T- For me, T really has to be debated well in order for me to give you the ballot. IF you are insisting on going for T then just go for one of them and blow it out of the water man. If you want to win the T you probly need to do more then continue saying it doesn’t say drones when it does. Like I get what your saying but you should probably actually read evidence saying that drones are not operated by the AF. You HAVE to be cross applying your 1NC Reuters 10 evidence to this. It probably has better warrants than his evidence so why wouldnt you extend it? So I have to buy his Counter interp on this T.

Also im not getting a good abuse story on here.You saying "there is in round abuse" doesn’t make it true even if conceded. You actually have to prove that there is in round abuse. Like show that he spiked out of an argument. This T is a tough sell for me.

 

On Reduce T-Ok even if I grant you that he decreases education. Who cares? You really have to give a good reason as to why education is such a big deal that the ballot should be used to preserve education. Im not getting that story. Im getting a whole lot of mechanical extensions but never any actual impact calc on this education debate.

 

Also, I can't give you that he does decrease topic education when you arent doing the mechanical extensions of your violation and definition. How can I vote him down on hurting topic specific education if you arent winning that he is untopical?

 

I cant buy the unpredictable argument because honestly drones is predictable. And once again. no impact calc.

 

And on the extra T independent voter-Look. I cant feel good about myself voting for extra topicality here. I will admit that the 1AR and 2AR coverage on topicality was lacking but I cant vote on this extra t argument. Just because he potentially could pull out of mexico doesnt mean that much to me. There isnt a compelling story as to why the ballot should be used to prevent it from becoming a reality or something like that. No impact calc here for me to do anything with.

 

On SKFTA- First for the neg. Look you dont properly respond to the tea party or the bundling arguments. Understand what the 2AC is saying.

And for the aff. You have 3 good cards at the bottom of the 2AC which went conceded yet you didnt even extend them in the 1AR. Dude, its just that simple. Make your extensions. Im talking about your 2 cards saying it wont pass in Seoul and you union opposition card.

 

Appeasement- I felt like aff was doing a good job extending the Kuhner 10 from the 2AC but you need to extend the rest of the 2AC into the 1AR. I.E. your number 6 about communication. I thought the neg was winning a good risk of this but they didnt go for it.

 

I-law- Dude, cross apply your solvency cards to this flow. especially your IEER 2 card that says i-law inevitable but US involvement key. Aff, dont drop all those cards in your 2AC. it gives them the chance to just easily extend them. say a few words about it and then do impact calc for the DA's. All you have to do is extend your 1AC cards to answer alot of his 1NC stuff. You just didnt do it.

 

Harms- This. is. pointless. The. End. Nobody ever says why anybody should care about civilian casualties or accuracy.

 

terror-i liked this debate actually. Aff killed it with lasers though. The lasers stuff is so irrelevant. Extend your Rogan 10 evidence. Drones destroy COIN. thats a good reason why you have the best I/L to terror.

 

I guess thats alot of stuff but I was bored...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
k guys I will just be the first to post a public RFD on this one.

Personally i felt as if the round slowly degraded as it went on... :( All of you have to be making the proper mechanical extensions on the flow. its not hard just do it.

Coming out of the 2AC i thought neg was in pretty good shape but the Neg block mishandles quite a few arguments on the DA's. that being said, the aff mishandles a few cards on case in the 2AC. I will try to go flow by flow and give some analysis where needed. I will preface this by saying that I would have voted AFF. I just felt like the 2NR was a bad strat choice. I was hoping you would go for case and appeasement.

 

Overview of T- I felt like the clash was in all of the wrong places. There were better and more compelling standards that went conceded on both flows.

 

On the CIA T- For me, T really has to be debated well in order for me to give you the ballot. IF you are insisting on going for T then just go for one of them and blow it out of the water man. If you want to win the T you probly need to do more then continue saying it doesn’t say drones when it does. Like I get what your saying but you should probably actually read evidence saying that drones are not operated by the AF. You HAVE to be cross applying your 1NC Reuters 10 evidence to this. It probably has better warrants than his evidence so why wouldnt you extend it? So I have to buy his Counter interp on this T.

Also im not getting a good abuse story on here.You saying "there is in round abuse" doesn’t make it true even if conceded. You actually have to prove that there is in round abuse. Like show that he spiked out of an argument. This T is a tough sell for me.

