Jump to content
Hi-dig-air

Round 490 [Infrastructure] Hi-Dig-Air (Aff) Vs. Thack (Neg)

Recommended Posts

Thanks for judging it, question: how could I have improved the 2NR? XO might be a semi-common 2NR for me next year, depending on if we go with States or not...

 

Fantastic debate Hi-Dig-Air!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my ballot.

 

I voted aff. What the debate came down to for me was the branch balancing argument. The Belia evidence says silence is key to presidential powers, but it doesn't actually say anything about balancing between powers, and it's pretty damning when the Zelizer evidence says in the underline part cooperation solves best. The Paulsen evidence doesn't directly say cooperation occurs from the perm, but it does say it allows for effective checks and balances, which I buy is a bigger internal link to solvency than Belia. There are a lot of new arguments in the 1AR, but the Zelzer/Paulsen stems from the Anderson evidence in the 2AC. Overall I think even if the CP solves in the short term, coop from the aff solves better and I grant him access to Paulsen. I also buy the aff's argument the juridical overlap the neg claims happens from the perm is better for long term solvency. The last thing on this was the intrinsicness debate, there isn't a voter on it throughout the round, so I never consider it abusive. There isn't a reason textual competition is bad in the 2NR, and the neg also concedes it's part of normal means, therefor not really a reason to reject the aff or the arg.

 

One thing that needed to be done a lot more was the impact calculus. There was virtually none in either of the final rebuttals, which made it very hard and muddled to evaluate the round. Neg does this in the 2NC, but then you just say extend it in the 2NR. That's a time when you need to be doing that analysis, because that's where most judges vote. Aff, you need to be weighing the case against the nb.

 

Things I noticed

Politics

Neg you should definitely be reading more specific links to the aff - he's right there isn't any turnover between aviation security to port security. One thing you could also be doing is reading politics as a NB to XO. Aff you should probably be spending more time on this in this but I think the no link and C/A his impact defense do a pretty good job of taking it out. Kicking it was fine.

 

XO

 

On this new arguments debate, while I believe the 1AR does make them, the neg should spend more time articulating which ones were specific that would make it easier for me to work for you. I think both teams spend way to much time on this, especially when its not a voter. A simple protect my speech argument would be fine.

 

The neg wins the CP solves the aff, but if the aff wins the perm solves and allows for balancing so the case and CP are solved fine. Aff presumption was almost an influence at this point, when the CP and the aff both solved. The aff does a lot better analysis than the neg in the 2AR, but the I agree with the neg that there isn't really an impact articulated in Moe of why appropriations are bad. At that point, the president can reallocate funds and do the aff even in a state of emergency. However, with the perm gaining access to this it doesn't really matter.

 

On the nb, the aff is right the neg concedes it, but I'm not presented with a single reason of why the net benefit is important in the 2NR. Had you done more impact calc, Id be a lot less inclined to buy the perm.

 

Also I didn't vote on T. If the RVI was in the 2AC maybe but it isn't until the 1AR so I don't flow it. Also since he concedes your interpretation is good none of your arguments really matter.

 

Overall decent round. Aff I'd put more into your 2AC XO block. You do a good job arguing the perm, but you want more options like XO bad theory, or offense on why prez powers are bad. You do this in the 1AR with the SOP and tyranny, but that impact needs to be in the 2AC. I grant you the juridical overlap arg because of your Anderson evidence, but there isn't an offensive reason why unilateral XOs are bad in the 2AC.

 

Neg you need to be a lot cleaner and do more in round analysis. You say a lot of things like, gain this impact, so I win the round, but dont give a reason why. This made it hard for me to vote on you, and overall I bought the 2ARs arg that the perm solved XO powers best, so he gains access to the NB and the case.

 

If you have any questions just ask me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my ballot. PS sorry for double post.

 

I voted aff. What the debate came down to for me was the branch balancing argument. The Belia evidence says silence is key to presidential powers, but it doesn't actually say anything about balancing between powers, and it's pretty damning when the Zelizer evidence says in the underline part cooperation solves best. The Paulsen evidence doesn't directly say cooperation occurs from the perm, but it does say it allows for effective checks and balances, which I buy is a bigger internal link to solvency than Belia. There are a lot of new arguments in the 1AR, but the Zelzer/Paulsen stems from the Anderson evidence in the 2AC. Overall I think even if the CP solves in the short term, coop from the aff solves better and I grant him access to Paulsen. I also buy the aff's argument the juridical overlap the neg claims happens from the perm is better for long term solvency. The last thing on this was the intrinsicness debate, there isn't a voter on it throughout the round, so I never consider it abusive. There isn't a reason textual competition is bad in the 2NR, and the neg also concedes it's part of normal means, therefor not really a reason to reject the aff or the arg.

