Jump to content
liampirate

Round 424 (space) liampirate A v Awesome2N N

Recommended Posts

Oh sorry, I wrote out the 1ar over a week ago, and then it went way over the WC and I started cutting it down but then forgot about it. I'll post tonight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, here it is

 

OSPEC

WM we say the USFg should support the charter corp, gives them full ground to usfg actions and CP's out of one action

 

Counter-interp the USFG is 1+ branches. no warrant for arbitrary or unpredictable, doesn’t link to reasons why its bad bc they still get CP's and agent DA's.

 

they get better ground through CP's- even if they cant predict what the aff will use because they don’t have to predict to have a counterplan

They say procedural CP's are legit, never said Agent CPS were illegit.

They overlimit and kill the best literature in debate because all solvency advocates specify.

card doesn’t say all 3 branches, pref a good card

only use congress, which is predictable

 

T-inc

 

WM-already program in Congress that charters corps

 

Increase means a net increase

 

better limits-only a few programs, hard to go indebth on these because there is very little literature

better education-we learn about new programs and get to think creatively.

reasonably topical-75% of teams will read an SPS aff, and every camp put one out. no judge internvention-debaters still debate out what is reasonably topical. Predicting what is reasonable is done in a debate

 

“The†PIC

plan text says "United States' satellites" which means that whatever United States it is referring to is used. policy makers will know which United States it is, it is passed through the US congress while their CP text did not spec which United States was passing the plan

 

 

Word PICs are a voting issue because it justifies picing out of any part of the plan, even unpredictable places that generate no neg offense, kills ground, reject the team to set a precedent.

 

A CP should be functionally and textually competitive, means that it cannot do the AFFs plan or have the entire AFF plan text in it. We can’t prepare for every CP that could be good for debate-that justifies "Do plan+feed everybody" CP

 

Condo debate

 

6 Conditional advocacies is too much. It creates a time skew, 2ac spends less than a minute on each, when they only go for one, and it is not reciprocal because we only get one advocacy.

We defend that 2 counterplans and a kritik is the limit of conditionality. A 2AC can atleast deal with it, and it is closer to reciprocity.

We need to win only that condo kills competitive equity, its morst important:turns education-nobody will do debate if it isnt fair, Research–equal playing field provides incentive to innovate and research new strategies to get the upper hand, Other Forums Check–We can access education outside of the round

They say real world, congress cant just read off a ton of bills

 

They say tests all parts of aff:

a)can do this with DA's

B)interp solves- it still checks all

C)unnecessary-only have to test one to win

 

neg flex-

1.Aff flex outweighs-The neg wins more, get entire block

2.interpretation solves-can kick args.

3.condo not key-can kick DA's/case args

strategic thinking-

1.we learn about managing time elsewhere, like school

2.interpretation solves-aff still has to manage time

3.Strategic thinking still happens without conditionality-multi DA's or case arguments

 

On new strats:

1. they can still use DA's and case arguments on the fly without conditionality

2.interpretation solves- strategy can be made on the fly with 2 CP's and a kritik

3.not applicable-we’re online, SPS is the biggest aff

They say takes away generics

1.interpretation solves-don’t run generos with kritik and 2 counterplans

2.conditionality doesn’t guarantee-people still read generics with condo

3. They read generics in this debate and didn't even address the case. Empirically Denied.

They say all arguments are conditionality

1.counterplan is harder to answer-shorter and solves case.

2.No impact

3.If true, reading all arguments bad

 

Perms don’t check. They are only tests of competition,

 

They say 8 minutes to answer-the difference is, without condo, we know what the debate is about

 

Multi perms not worse-tests of competition, require a net benefit, and it only took them 1 minutes for mine, and time sucking the neg block isnt abusive because its 13 minutes to answer our 8.

 

The interpretation is not arbitrary, its what is better for debate. No reason why being arbitrary is bad.

The interpretation doesn’t link to our offense as much as they do. We have 3 conditional worlds, they read 6, means its far less abusive

They win if the interpretation is proven bad, not the practice of conditionality. They have to win reading 6 conditionality worlds is good - not just conditionality being good in general

Reject the team- Theory about what debate should be comes first, having to answer 6 worlds and 4 procedurals means that it was hard to answer everything, rejecting the argument means they only have their procedurals, and set a precedent.