 

On Reduce T-Ok even if I grant you that he decreases education. Who cares? You really have to give a good reason as to why education is such a big deal that the ballot should be used to preserve education. Im not getting that story. Im getting a whole lot of mechanical extensions but never any actual impact calc on this education debate.

 

Also, I can't give you that he does decrease topic education when you arent doing the mechanical extensions of your violation and definition. How can I vote him down on hurting topic specific education if you arent winning that he is untopical?

 

I cant buy the unpredictable argument because honestly drones is predictable. And once again. no impact calc.

 

And on the extra T independent voter-Look. I cant feel good about myself voting for extra topicality here. I will admit that the 1AR and 2AR coverage on topicality was lacking but I cant vote on this extra t argument. Just because he potentially could pull out of mexico doesnt mean that much to me. There isnt a compelling story as to why the ballot should be used to prevent it from becoming a reality or something like that. No impact calc here for me to do anything with.

 

On SKFTA- First for the neg. Look you dont properly respond to the tea party or the bundling arguments. Understand what the 2AC is saying.

And for the aff. You have 3 good cards at the bottom of the 2AC which went conceded yet you didnt even extend them in the 1AR. Dude, its just that simple. Make your extensions. Im talking about your 2 cards saying it wont pass in Seoul and you union opposition card.

 

Appeasement- I felt like aff was doing a good job extending the Kuhner 10 from the 2AC but you need to extend the rest of the 2AC into the 1AR. I.E. your number 6 about communication. I thought the neg was winning a good risk of this but they didnt go for it.

 

I-law- Dude, cross apply your solvency cards to this flow. especially your IEER 2 card that says i-law inevitable but US involvement key. Aff, dont drop all those cards in your 2AC. it gives them the chance to just easily extend them. say a few words about it and then do impact calc for the DA's. All you have to do is extend your 1AC cards to answer alot of his 1NC stuff. You just didnt do it.

 

Harms- This. is. pointless. The. End. Nobody ever says why anybody should care about civilian casualties or accuracy.

 

terror-i liked this debate actually. Aff killed it with lasers though. The lasers stuff is so irrelevant. Extend your Rogan 10 evidence. Drones destroy COIN. thats a good reason why you have the best I/L to terror.

 

I guess thats alot of stuff but I was bored...

 

lol. You were bored, so you decided to occupy yourself flowing this...you were REALLY bored. I agree with a lot of his flow by flow. I'll get my RFD up when I finish homework and flowing this round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My opinion of this round: Not much better than round 1 of Bolton.

 

I especially hate a 2NR that uses like...100 words...when they have unlimited words...like...why? I would have beaten him over the head like a baby seal.

 

Please see what I did here...

 

I see what you did there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My opinion of this round: Not much better than round 1 of Bolton.

 

I especially hate a 2NR that uses like...100 words...when they have unlimited words...like...why? I would have beaten him over the head like a baby seal.

 

Please see what I did here...

 

 

I sea what you did there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I'll publicly post my RFD and a critique of the round since it looks like that's what the cool kids are doing. It's kinda messy, but I'm tired and lazy, so whatevs.

 

 

I voted aff.

 

I'll be frank, this was a pretty poor debate round, and my decision really just came down to the lack of voters on the neg side.

 

The 2nr was very weak on the T voters. No standards or voters were extended across from the block, so there was no offense on the T flows. Not to mention that the neg totally has a BS in-round abuse story, I went ahead and didn't evaluate the T arguments as being arguments by the 2ar, I did say I was biased against potential abuse, but I could be swayed, and that extra T argument could've been a voting issue for me if Hi had talked more about why it's bad for debate a ton, like, you could've devoted the same amount of text that you did use in your 2nr just as that extra argument and you would've won the round, hands down. And then the case arguments didn't cover all the aff advantages and really didn't have an impact attached to them to weigh against any of the other aff advantages (which the aff totally should've gone for)

 

Just on the rest of the debate in general.

The 1ac was messy. Seriously, it's a vdebate, you had time to format it so I didn't have to do double takes reading it.

The 1nc was decent, although the CIA T totally set up the police counter-inter, and the KORUS uniqueness totally overwhelmed the link (which is what the aff should've said, although the 8 cards on uniqueness stopped it well enough.

