Jump to content
DisplayName

Round 546 - Cubes (Aff) Vs. Schopenhauer (Neg)

Recommended Posts

oh one more

If your impact for BioD is just human extinction, how do oil spills/loss of animal life kill all humans?

Kills bioD. We'll defend the impact also of highly increased animal extinction but your card about bouncing back after major extinctions only appilies in situations like the Chixilub impact, we're not saying that other species would not bounce back.

 

 

1. Where does your pan card say that the US will inevitably try to control Asia?

He says that the reasons behind us perceiving china as a threat (i.e. seeing us as the sole leaders of the world) are inevitable, ergo we'll always try to control asia.

2. What reason do you give for your claim that the impact of the K is impossible? 

Which K?

3. How does stopping GPS jamming to maintain status quo levels of operation make drones more precise?

They ensure that small level jamming doesn't happen, there's already drone specific jamming attacks which stop our drones from being precise.

4. How is your counter interpretation predictable? 

Probably isn't. But we meet your definition so we can defend that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. pan

The rhetoric of the aff isn't going to lead to armageddon nor is passing the plan

4. okay so you're pretty much willing to say the CI is illegitimate?

No. We can debate the merits of predictability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, sorry I'm late on cx. I haven't been able to work on this since friday because I've been doing a lot all weekend. I will try to get cx up this afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, where did we ever concede we couldn't solve GW? Because I was pretty sure we conceded temp not rising...

 

Uh, other than his random example about orchids, where does Heath warrant his argument about no chain reaction?

 

How does weighing reps meet our framework?

 

How is our framework exclusive of the questioning of reps?

 

Interrogating reps is key to solvency? Of the aff or the K?

 

If neither one of us controls the root cause, how does your kritik get solvency?

 

How is our evidence specific to China "generic" compared to Pan who doesn't address the newest threats?

 

Give me a line in Doty that says reps are more important, and not just important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, where did we ever concede we couldn't solve GW? Because I was pretty sure we conceded temp not rising...

oh ya ignore that part about the Coyne evidence. I intended to change that but forgot. my bad.

 

Uh, other than his random example about orchids, where does Heath warrant his argument about no chain reaction?

so the argument he makes is that single instances of biological life being lost is not what causes chain reactions. in the other lines of the card he says that the cause of massive loss of Biodiversity is natural, unpredictable cycles.

 

How does weighing reps meet our framework?

your role of the ballot is -"role of the ballot is to affirm the best method of impact prevention.I think questioning reps is the best way to understand the nature of their occurrence, ergo weighing the reps of the aff against the reps of the neg is the best method of impact prevention. (It kind of merges with the reps shape reality argument)

 

How is our framework exclusive of the questioning of reps?

Because by saying weigh the aff impacts over reps, you ignore the justification and implications of the epistemology of the 1AC. Basically by saying weigh the impacts of the aff you say the judge should look towards the impacts, not how we come to the to the conclusion of those impacts.

Interrogating reps is key to solvency? Of the aff or the K?

Yes. Aff. 

 

If neither one of us controls the root cause, how does your kritik get solvency?

okay so the root cause argument i'm making is that the K is the root cause of stuff like your China scenario and some major power wars. I don't claim that the alt solves for ALL wars everywhere, which is what your evidence said is wrong. Your reps might not be the one and only cause of every war that has ever happened or ever will happen, but your reps make wars from a violent security paradigm inevitable, which the alt solves.

 

How is our evidence specific to China "generic" compared to Pan who doesn't address the newest threats?

because non of your evidence talks about how you represent China. you read a bunch of reps don't shape reality and a card about the spanish conquistadors, but you don't read a single card that talk about china your china reps.

 

Give me a line in Doty that says reps are more important, and not just important.

 

"representation is an inherent and important aspect of global political life"

"International relations are inextricably bound up with discursive practices that put into circulation representations that are taken as "truth"

"Focusing on discursive practices enables one to examine how the processes that produce "truth" and "knowledge" work and how they are articulated with the exercise of political, military, and economic power"

He is making the argument that representations shape policies. So no matter what our representations are going to determine the outcome and method of policymaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is because policy is rooted in the epistemological assumptions and effect the ways in which global governance operates that representations shape our policies, and if we use false representations, our policies will inevitably fail. And it is serial policy failure, so the impact isn't just the aff loosing solvency, it's policies that make false assumptions about threats in the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bump.

 

also, since I am judging, will someone pm me once the round is finished?

I will. Last I checked, Casey's still working on the 2NR. I have some ideas for the 2AR so it shouldn't be that much time unless the 2NR is posted close to Friday (I have a forensics tournament)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Third judge?   Saw you had two.  My prefs are posted somewhere around here, but everything happening so far is fine and I am pretty legit :P

sounds good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine with new judge. 
 

I was going to post friday during school, but I was unable to finish it due to prepping for a forensics tournament, which ran to today. It should be posted before the long weekend is over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll start evaluating the debate today. i will for sure get an RFD sometime in the next few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hotstepper doesn't report, or another judge wants to join, I can judge and have a decision and RFD ready. I think you both know me. Let me know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its up to the debaters whether or not I judge or Chris does- I'd understand if you'd rather have him do it. Unless instructed otherwise, I'll post my decision and rfd tonight

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...