And, Theory outweighs everything else- it’s a reason we weren't expected to answer everything else, it discusses what debate should be like

 

“Deploy†PIC

"employing" only puts the corp into service, not deploy one that takes the actions for the plan

Anxiety key to economy-gives people a system that can more effectively respond to things like a banking crisis. This makes anxiety better for the debaters for their future lives. That’s Space Daily. When debaters have fear of their family, it builds their system to be able to handle fear of anything

 

No reason anxiety bad, which means there's no net benefit so vote aff on presumption

 

no weapons impact, stanley doesn’t mention weapons

 

Me apologizing solves-it teaches me a lesson rather than letting me just get angry at a loss. My evidence is about racist words, but racist words are hurtful to people just as anxietous words are.

 

India CP

 

saying no does not mean the plan would not happen, and we still solve hegemony and economy because its based on the perception of announcing sps, that’s our nansen evidence.

 

Review board CP

perm do the CP works, The perm isn't severence, immediacy isnt a part of the plan, their evidence is only about judicial instances. If should means immediate, it means that CP happens immediately, too. No resolved in plan. Severence is good. Best policy option- If the best policy is the aff minus one minute detail, you still affirm, Key to check neg block bias, If its topical its our ground, and at most reject the argument on perm theory only because it’s a test of competition means we aren’t getting out of the plan as an advocacy.

Past review boards prove this one will be expensive. This wont kill the economy, and neither will SPS. What will cost a lot of money is BOTH of these, which is what the CP does. CP doesn’t solve econ, thats below. Rahn says any new spending collapses the economy.

 

They cant solve-republicans will disrupt the process taking away board. They just say fiat solves, but they only fiat the review board being created

 

Consult CPs kill fairness and education. They kill education because they encourage students to not research and pull generic consult japan cps. Solvency defecits, DA's and literature all dont check- we only have a little time to read them bc consult moots the 1ac.

 

You can lie to the review board and not listen to them, makes you look like you are genuuinly listening solving back their Newton and Atkins card, means perm consult and do plan no matter solves.

 

And, do the plan and consult in all other instances. not intrinsic because their plan is just one of many consultations. Intrinsic CPs are good. Most real world- the usfg takes other actions, Gives Neg ground- They get ground off of every new part we add to the plan, Key to find the best policy option, affirming, reject argument thats on sev theory

 

It is unconstitutional for the government to use anybody else to make a decision, even if it’s the people, Edwards. This means you should reject the counterplan to uphold our founders, levinson.

 

CP looses perception- The counterplan consults in public with a review board. The plan only consults in private. When consulting in public, hegemony is killed because the perception of a new age of tech is lost.

The counterplan links to the net benefit, it uses a top-down approach because it gives the work to other agencies, that goes completely conceded.

 

other sectors of the economy that they don’t solve for, conceded.

 

Hypo testin

Fiat proves the rezolution true-the plan is an example of why the resolution is true means we meet their interpretation

 

The aff proves whether or not a plan or part of the resolution when fiatted is true. solves all their offense, we still learn about the resolution and the neg still gets ground to the rez, goes conceded. It is most predictable because every debate has fiat. Teams dont have to go for T, they can go for DA's, CP's, under this interp

 

 

Heideggar

Framework debate–vote them down–the alt is not a USFG action, killing predictability–there are infinite actions outside of the usfg that could be taken and killing education - we don’t learn about policy. Our anti-politics arguments are impact turns to their state bad arguments.

 

They embrace anti-politics by not implementing the alt throught the state. This means that their alt becomes so radical of a shift that many liberals will discontinue to side with liberals. This will cause extinction because liberals will stop trying to solve big issues like warming. It also takes out solvency because a section of the state could help solve queerness. They have no real response to this. The very fact that they reject the right is what causes the political to go left, they really dont understand this turn. Their queerness turns are bette solved by action through the state via programs, can do it better.

 

Heteronormative K

Their overview:

1-2-answered with perm and framework

they say space ldrshp re-entrenches domination, card is about military technologies, SPS isnt one

They say masc kills coop, no impact to coop

They say Cuomo, only about war, and its about discussion of wars not predictions

 

 

 

 

First is the perm

They say we had no perm, the perm was the second sentence of the tag

We should engage in a politics of doing the AFF and functioning within the state in order to change the ways that global politics functions, that’s Shephard. Cede the political and our arguments on this flow are net benefits.

