Jump to content
Umbrella Leaf

Round 538 -- Umbrella Leaf (A) V. Mistermills (N)

Recommended Posts

1. On your business wire 12 card could you give one warrant apart from "will happen everywhere" for why grid failure outweighs nuclear war?

2. Why would a nation want to EMP America?

3. What does it mean for something to be a national security priority?

4. Where will the rails be built?

5. Out of what?

6. Why would people switch to electrified frieght from other modes of transport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. On your business wire 12 card could you give one warrant apart from "will happen everywhere" for why grid failure outweighs nuclear war?

 

Uh, no... I do think, though, that that's a pretty persuasive argument. Nuclear war is contained to a single location, and there's no reason that anyone would be nuking South Dakota or whatever in the event of a nuclear war -- comparatively grid collapse screws over the whole nation

 

2. Why would a nation want to EMP America?

 

a.) Factually -- the venetis evidence cites the ayatollah khameini (sp?), indicates that he's publicly stated that he's contemplating using EMPs to attack its enemies

b.) Temptation -- the koenig and venetis evidence indicate that the us is super unprepared for cyber and grid attacks -- china's already penetrated through the grid before and have attempted multiple cyberattacks, which proves that rogue nations and US enemies will seek to exploit these gray areas in US policymaking

 

3. What does it mean for something to be a national security priority?

 

Our Drake evidence defines making rail electrification a national security priority as the US taking every step possible to procure and allocate the resources necessary for railroad electrification.

 

4. Where will the rails be built?

 

We don't build rail, we electrify it.

 

5. Out of what?

 

See above.

 

6. Why would people switch to electrified frieght from other modes of transport?

 

couple of reasons --

a.) Intuitively -- people use rail to ship freight now, which means they probably wouldn't stop after it's electrified

b.) Faster Shipping time -- our Drake 08 evidence indicates that electrification would cause rail to be 15% faster than trucking or barges, which means people would switch since it's the most efficient method of transport

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) investment is capital expenditure -- why does upgrading infrastructure not meet if we have to spend money upgrading

 

2.) your alsshawi evidence defines transportation infrastructure as including rail -- do you read any evidence that says investing in rail is not electrification -- do you read any evidence that says we are electricity infrastructure

 

3.) status of the k

 

4.) your davenport evidence says that TI is devastating for animal populations -- does the alt defend an end to all transportation infrastructure -- on a similar note... is it a floating pik

 

5.) what about our aff perpetuates an anthropocentric mindset -- I understand the davenport link, but your ehrenfeld impact evidence seems to be talking about a way of thinking... not infrastructure.

 

6.) why should we speak for nature / how do we speak for nature? do we just assume that we know what nature wants us to say/do

 

7.) why does ethics come before politics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. you don't, your plan only mandates making it a security priority

 

2. look, you don't build rails, you just electrify them- no building

 

3. conditional

 

4. no, it doesn't. our alt evidence talks about speaking for nature in making new investments

 

5. our bell and russel ev. indicates that the way in which you validated your advantages as saving humans in anthropogenic

 

6. as the lorax, the negative puts the natural world at the same level as humans, and we promote ecoliteracy- understanding how policy options affect the environment

 

7. ethics pre-determine our politics, our ev indicated that without first proving analyzing how we decide if our harms are real our plans will fail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. we said in cross-x that we defined a 'national security priority' as "the US taking every step possible to procure and allocate the resources necessary for railroad electrification." that sounds like building to me :F

 

2. that has nothing to do with your interpretation -- do you read any evidence that says ELECTRIFYING is not INVESTING

 

4. i am not asking about your alt evidence, i am asking about your LINK evidence -- the davenport evidence says that STATUS QUO infrastructure is bad and anthropocentric -- i am asking whether we should get rid of all status quo infrastructure

 

5. when did we say we only saved humans? should we not save humans? @__@ we said we solved extinction. i'm pretty sure animals wouldn't like having their asses beaten with nuclear weapons, just saying

 

6. so... we just like, assume that we can know what nature wants us to do? why is it not anthropocentric to assume that we can speak for nature?

 

7. wut -- sorry, i don't get that at all x__x could you re-explain it, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. we said in cross-x that we defined a 'national security priority' as "the US taking every step possible to procure and allocate the resources necessary for railroad electrification." that sounds like building to me :F

you don't build new infrastructure

 

2. that has nothing to do with your interpretation -- do you read any evidence that says ELECTRIFYING is not INVESTING

no. electrifying is not INFRASTRUCTURE

 

4. i am not asking about your alt evidence, i am asking about your LINK evidence -- the davenport evidence says that STATUS QUO infrastructure is bad and anthropocentric -- i am asking whether we should get rid of all status quo infrastructure

we take no stance on this. however, we advocate changing the anthropocentric basis, not the stuff.

