Jump to content
DisplayName

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

Recommended Posts

Both Chris and Will can judge and then I'll join in too and we can make it a 5 judge panel is that cool?

 

I would be down for judging this and I can post an RFD within the next 24 hours. I am tabula rasa and nothing in the debate round has offended me to the point of voting someone down.

 

Also don't tell anyone I said this but I heard that Chris Birzer is a Pan hack. I would be wary of having him as a judge.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Chris and Will can judge and then I'll join in too and we can make it a 5 judge panel is that cool?

 

I would be down for judging this and I can post an RFD within the next 24 hours. I am tabula rasa and nothing in the debate round has offended me to the point of voting someone down.

 

Also don't tell anyone I said this but I heard that Chris Birzer is a Pan hack. I would be wary of having him as a judge.

Casey didn't go for Pan so it's fine :P

 

Anyone who wants to post an RFD can, I've kinda lost track of the judges at this point lol

 

EDIT: Technically we're at 6 judges now, so in the case that everyone reports we may need one more.

 

Current judges:

 

mooooooo (? on number of os)

RyeZOAM

Hotstepper

teleportmassive

JigglyPerm (casey still needs to approve)

Bhatla (casey still needs to approve)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote aff. I think all this theory stuff is stupid and not warranted so I don't really evaluate it. I think the aff meets. The neg does not really define investment which means that if it is true that GPS is a topical target of invetsment which is the argument made on the TVOA, then that means that the aff increases investment in an underlying structure. That argument is not really in the 2AR but I don't think that the 2NR is going for a violation based off of the target of investment. The 2NR does not make an argument about why GPS is not topical, just about why only fixing it up is not topical which I don't think you have an interpretaiton that supports.

 
That said, I would have given you both relatively bad speaks depending on what tournament this was (OK speaks for Kansas). Few suggestions.
 
Aff- your plan text is abysmal. Take the time to write out "United States federal government" and make sure that your plan text is gramatically correct. I didn't really evaluate the rest of the debate but making RVI's and other stupid theory arguments is a waste of everyone's time and your speaker points 
 
Neg--I really only evaluated T, but the 1NC strat is pretty dumb. You are clearly showing your hand. Throw in a disad and counterplan. If you want to go for the K for sure, I think that there is a way that you could combine these K's and make it the entirety of the block. Just something to think about. If you are only going a few off, the 1NC K's should be larger. Pan doesn't seem that viable coming out of the 1NC as an independent reps K because I don't think it indicts their other advs. I think that this debate is different if you read a card that draws the distinction between maintenance and construction and read a violation based on that. I think that a general issue with T debates that I see in Kansas especially is that people don't read any relevant evidence. Reading 1 interp card in the 1NC is probably not enough to persuade me that you have the most predictable and precise interp. (Though in this debate, the aff didn't either so it didn't really matter)
 
Email or message me with questions.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm pre-approved, so I'll go ahead and vote-

 

I vote aff- I think the aff is pretty ahead on the we meet debate. Investing in GPS is an underlying structure- increase doesn't have to be to the underlying structure itself, but rather the investment. This argument way undercovered in the 2nr- I understand the distinctions you try to make in the 2nr about how your interp disregards investment, but it doesn't do you any good. Nowhere in the 1ar does the aff say that GPS is an underlying structure (which is in the 1nr)- this could have been an easier 2nr route, as opposed to the part vs. whole debate

 

To the neg- I think you should have done a few things differently from the get go. I don't think you needed both of these k's in the 1nc- I would have gone with cap, because Pan only interacts with 1 advantage, making case outweighs arguments easier. Also, you could read space links for cap. You should read a cp against affs that have this many impact scenarios, because otherwise they will bludgeon you to death. In the 2nr, you spend a good chunk of time on your standards debate, but why? he is only going for a we meet- I think you should have put some of that standards work into your violation analysis- but only some. I don't get a clear reason at the end of the debate why part of an underlying structure isn't ok- you don't answer his "you link to your own standards" arguments. Its a lot of "limits good" but not a lot of "our interp creates good limits". Also, this is a TERRIBLE T violation in the context of this aff- the much much easier argument is T- Communications (which is probably true).