 

Pure feminist kritik fails because it assumes gender equality is the ONLY variable in international relations, when in fact we need to work with realism but with gender in mind

Caprioli, 04 (“Feminist IR Theory and Quantitative Methodology: A Critical Analysis†Mary Caprioli, Dept. of Political Science, University of Tennessee. International Studies Review. Volume 42 Issue 1 Page 193-197, March 2004. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/0020-8833.00076.) AK

 

The derision with which many conventional feminists view feminist quantitative studies persists to the detriment of both feminist and other types of IR scholarship. As Jan Jindy Pettman (2002) has argued, however, no single feminist position exists in international relations. One of the most common feminist critiques of feminist quantitative research is that scholars cannot simply "add gender and stir" (Peterson 2002;Steans2003), for gender is not just one of many variables. Yet, gender is one of many variables when we are discussing international issues, from human rights to war. As Fred Halliday (1988) has observed, gender is not the core of international relations or the key to understanding it. Such a position would grossly overstate the feminist case. Gender may be an important explanatory and predictive component but it certainly is not the only one.260 Such a critique only serves to undermine the feminist argument against a scientific methodology for the social sciences by questioning the scholarship of those who employ quantitative methodologies. One does not pull variables "out of the air" to put into a model, thereby "adding and stirring." Variables are added to models if a theoretical justification for doing so exists. Peterson (2002:158) postulates that "as long as IR understands gender only as an empirical category (for example, how do women in the military affect the conduct of war?), feminisms appear largely irrelevant to the discipline's primary questions and inquiry." Yet, little evidence actually supports this contention—unless one is arguing that gender is the only important category of analysis. If researchers cannot add gender to an analysis, then they must necessarily use a purely female-centered analysis, even though the utility of using a purely female- centered analysis seems equally biased. Such research would merely be gender-centric based on women rather than men, and it would thereby provide an equally biased account of international relations as those that are male-centric. Although one might speculate that having research done from the two opposing worldviews might more fully explain international relations, surely an integrated approach would offer a more comprehensive analysis of world affairs. Beyond a female-centric analysis, some scholars (for example, Carver 2002) argue that feminist research must offer a critique of gender as a set of power relations. Gender categories, however, do exist and have very real implications for individuals, social relations, and international affairs. Critiquing the social construction of gender is important, but it fails to provide new theories of international relations or to address the implications of gender for what happens in the world. Sylvester (2002a) has wondered aloud whether feminist research should be focused primarily on critique, warning that feminists should avoid an exclusive focus on highlighting anomalies, for such a focus does not add to feminist IR theories.

War is the root cause of patriarchy because people see the domination associated with it and say "hey, we can continue that."

 

 

 

Their alternative is capitalist-engages in the abondenment of ideas. our card saying neoliberalism just backs this up.

 

 

The alternative doesn't solve because it rejects the affirmative in a feminist way, setting up a gender binary.

Part of this argument was that no idea can specifically be gendered beause ideas are not "people," which was not responded to and takes out the link.

And, only link based on war scenarios. We have a warming advantage that they have yet to articulate a link for, which means the kritik is a try or die for the Aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Order is: T-Increase, The "The" PIC, Deploy PIC, Heidegger K, Heteronormativity K, Cooperate with India CP, Review Body CP

 

**T-Increase**

We’ll explicitly concede reasonability, the aff only has to prove that they’re reasonable for debate which means even if the aff wins their counter-interpretation on conditionality is better vote negative as long as we win our form of conditionality is good. Even if they win unconditionality is better, vote neg if we win we’re reasonable can they can still answer our conditional arguments.