 

One thing that needed to be done a lot more was the impact calculus. There was virtually none in either of the final rebuttals, which made it very hard and muddled to evaluate the round. Neg does this in the 2NC, but then you just say extend it in the 2NR. That's a time when you need to be doing that analysis, because that's where most judges vote. Aff, you need to be weighing the case against the nb.

 

Things I noticed

Politics

Neg you should definitely be reading more specific links to the aff - he's right there isn't any turnover between aviation security to port security. One thing you could also be doing is reading politics as a NB to XO. Aff you should probably be spending more time on this in this but I think the no link and C/A his impact defense do a pretty good job of taking it out. Kicking it was fine.

 

XO

 

On this new arguments debate, while I believe the 1AR does make them, the neg should spend more time articulating which ones were specific that would make it easier for me to work for you. I think both teams spend way to much time on this, especially when its not a voter. A simple protect my speech argument would be fine.

 

The neg wins the CP solves the aff, but if the aff wins the perm solves and allows for balancing so the case and CP are solved fine. Aff presumption was almost an influence at this point, when the CP and the aff both solved. The aff does a lot better analysis than the neg in the 2AR, but the I agree with the neg that there isn't really an impact articulated in Moe of why appropriations are bad. At that point, the president can reallocate funds and do the aff even in a state of emergency. However, with the perm gaining access to this it doesn't really matter.

 

On the nb, the aff is right the neg concedes it, but I'm not presented with a single reason of why the net benefit is important in the 2NR. Had you done more impact calc, Id be a lot less inclined to buy the perm.

 

Also I didn't vote on T. If the RVI was in the 2AC maybe but it isn't until the 1AR so I don't flow it. Also since he concedes your interpretation is good none of your arguments really matter.

 

Overall decent round. Aff I'd put more into your 2AC XO block. You do a good job arguing the perm, but you want more options like XO bad theory, or offense on why prez powers are bad. You do this in the 1AR with the SOP and tyranny, but that impact needs to be in the 2AC. I grant you the juridical overlap arg because of your Anderson evidence, but there isn't an offensive reason why unilateral XOs are bad in the 2AC.

 

Neg you need to be a lot cleaner and do more in round analysis. You say a lot of things like, gain this impact, so I win the round, but dont give a reason why. This made it hard for me to vote on you, and overall I bought the 2ARs arg that the perm solved XO powers best, so he gains access to the NB and the case.

 

If you have any questions just ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So CRusso, when he conceded the Bellia evidence... How did you evaluate that in terms of perm solvency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bellia evidence was tricky, and had he not been making the cooperation args you probably would've won. But the Bellia evidence is talking mostly about how xos allow the president asserts leadership over congress while the arguments hes making are about cooperation with congress which is the basis for solvency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for judging it, question: how could I have improved the 2NR? XO might be a semi-common 2NR for me next year, depending on if we go with States or not...

 

Fantastic debate Hi-Dig-Air!

The only real problem I had with the 2nr was a lack of articulation of why certain arguments are important in the round (Aka impact calc). It was a lot of extensions and indicts without connecting it back into the story of why that argument plays In the bigger picture. This inherently is structure by how you handle XO in the block. Instead of reading 10 or so cards in the block on how XO solves and 2-3 more on why perm fails, you could choose the most proficient piece of evidence which you can substantiate more. So overall, nice work on the perm and solvency, but really focus on why each argument matters. A big thing I learned was that going for 3-4 arguments and substantiating those more is better than listing off 10 args on the LBL. Yo did this well on the bejila evidence and the overlap argument. MOAR IMPACT CALC. I didn't see a real reason for you to put impact calc in the block considering the impacts weren't well developed to that point yet, but whatever works. I also wanted to say something about states cp. Your solvency advocate for states on port security was very good and I felt going for states+ptx might have been a much better route then all out on XO. The link on PTx could have been a killer if you had extrapolated more on how people don't see a difference and how it still relates to transportation security systems. Overall great debate. Since it is a 1-1 decision, is there another judge breaking the tie? If you have any other questions feel free to post them

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...