Jump to content
InTheFlesh

Round 374: [MILITARY] Thechillsauce (aff) vs. InTheFlesh (neg)

Recommended Posts

Shit, sorry I'll have it up tomorrow, school is really starting fast after Spring Break ended

 

Hey, no problem bro.

I appreciate the warning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bump, let's please get the 2AR?

It'd be nice to finish a Vdebate for once haha.

 

This is true. Post cross-x for ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youcan still do cross-x.

Plus that's not even close to an abusive 1nc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Youcan still do cross-x.

Plus that's not even close to an abusive 1nc.

 

It changes the content of the cards. I'm not trying to be an asshole, I just want it to be equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you guys still like a critique based on what the round was? I can get that up within a day or two if you'd still like some feedback from the experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you guys still like a critique based on what the round was? I can get that up within a day or two if you'd still like some feedback from the experience.

 

I would really like one. I need all the help I can get with arguments like this haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the wait on the decision.

Before I give the RFD, a critique:

InTheFlesh- you don't need that many words on T. By the 2NC it was pretty clear what you were going for, so better time allocation in the 1NR to make the 1AR harder. He got away with seriously undercovering T because he knew that you weren't going for it, which let him load up on what you did go for.

 

Something I noticed was that you don't seem to use your cross-x very well, especially the cross-x of the 1AC. Coming out of the 2AC you had a lot of options in the block. I'm a bit surprised by what you chose to go for since it was so well-covered, but all in all you did a good job of it.

 

Time allocation in the block was good, I would like for you to have put "First, I'm kicking the K" at the top of the 2NC but that's more a style issue than anything. Don't have a lot to say here, your choices were pretty strategic.

 

You do an okay job leveraging what they drop on some of the flows, but on others you needed to know why your arguments mattered. You could easily have won on T, he drops intent to define and qualified source, and his argument about education isn't well done at all. With that being said, it might have been better for you to point out that not all of the nukes in Turkey are US and then point out that the plan text specifies the nukes of the US, then use this as a no-solvency argument. You did this to an extent but the aff isn't actually extra-topical because it specifies only the presence of the US so you don't have a link on this T flow.

 

Protip: when running a discursive net benefit on the word "should", don't use the word "should" except in context of the counterplan. With that being said, going for the counterplan was good, it was very undercovered. You didn't need much extra on this, but in the 2NR I would have liked for you to make the point that the perm still links back to the "should" net benefit which is why the counterplan is still better than the perm. Ultimately ASPEC shielded you from the perm so it didn't matter but it would have been good to have.

 

Thechillsauce- you have problems coming out of the 2AC that kill you for the rest of the round. First, you undercovered everything. You had lots of words left, you should have used them. With that being said, you used the most words on the least viable argument and the fewest on the most viable, which was a serious issue for the rest of the round. You did a good job keeping the extra-topicality block short, but the other flows you needed more on and you spent even less. I'll go flow by flow.

 

On T isn't eliminate, you seriously need a new "we meet". It shifted your advocacy from the implied immediacy of the plan to a phased withdrawal, which could have posed some serious theory issues in the block. This could also have been slightly shorter, but it was pretty well done.

 

ASPEC was okay, you needed a bit more offense on this flow to have a chance at winning it.

 

Here's where the trouble starts- the CP. You just needed some more cards and some more perms. If you gave a specific reason why discourse doesn't matter I would have given you more leeway on the counterplan, but since the neg had the cards they needed to respond to this analytic you fell seriously behind on this flow. Basically, try to model your time allocation based on what the 1NC is- you should have realized that the CP was a monster that you needed to tame ASAP.

 

On the K you had a similar problem. You needed more arguments and you needed fewer words per card. The cards were unnecessarily long and some of the text just didn't matter.

 

You make some good arguments in case defense, but again keep in mind that he only read two cards. This was a pretty solid wall so it turned out okay, but be mindful to pick your cards carefully. You really only needed the first three, that first card was enough offense on the flow, especially since he clearly wasn't going for anything even related to case.