 

**The “The†PIC**

Not going for the PIC, extend that we explicitly conceded that because the Counterplan text does not specify which “United States’ “ space solar satellites we used, the counterplan can’t be done and it takes out 100% of solvency. Cross-x of the 2AC proves this when they answer yes, the Plan text uses this wording as well, go back and look at it. Means they don’t solve their aff because it won’t be implemented, vote neg on presumption. Remember they made this argument and we conceded it, Congress knowing which it is new, reject it, the strategy of the block was dictated off the 2AC strategy, new 1AR arguments justify sandbagging the 2NR, the most time pressured speech that kills fairness and education because I don’t have enough time to go indepth on this. Prefer tech over truth on this, key to competitive equity and fairness, defaulting to what they claim to be “truth†justifies judge intervention and forces debaters to quit because judges have different visions of what is “trueâ€. Also we exploited and used their arguments against them, it’s not my fault they made this argument.

 

Word PICs argument is new, 2AC said PICs bad, reject it for the reason above. Even if they win this reject the argument not the team, they should be able to defend the words in their Plan text and say they’re good. They were able to choose what words they use.

 

Conditionality is good –

First, their counter-interpretation is arbitrary, there’s no way for us to predict what counter-interpretation one would make on theory debates which means we only need to win the theory of conditionality is good, cross-apply reasonability we only need to win conditionality is reasonable as a whole for you to vote neg. Also it still links back to all the reasons conditionality is bad, if we win we’re reasonable vote neg.

 

Also they conceded that rejecting the practice, not the team SOLVES THEIR OFFENSE, means even if they win conditionality is bad, vote negative because it means we won’t use conditionality anymore after this round after coming to the conclusion it’s bad. There’s no reason I should lose for being conditional, there’s no way to peer review the theoretical questions of my strategy, but we can come to conclusions in debates that change it so I’ll stop. Cross-apply to prefer tech over truth from above..

 

Also ERR NEG MASSIVELY ON THEORY, THEIR INTERPRETATION OF DEBATE ALLOWS FOR SEVERANCE AND INTRINSINC PERMUTATIONS, which means they could always sever parts of the plan to get out of disad links and add extra planks in order to solve disads, conditionality is the ONLY way to get ground back. Even if they win conditionality is bad, vote neg to level out the playing field. Their best policy option argument on severance and intrinsinc perms good proves that conditionality is good, because it tests all parts of the aff and is the only way to come up with the best policy, which outweighs everything because education is inevitable in debate it’s only a question if we know how to come up with the best policy to implement is which requires testing affs from every angle. It’s the only way to get things done and actually solve anything, the impact is every debate impact ever, war can only be solved when we find the best policy option.

 

Also conceded, that if you reject the neg for conditionality, you’d have to reject the aff too because they made multiple permutations it takes 2 minutes to answer, it took awhile for me to answer them on the cooperation counterplan and I extended multiple advocacies, so I had to answer all the other ones. Creates a massive time skew for the Block AND it links to the all their offense on why conditionality is bad, since it makes no sense to reject both teams, this means a remedy would for this to be a wash. And don’t reject either team for conditional advocacies and permutations and decide the debate on the substantive issues of the debate.

 

Conditionality is key to education, we can only peer-review our ideas in-round, education is inevitable, it’s only a question if we better it. Fairness is arbitrary, even if we kill some fairness, debate will never get to the point where one side NEVER wins, switch-side debate solves your offense because you’d be both sides an even number of times and get the advantages of both sides. It’s only a question of the kind of education we get, cross-apply from their intrinsinc and severance good arguments that we should be searching for the best policy option and getting the best education about which policy to do. Vote neg to test multiple policies, it’s the only way to get anything done, that’s all above. It’s also more real world because each senator can propose multiple different policies. Can’t test all of the aff with disads, that makes no sense, need to test if parts of the Plan are good and if advantages are intrinsinc to Plan or if we can solve them another way.

 

They conceded that all arguments are conditional, they can’t highlight any abuse, counterplans are like disads and competition is their link, it goes away like any other argument. They could impact turn the counterplan’s net-benefit and still use it against us, no fairness loss. Proven in this debate, they read multiple reasons why technology was good on the Heidegger K and chose not to extend them and could’ve argued that their gendered enframing of the world was good. Also they could’ve said the Plan needs to be done immediately for the review body counterplan which puts them ahead on impact calc against Disads because war would happen now. It’s not my fault you chose not to do that.

