Jump to content
CRusso

Round 515 [Space] Crusso (Aff) Vs. Teleportmassive (Neg)

Recommended Posts

How many words was that? What limits are we setting?

 

Cross-X:

 

Solvency

What is a "network node?"

The 50th space wing of the US Air Force operates the GPS sat(s) your internal link card (the 3rd one) talks about, but the DOD is only increasing DTN on "its" satellites according to your plan text, yes?

Why is space key? Do any of your cards suggest that it is?

 

Economy

Your SSI card isolates THE cause of vulnerability in satellites to be single central command stations, but since you don't create more and thus form more connecting beams, would they think you solve?

Your Harris and Burrows card says Iran will form "security arrangements with external powers" -- what current nuclear state will give them access considering the NPT?

Why does the economy *check* war; what are the "economic outlets" the "angry," "disenfranchised," and "self-radicalized" would use in other instances which would apparently completely quell their dissatisfaction?

 

Do the economic status of the US and our hegemony interact at all?

 

Sea-basing

How does it cause diplomacy?

 

Heg

High/low now?

What the the "geographic hotspots" the tag of Barno speaks of?

 

Warming

Hague says the world looks to the US for leadership on global issues like the environment… why?

This is your only extinction scenario, correct?

 

1NC tonight or earlier tomorrow; block afterwards as I'm going to the mountains until Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can judge. I hold no particular bias towards any argument. I think T should be about competing interps, but I can be persuaded by reasonability. DA's/case turns are all good. CP's are fine (click link at end to see how I feel about theory). K's are fine, but I probably haven't read the literature (don't just use buzzwords). I cannot see myself voting on a spec argument unless their plan text is so abusive that a lay judge would vote for you in a heart beat, or it is completely dropped. I think that cross-x probably checks. Here is a link to Mark Wilkins's paradigm- I particularly like the theory thing posted at the end. http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Wilkins%2C+Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want in. Either as judge or 1N/2N, I was doing a 2A but the round just kinda stopped.

Short paradigm: I have experience with all forms of debate and all perspectives on the activity, and am open argumentatively to pretty much anything you can throw out there. I actively fight my own preferences (which I have noted below in more detail) and firmly believe that the debate should be left to the debaters.

 

T and theory: prove abuse and prove why it matters. I strongly believe that the debate should be left with the debaters and so I actively fight my preconceived notions. I believe that both reasonability and C/I frameworks of evaluation allow me to do this because the aff needs to prove why they're reasonable. If the aff wins reasonability but gives no reason why they should be considered reasonable, I will be forced to intervene for whichever side I think is subjectively "right".

 

CPs: No particular theoretical leanings here, and I understand that they're a core essential of a policy-based neg strat. Please make sure that your counterplan actually solves. Counterplans that solve specific internal links are fantastic.

 

Ks: I like them. Like with T and theory, I try my hardest to not let my love of the critique factor into questions of framework. A good K team will be able to perm the interpretations on framework, allow the aff to weigh their impacts, and still be able to win due to things like epistemology indicts that implicate the legitimacy of aff advantages. If you don't get to that level I'm fine, you just need to win very clear reasons why I should look at ontology/epistemology/methodology/etc. first. I am familiar with a very wide variety of K literature, but you should still have at the very least a 2NR overview to boil the debate down to a few points and to clarify the thesis of the critique.

 

DAs: everyone reads them. No real problems with anything here. I don't particularly enjoy voting on theoretical objections to politics disads, i.e. intrinsicness, fiat solves the link, etc., but if any of these are conceded or undercovered I believe that the aff can win 100% defense against the disad, and for me that's enough. If you read a disad with a critique, please make sure that they don't conflict. I'm on the fence about the multiple worlds/performative contradiction debate, and I think that's probably one of the best theory debates to be had.

 

Case: I think that case debates are some of the most under-utilized debates out there. A good 1NC on case can make the 2AC really pressured. I like impact turns (dedev, if argued well, is killer), but reading a disad on case makes me unreasonably happy.