 

To the Aff- I echo what Chris says- your plan text is crap. I think you give the neg a lot of pic ground, while weeding out solvency ground. I thought that making RVI's was a terrible choice, because nobody will ever vote for those. 2ar should not have extended utopian fiat- "utopian fiat bad" was less than 20 words of the 1ar- saying "c/a voter" is not an argument. Its like a 2ac saying "Extend my entire aff- now go to the offcase." Also, I would have extended the c/i on T- I think it always helps to be able to generate offense on T- especially when his argument is probably not true. 

 

If you have any questions or compliments, you can message or email me. If you have complaints about my evaluation, email or message Chris. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shoulda done United States Facter GUild T...

the f and g weren't capitalized in the plan text, so technically the abbreviation was correct

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think i end up voting aff also, but i'm going to preface my RFD by saying that i was a hair-trigger away from voting Neg in a couple of ways. Here is my analysis of the two arguments in the 2NR that determined my ballot:

1. Fiat Doublebind--call me a hack, but i actually think this is a legitimate argument that isn't offensive (as the 2AR says), but rather just a critical solvency deficit. I didn't consider the argument all that new in the 2NR because a lot of the reps/alt solvency debate came down to these sorts of levers of power/policy engagement impacts anyways. I think the only thing mitigating this is the 2AR's extension of framing evidence and 1AR arguments, whose analysis wasn't really covered in the 2NR outside the fiat-isn't-real argument. i would have probably voted Neg if either A) the 2AR didn't make that extension or analysis or B ) if the Neg had done more work on the Ivory-Tower/Policy education good arguments. 2NR concession that the K and aff operate on functionally the same level means that my vote comes down to who creates the best opportunity for real world engagement, which in this instance i think is the aff only because they're the only ones giving me any offense as to why the education created by the plan is good.

2. Topicality--i'm going to try and keep the echoing to a minimum, but i think that both Chris and Will are right in their analysis that too much time was spent on the impact debate and that too little time was spent on the we meet debate. They key 2AR & 1AR argument is that an Underlying Structure just has to in some way support delivery of goods/people or whatever, and doesn't have to be the entirety of that sector of Transportation. i think this is additionally supported by the "increase" and "investment" definitions read in the 1AR, which i think lets the Aff get away with funding part of an underlying structure because there is investment in that structure (whatever that underlying structure is). i think the devastating thing about the 1NC card is that it is really under highlighted and that the violation doesn't include a description of what the 1NC does. i think including the list of underlying structures that Trimbath defines, as well as a violation line like "They invest in a modification to GPS (augmentation), not a new GPS system" or something would have made the violation/we meet debate a lot more clear for everyone.

i didn't think it was all that bad of a debate. you guys shouldn't give your selves too hard of a time with all the criticism. you have years of tournaments and camp to improve. but i think that Chris is right in that the 1NC strat made the debate really predictable and that the plantext should be carefully written. Keith and i won an absurd amount of Neg rounds at the SME tournament because nobody had an offensive reason for replacing an actual agent with "USFG."

obviously, if you have any questions regarding other parts of the debate, or just specific questions about how i came to my decision, feel free to ask (you both have multiple means to contact me if you want). Again, while the decision might have been obvious to the other judges so far, i actually thought this debate was close in that it could have easily gone the other way given a couple of clarifications on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Casey-- I will add that there is no reason to read all of this "limits good" stuff in the block because the only counter interp that is made is "only our aff is topical" which means you should only answer the "we meet" and then make arguments about why that interp is obviously a nonstarter. This also would save you a lot of time in the block and the 2NR.

 

Keith-- You should probably make a real counter interp to avoid the situation I just described.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like you guys have a lot of ballots and some pretty detailed, valuable advice so far, so if you don't mind, I'm going to bow out of doing an independent evaluation.  It would be redundant, and I'm also quite busy.  Additionally, I feel uncomfortable judging after reading all the other ballots (obviously this is not the way it's supposed to go for a reason).

 

Sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I affirm as well. Many people have posted their RFDs (while mine is NOT predicated off theirs), and thus, I will not be posting an actual, elongated, written-out RFD. This is in part for two reasons: I don't really have the time & most of my comments will be echoing the ones above.

 

If necessary, you can pm me and I will post an actual RFD (only if necessary) later on.

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...