 

Also conditionality is key to negative flexibility, checks back your fairness claims, inherent aff bias on the topic and literature, authors concede that we need to go to space, only a question of finding the best policy option – cross-apply from above. Also checks aff bias in the debate, they speak first and last, and know their aff better, conditionality is the only way for us to compete. They’ll always have more specific turns and knowledge about their aff because they get infinite prep, I need conditionality to have a fair chance.

 

No abuse on time skew – They have to answer 8 minutes of arguments either way, some debaters will always be faster makes time skew inevitable. Topicality and procedurals make time skew inevitable, they’re uniquely conditional.

 

Also conditonality is key to strategic and critical thinking, only skill that we can take into the real world. Outweighs fairness claims because we’ll use it for the rest of our lives and is critical to implementing any policy options to solve war.

 

No new 2AR arguments, I can’t predict what they’ll be.

 

**Deploy PIC**

Not going for the PIC, saying deploy isn’t a net-benefit, we’ll say it too: “Deploy†and “sorry†apologizing solves any possible offense from

This

 

**Heidegger K**

Framework isn’t a voting issue, just a way to view the debate, reject the argument, not the team. Our kritiks are predictable, we kritik the way you’ve engaged in the state, we don’t reject using the state.

 

**Heteronormativity K**

Not going for it, concede the permutation, just a test of competition, not an advocacy.

 

Conceded none of your impacts are true because they’re made up from a capitalist logic in order to expand. Vote negative on presumption, the government only wants more money and resources and made up threats.- That's Dickens

 

**Cooperate with India CP**

Cross-apply that you should prefer tech over truth, we have BOTH CONCEDED that normal means for the Plan is a GENUINE BINDING consultation with India over whether to cooperate over the Plan and that the Plan wouldn’t be done if India said no. We’ve conceded the Permutation – Do the Counterplan because the Counterplan is the Plan and that India SAYS NO so the Plan isn’t done so they don’t solve anything. Vote negative on presumption, the aff only tries to assert the Plan is still done, don’t let them weasel out of the conceded normal means debate.

 

Also we conceded the Bidwin evidence that consulting India over this scares the crap out of China and causing US-China war which causes extinction, no advantage to the Plan since it’s not done and EVEN IF it’s done, it outweighs because US-China war causes extinction right when we consult over the Plan before it’s ever implemented. You can only die once and we’ll be dead before the Plan is done.

 

Also you still don’t solve heg and the economy because your internal links are about jobs from building SPS satellites and managing them helps it, we’re dead before that can happen, US-China war outweighs. Also even if this is true, India says no, so the Plan isn’t announced, so you don’t solve.

 

**Review Body CP**

Not going for, concede the Permutation, just a test of competition not an advocacy. You’ve already established that the Plan is genuine and binding with India, don’t let them cross-apply their interpretations that they can be conditional with their implementation, they chose to be genuine and binding.

 

We’ll concede consultation is a voting issue, only an independent reason to reject the affirmative because normal means for the Plan is consulting India about whether to cooperate over the Plan or not. Kills all negative ground and also irreversible damage, skewed our strategy throughout the debate because we had to kick out of india counterplan and can’t read an India DA because that consultation would solve it and they can claim unpredictable advantages off consulting with anyone over the Plan, voting issue for fairness and education, we we’ve conceded.

-Also makes them extra-topical, no word that lets them consult, extra-topicality is a voting issue because there’s an unlimited number of things they could add to the plan to spike out of Disad and CP ground, irreversible damage because it skews the negative’s strategy, we can’t read all our Disads because the extra-topical portion solves it. Both of these outweigh conditionality because we’re forced to be conditional because they’re abusive, reject the aff for a stable Plan text first, it’s the focus of the debate and affects how everything else goes down. Teams will be forced to be conditional if they hit this Plan again because it’s unpredictable on who they’ll consult and we need more flexibility in order to get around that.

 

Extend that consulting someone else over the Plan violates the constitution because it gives authority over what the U.S. does and that it’s a DECISION-RULE, that’s their Levinson evidence, we must ALWAYS uphold the constitution or the world will collapse into tyranny. Remember we’ve conceded it’s a decision-rule and they even extend this in the 1AR! The Plan consults India over whether to cooperate over the Plan and gives them authority over whether the U.S. should do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can judge if you want. I've been out of things for awhile but I still have a fairly good idea of how a debate is won so yeah.

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...