The 2ac was... odd. The answers to case were fine, except on the indo-pak war extensions, all those cards were about Korea and China and I don't think they said india or pakistan in them. I don't understand why the CIA T answers had two interps, seriously, you should've just conceded taht it was CIA controlling the drones and then gone for the counter interp that the CIA is a police presence, it'd kill all the offense of the 1nc on that T. And on both T's in general, you should've addressed the standards and voters more specifically. It was an unlimited round, you could've gone god mode on that shit. And on the DA's that no link argument made no sense, the drones are in afghanistan. and you should've talked a TON about how the DA impacts are totally solved by your aff and done some impact clac about the timeframe and probability of your internals.

The block strategy was okay, nothing too major to say about it except that there's not much clash against the 2ac arguments and more about pointing out drops, which could be said on the debate in general.

1ar, the lasers argument was new, I didn't evaluate it, if Hi hadn't called you out on it, I would've factored it in to some degree, maybe, but it doesn't matter with the 2nr anyway. You should've extended potential abuse as not a voter, the neg totally dropped that shit and that's really all the work you'd have to have done on T since he didn't extend any voters.

2nr, you saw the RFD. You dun goofed.

2ar, you could've won this debate with a single paragraph.

 

 

Basics for both sides to keep in mind:

-Read standards and voters and extend and expand on them, they're what determines the T debate, otherwise it's just like "who gives a shit about them not fitting into this interp?"

-Impact calculus. I saw none of this. If this round came down to one of the DA's v. the Aff, it wouldn't have been clear where to vote and I would've had to go all judge intervention on that shit.

-Answering all parts of the DA in some way.

-Alternate advocacies. A CP is generally better than the status quo because at the very least, the aff WON'T get any "try or die" arguments (which could've totally been made)

-Understanding how your arguments fit together. it seemed as though once you guys got to responding to each other's arguments in the 2ac and the Block, you just threw in cards and cards and cards and went with what kinda stuck, learn to make some smart analytics. (For instance, aff, you could've totally dismantled SKFTA with just a "uniqueness overwhelms link" argument and talking about how your 1ac itself solves the impacts, since the neg pretty much read your impacts back at you. But of course, you should've made a few more arguments, too).

 

I think that's about it for me, this is a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see what you did there.

 

I sea what you did there

 

I doubt either of you saw what was done.

Or you're seeing something I did that I didn't see because the thing I saw myself do overpowered the other things I accidentally did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt either of you saw what was done.

Or you're seeing something I did that I didn't see because the thing I saw myself do overpowered the other things I accidentally did.

 

Eh, mayhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to make this short because of an overwhelming amount of homework and what not; but you can always PM for further explanation or questions you might have.

 

Now that that has been said: I didn't like this debate. I that it started off poorly and ended in a messy flow and nothing substantial to vote on. I voted Affirmative. Also, I was not a fan of the negative strategy.

 

Negative: If you know you're going for T by the 1NR, then just go for T. The block (and quite frankly the 2NR) was just plain weak on the voting issues. I need you to paint me a good picture of what a world with and a world without your definition looks like. Don't just repeat the phrase, "Vote Neg." Also, the case debate was meh, I didn't see a real impact on what happens with their advantages when I vote aff.

 

Affirmative: Messy, messy, messy. From the formatting of the 1AC all the way to the answers to topicality. I agree fully with Rawrcat on the CIA T, just concede that CIA controls and use the police definition. That would've cleared you up a lot in the debate as far as worry on T went.

 

BIG NOTE: For anyone in general. Aff, don't just read your affirmative and then forget about it. I think that you could have whipped out a lot of the evidence from the 1AC and killed the DA's early on. Especially in the aspects of the impact debate.

Neg: Good-ish job, but you fucked up on really stupid things that made me cry a bit.

Aff: You should seriously capitalize on the Neg's mistakes. The 2AR, was easier than it needed to be.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My 2 cents - if you're going for T, that arg is 5 minutes of the 2nr -- this means you only take one T arg and you don't extend case.

 

This.

 

T is an argument that most good judges will want to hear A LOT on to find it worth voting on. And if you have lay judges, you need even more time devoted to it.

 

Case isn't relevant to back it up unless you have one or two strong turns that you could use to back up the squo.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...