 

Case offense is where it became clear to me why you had undercovered everything else. When the 1NC is so little case, add-ons are unnecessary. All you really needed here was a quick extension of the 1AC and then one or two cards of util. If you had substantially cut down on the amount of case offense, you could have covered the CP and the K to the point where the block would have been much harder. This basically sucked away all your time, which was really the cause of the issues you faced.

 

 

BALLOT AND RFD:

With all that said, I voted neg because you have a CP that solves all of case and then some and the only argument is a perm that links into the ASPEC flow. Both CP and ASPEC were well explained and regardless of how the 2AR had handled these flows it was clear to me that the aff was in a massive double-bind that had been conceded from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, I almost never run T let alone extend it in the block, so I just felt I'd be better off leaving it. Do you have any specific advice?

 

Do you have any specific advice on how I ran the CP?

 

Does that on-case criticism get me a decent amount of offence in your perspective? I just don't have really any other on-case strat.

 

What specifically do you mean when you tell me I don't use CX very well? Just that I don't incorporable it into my speech well enough?

 

Any other overall advice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On T you really just needed a couple of extensions and a few sentences of refutation, not an entire block or all that line-by-line. That way you would still be able to suck up 1AR time on a prima facie issue without mismanaging your time slightly. I also would have written the 1NC extra-T block as:

 

Limits: Combat troops are most predictable because the military is mainly for fighting, any other interpretation explodes the literature base as we look at anything and everything the military can possibly do. And, the inclusion of NATO TNWs gives infinite limits and destroys predictability because it justifies doing a topical action plus literally anything else.

 

Intent to define: Layne has the intention of defining military presence, which is the key internal link to predictability.

 

The rest of the 1NC shell was good, but the version I put above says more clearly why intent to define is important and sneaks predictability into both subpoints so it's more likely to go unnoticed. It's also shorter so you don't have to put as many words into it, freeing up more time for whatever you want.

 

On the CP I would suggest adding "reps shape reality" to the block to make the discursive net benefit to the counterplan weighted more heavily to really seal the door on a "case outweighs" argument. Also, I know you had a word limit here but in real rounds I would suggest impacting US economy collapse better with your standard "economic collapse leads to nuclear war" card. Other than that, the CP was well done.

 

Case was a little shaky but I knew that you wouldn't be going for case so it was fine. It gave the 2AC something to answer and gave you a bit more leeway in case you decided to go for the K plus Baudrillard as leverage on case. With that being said, if this is your only on-case strat you need to find some cards. This is policy TNWs we're talking about. At the very least you should have some cards laying around about NATO collapse inevitable from an answers to NATO CP file, some Russia relations bad/increasing Russia relations bad from an answers to Consult Russia CP file, etc. In this instance it was fine because case ended up being a non-issue but you should have some developed case neg for major cases such as this one.

 

When I say that you don't use CX very well I mean that you just asked a lot of clarification questions that don't really get you anywhere. In your case I would have been going for links like crazy. For example, I would have asked him if he specified a branch of the USfg. Either he would have refused to specify or he would have said "normal means" which gets you out of "cross-x checks" on ASPEC and probably provides a solid in-round abuse story because he would have given an intentionally vague answer in CX and then functionally changed his advocacy in the 2AC. You could also have gotten him into saying a bunch of stuff about "we defend security logic" and "security good" and "Those Russians are gonna nuke us because they hate America" to buy links for Dillon. CX could also have been used for getting him to say a ton of stuff about how nuclear war is the worst thing of all time, giving you a more specific link to Baudrillard. Basically, especially when running kritikal positions or reading SPEC arguments, you want to try to get links in cross-x and use them in the 1NC to provide a specific, in-round link story.

 

I think that's about it for my general advice, if you have more questions feel free to ask.

  • Upvote 1

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...