 

5. when did we say we only saved humans? should we not save humans? @__@ we said we solved extinction. i'm pretty sure animals wouldn't like having their asses beaten with nuclear weapons, just saying

yes, but it was in your discourse that you tried to prove that you were good because you saved humans

 

6. so... we just like, assume that we can know what nature wants us to do? why is it not anthropocentric to assume that we can speak for nature?

if we investigate our policy and ethical standpoint and gain ecoliteracy we can make decisions with nature in mind

 

7. wut -- sorry, i don't get that at all x__x could you re-explain it, please?

ethics come before politics because ethics predetermine our politics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. where did we try to prove we were good because we saved humans / why is saving humans bad if we can save other forms of existence as well?

 

oh, one other question -- is life good / is death bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. where did we try to prove we were good because we saved humans / why is saving humans bad if we can save other forms of existence as well?

every impact was human extinction. animals wouldn't die because we don't have electricity

 

oh, one other question -- is life good / is death bad?

life in a world where we value nature is always good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can judge this (and that would be instead of also debating you, Vikram; I'm kinda busy).

 

 

TOPICALITY: I have no dispositions on reasonability versus competing interpretations, or otherwise erring aff or neg on this issue. I think it's a perfectly acceptable thing to go for and that affirmative teams underestimate it -- as long as you cover your shit in the block and spend at least 4 minutes and about 10 seconds on it in the 2NR, you're a contender.

 

KRTIKS: It's more acceptable to run multiple condo Ks than CPs, for the simple reason that a strong link usually means the perm fails, and that they don't use/abuse fiat. I like Ks and don't fundamentally disbelieve the claim that debate should only be about policies options or the status quo. I would much prefer the aff beat the K straight-up rather than running framework; unless it is completely dropped I will not vote for it. Sometimes debaters read obscure Ks hoping that the other team will just not have answers -- I think this is bad for education and that less clash and depth in the round will result in lower speaks for everyone. Treat me like I don't know anything -- that's probably not far from the truth. It need a comprehensive overview at the top of any K as opposed to just card extensions -- I want to have a clear link and impact story by the end of the round, same as I would with a disad. I don't tend to like 1 off K debates or very generic link Ks (think Focault, cap, and probably race, especially for teams which only run race). If you're a one-trick pony, for both of our sakes, just don't pref me.

 

OTHER: I value analytical arguments as equal to carded ones until provided a reason to like one or the other more (this works two ways -- if you say analytics are better than evidence and they drop this, I will default to your framing). "Prefer our Harvard PhD to the 'blippy' analytics of a high schooler" isn't very persuasive, though, you must prove some inherent worth to your old dude and impact his knowledge in terms of depth of study and time spent doing it. In general, I value to the logic of whatever you are saying most highly, regardless of where it comes from.

 

I care a lot that I can draw a clear line through the debate for your arguments -- if I don't have it on my flow for the 1AR, you don't get to weigh it in the 2AR. If you're a good 2A you can try giving me some spin as to why it's actually a cross-application from another flow or something, but it may not work.

 

It is also possible that I will make large scale framing cross-applications for you/apply them more explicitly than you directed me to (that is, if they are in your side's speeches throughout the entire round). No argument is dropped if a meta-argument has answered it in enough detail. In this way, I suppose I am a "truth over tech judge." Truth is rewarded with a win, tech probably with excellent speaker points.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can judge this (and that would be instead of also debating you, Vikram; I'm kinda busy).

 

 

TOPICALITY: I have no dispositions on reasonability versus competing interpretations, or otherwise erring aff or neg on this issue. I think it's a perfectly acceptable thing to go for and that affirmative teams underestimate it -- as long as you cover your shit in the block and spend at least 4 minutes and about 10 seconds on it in the 2NR, you're a contender.