 

Performance: I have no real problems here, just make sure you have a clear argument and be honest about your position in cross-x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sent the 1NC to Nick to see if he wants to 1N, and if he does, he will finish the document up and post it while I'm away for the weekend. Otherwise it's only partially highlighted, and I'll have to get to it when I'm home =(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am now the 1N, I'm revising Sophie's 1NC and it will probably be up by Sunday at the latest. I need to know the word limit for this round, though. I tend to go with 2600/1600 or "just be reasonable" but if you have preferences voice them soon, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to judge if you all are interested- I relatively agree with everything that The X Factor said- I have biases, but I'll ignore them in order to judge the round fairly, just read what you're best at instead of trying to adapt.

 

T- to start with, it's a voter, I don't need an abuse story to vote the aff down- if the neg does a superior job on the argument, I'll vote on it. At the same time, I think competing interpretations or reasonablity can be a way to interpret/impact T- but it's your job to debate it, ect.

 

DA's are DA's- I like offense, I feel that the link is the most important part of the DA, I don't like intrinsicness/theory args on DA's but if dropped it's 100% defense if explained adequately.

 

CP's- have a solvency advocate, a net benefit and you're good.

 

K's- I don't read them at all, and I don't really read the lit- it's very likely I won't know what you're talking about. At the same time, as long as the parts are clear, then you'll be fine, the most important part to me is the alt/impact to the K. Aff wise, I think impact turns are better than trying to link turn, and K's are good- it will be hard to convince me that K's don't belong in debate, ect. but I will vote on framework, ect. I default to the aff being able to weigh their aff against the K, unless they drop the argument that says otherwise.

 

Performance/affs that don't defend USFG action- I am really not a fan of those, ect.

 

Theory- if you debate it well enough, anything can be a reason to reject the team, but to be honest, certain things (perm theory, topical CP's, Agent CP's, ect.) are a larger strech than other things. Also, I think that condo's OK as long as it's no more than 2 non contradicting options/ 1 K + 1 CP that don't contradict, ect. Specific theory's better too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to judge as well.

 

T I personally hate and you will have to show me a strong abuse scenario to get my to even consider it. If it was dropped, I might go for it. I hold a lot of weight on reasonability as I see T as infinitely regressive. Pretty sure I spelled that wrong. Competing interpretations will be your best bet if you want me to vote on this or extra-T

 

Theory I feel about the same. People waste far too much time on blaming the others and not making good arguments. I'll vote for it if its dropped and explained well and if its good theory. I won't vote on some shoddy PICs bad or Agent CP bad since we all agree that is fine. It also needs a specific abuse scenario for me to look at. Perf con, Perf condo, and Condo are the ones I'm most likely to vote for.

 

Kritiks I love them and I read the lit. Just make sure it solves well and makes sense. You need to run this well because I will hold you to a high standards. I agree mostly with the X-factor on this one. Make your alt clear and I look highly on epistemology just explain it. Don't make it too complicated because I'm not willing to do all the work for you here. And if I read cards I read the entire thing so you better make sure its good evidence

 

Cp. I think these are fine and legit. Just make sure they solve for the impacts and mostly have good links. With DA and CP, the link is most important to me.

 

DA Think these are good. Need to be coupled with a CP or needs to turn the case. Again I need the link more than the UQ

 

Case I would love nothing better than 8 minutes in the 1NC of case. Just make sure that by the 1NR, you've cut it down to a few things that are explained well. The 2NR needs to be all one argument. Make it make sense

 

Performance. Please keep the language down. Don't make a fool of yourself and take time to develop the arguments.

 

Ultimately. Have fun and debate well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo sorry I havent been on in a few days. School just finished so there's been a lot going on. 2600 wc is fine. I'll have cross-x up in about an hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firewater-- take a second to think about my style of debate. I don't think you want to judge, but since I'm not the 2N it might actually end up being a policy round, we'll see.