 

KRTIKS: It's more acceptable to run multiple condo Ks than CPs, for the simple reason that a strong link usually means the perm fails, and that they don't use/abuse fiat. I like Ks and don't fundamentally disbelieve the claim that debate should only be about policies options or the status quo. I would much prefer the aff beat the K straight-up rather than running framework; unless it is completely dropped I will not vote for it. Sometimes debaters read obscure Ks hoping that the other team will just not have answers -- I think this is bad for education and that less clash and depth in the round will result in lower speaks for everyone. Treat me like I don't know anything -- that's probably not far from the truth. It need a comprehensive overview at the top of any K as opposed to just card extensions -- I want to have a clear link and impact story by the end of the round, same as I would with a disad. I don't tend to like 1 off K debates or very generic link Ks (think Focault, cap, and probably race, especially for teams which only run race). If you're a one-trick pony, for both of our sakes, just don't pref me.

 

OTHER: I value analytical arguments as equal to carded ones until provided a reason to like one or the other more (this works two ways -- if you say analytics are better than evidence and they drop this, I will default to your framing). "Prefer our Harvard PhD to the 'blippy' analytics of a high schooler" isn't very persuasive, though, you must prove some inherent worth to your old dude and impact his knowledge in terms of depth of study and time spent doing it. In general, I value to the logic of whatever you are saying most highly, regardless of where it comes from.

 

I care a lot that I can draw a clear line through the debate for your arguments -- if I don't have it on my flow for the 1AR, you don't get to weigh it in the 2AR. If you're a good 2A you can try giving me some spin as to why it's actually a cross-application from another flow or something, but it may not work.

 

It is also possible that I will make large scale framing cross-applications for you/apply them more explicitly than you directed me to (that is, if they are in your side's speeches throughout the entire round). No argument is dropped if a meta-argument has answered it in enough detail. In this way, I suppose I am a "truth over tech judge." Truth is rewarded with a win, tech probably with excellent speaker points.

 

sounds good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I guess I'll ask one last time... other than "YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT ANIMALS," how do we LINK to the K -- where do you read any evidence which says that electrifying rail lines causes animal deaths -- AT BEST, Davenport seems to be talking about BUILDING NEW infrastructure, and even then I'm pretty sure it's talking about status quo infrastructure.

 

--- as a b subpoint to this question, i guess... can you isolate a single instance in the 1ac where we say "vote aff because we save human lives"

 

2. If weighing impacts is anthropocentric... why not just vote aff on presumption since nothing matters anymore

 

3. You say we're on the road to death right now -- when are we going to die absent a shift in ethics -- how exactly will that happen

 

4. How do you know what nature wants and why do you think we should act like we can know nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Our third link argument on the perm is talking about how your appropriations of resources isolates nature to be eliminated. And the analysis I did on the perm is fine. Apparently you increase freight traffic, which would cause more deaths.

b. there are more, but first your bioweapons card specifically says human deaths may start occuring

2. Because ethics matter, and saving nature. also its the way you weigh impacts

3. Our ehrenfield evidence indicates that global warming, negative feedback loops, and pollution will kill us very soon

4. Look, we just want to protect nature. If we can prove that you harm nature, then we try to save it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I guess I'll ask one last time... other than "YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT ANIMALS," how do we LINK to the K -- where do you read any evidence which says that electrifying rail lines causes animal deaths -- AT BEST, Davenport seems to be talking about BUILDING NEW infrastructure, and even then I'm pretty sure it's talking about status quo infrastructure.

 

--- as a b subpoint to this question, i guess... can you isolate a single instance in the 1ac where we say "vote aff because we save human lives"

 

2. If weighing impacts is anthropocentric... why not just vote aff on presumption since nothing matters anymore

 

3. You say we're on the road to death right now -- when are we going to die absent a shift in ethics -- how exactly will that happen

 

4. How do you know what nature wants and why do you think we should act like we can know nature

1. I guess I'll ask one last time... other than "YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT ANIMALS," how do we LINK to the K -- where do you read any evidence which says that electrifying rail lines causes animal deaths -- AT BEST, Davenport seems to be talking about BUILDING NEW infrastructure, and even then I'm pretty sure it's talking about status quo infrastructure.

 

--- as a b subpoint to this question, i guess... can you isolate a single instance in the 1ac where we say "vote aff because we save human lives"

 

2. If weighing impacts is anthropocentric... why not just vote aff on presumption since nothing matters anymore

 

3. You say we're on the road to death right now -- when are we going to die absent a shift in ethics -- how exactly will that happen

 

4. How do you know what nature wants and why do you think we should act like we can know nature

 

It's hard to read questions that have no question marks ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not bad to save humans, but we need to take into account the rest of nature as well

2. you translate nature into a category that can be measured

4. If something will harm nature, then stopping that thing would be to "save" nature.

sorry get it done tomorrow, you know christmas and all

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...