 

The other two I'm fine with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you don't want me to judge, just tell me, but i still would prefer what you're good at than attempting to adapt and fail. That being said, I did originally offer to judge before you changed from judging to debating, but whatever you want to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I like Firewater! And he did vote K in the Edelman round where you too judged Nathan. On the other hand, I'd prefer not to be judged by a troll (Zizek, ahem) and like T and theory more than dabomerest, and considering our potential strat, think his preferences might be limiting in terms of other off-case as well. Hotstepper is okay -- there were 4 people who offered to judge at some point or another, but which two were you approving, Nick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solvency

What is a "network node?"

It's the hardware that would be deployed on satellites to implement DTN.

The 50th space wing of the US Air Force operates the GPS sat(s) your internal link card (the 3rd one) talks about, but the DOD is only increasing DTN on "its" satellites according to your plan text, yes?

It's all US satellites. I dont account for private sector.

Why is space key? Do any of your cards suggest that it is?

The first SSI 10 card says ground stations are insecure now, and NSTAC says placing nodes directly on our satellites is the most effective way to solve that.

 

 

Economy

Your SSI card isolates THE cause of vulnerability in satellites to be single central command stations, but since you don't create more and thus form more connecting beams, would they think you solve?

When satellites send information to each other, it's sent to a command station which is vulnerable. DTN's connection beams allow satellites to send information without the ground station, so the security threat is removed.

Your Harris and Burrows card says Iran will form "security arrangements with external powers" -- what current nuclear state will give them access considering the NPT?

Countries won't just give nuclear bombs to another country, but they can be protected by major powers while developing their weapons, such as North Korea and CHina.

Why does the economy *check* war; what are the "economic outlets" the "angry," "disenfranchised," and "self-radicalized" would use in other instances which would apparently completely quell their dissatisfaction?

A lot of the Middle East's economy is tied with our. Unemployment is a major factor in terrorist recruiting, and a strong economy means more people will have jobs than are excluded from society.

Do the economic status of the US and our hegemony interact at all?

Yes.

Sea-basing

How does it cause diplomacy?

Rapid deployment features allows us to send units to help with relief missions for natural disasters or maintain peace presence, both which would give us better soft power in those countries.

Heg

High/low now?

High but ineffective.

What the the "geographic hotspots" the tag of Barno speaks of?

East Asia, Africa, the Middle East, anywhere conflict emerges seabasing can decrease escalation.

Warming

Hague says the world looks to the US for leadership on global issues like the environment… why?

"because it has the economic clout and diplomatic leverage to shift the global debate"

This is your only extinction scenario, correct?-

I'll contend the war and terrorism from Kagan and Harris and Burrows will cause inevitably cause extinction. If you want to argue it won't that's cool.

 

Once again sorry about the delay. End of high schools badass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually since I'm the 1N and not the 2N I'm going to let Sophie choose who judges, since she knows her ideal 2NR more than I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In related news, Sophie and I have decided on the 1NC so I'm going to put it together ASAP and it should be up sometime this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I like Firewater! And he did vote K in the Edelman round where you too judged Nathan. On the other hand, I'd prefer not to be judged by a troll (Zizek, ahem) and like T and theory more than dabomerest, and considering our potential strat, think his preferences might be limiting in terms of other off-case as well. Hotstepper is okay -- there were 4 people who offered to judge at some point or another, but which two were you approving, Nick?

 

Check me judging other threads. Im a legit judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason he says this: He shittalked me for no reason and got mad when I talked shit back.

 

The reason I say this: look at most of your posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GTFO of our thread, y'all! Zizek, the aff clearly doesn't want you and you just don't write long enough RFDs (says the girl whose last one was ~6 paragraphs), thanks for offering though.

 

I might have another question for the aff, if so I'll edit.

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...