Jump to content

Round 577: Argogate (Aff) V Nadiadaniela And Co (Neg)

Recommended Posts

Hmm...I want this to be as educational as possible. So it's on trust, read what you normally can get through in 8 min, that sound cool?


Also need judges, prefer close to tabula rasa

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

cross ex-

how do SMRs in america solve for an indo-pak war?

how does investing in Mayport TI result in SMRs? (as in, what is the link between SMRs and TI funding)

whats the connection between Hamas and terrorism?

whats the connection between radiological accidents and terrorist attacks?

how does mayport investment decrease chance of terrorism?

where does the etzioni 11 card talk about gulf deterrence?

what exact part of the plan prevents the heg impacts?

because the plan text doesn't mention SMRs or making Mayport a nuclear carrier capable homeport, are you fiating that the money goes to those two things no matter what? is that all that the money goes to? 

how much money does the plan ask for?


sorry, im not sure how well i understand the plan. these questions are all for clarification.

1nc will not be up tonight, sorry.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) The Robitaille evidence indicates that SMRs can be placed on carriers, and the IAEA evidence indicates that 1) the tech will spillover/be sold to areas where the US has presence, and 2) The US will use SMRs to assist countries in desalination

2) The O'Rourke evidence indicates that investing in TI upgrades at mayport results in nuclear power plant facilities

3) Hamas is a terrorist group with a large presence in Virginia, where Norfolk, the only homeport for Atlantic carriers, is located

4) Not much. The DoE has started barge shipments of radioactive waste to Norfolk, and those shipments are prone to accidents, where the waste explosions would make Norfolk unusable.

5) Two args
       1) Mayport provides redundancy, so we could still control our carriers in Norfolk was made unusable
       2) Mayport is much easier to secure, since commercial cargo normally doesn't pass through

6) The Etzioni card is talking about naval capability in deterring Iran. Iran is in the gulf. The Telegraph card also indicates that the persian gulf is a key site for deterrence capabilities

7) The Layne evidence indicates that Atlantic naval power is a unique key in managing the transition from hegemony. Additionally, lack of naval deterrence in the atlantic has empirically led to "boots-on-the-ground" military invasions, which always turn out badly

8) The plan fiats the transportation infrastructure at Mayport. I will clarify that the plan mandates only the TI needed to homeport a carrier. That probably includes/results in stuff like dredging, wharf improvements, and SMR facilities. That is all the money goes to.

9) The plan text defends a "substantial" amount.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll do my best at CX...

First, what's the status of the advocacies?

1) Your Words and Phrases evidence says "in can be construed to mean throughout" in "the act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction 'in' their respective counties." How does that apply to the aff's investment?

2) Your EPA evidence is talking about the "geographic sense..." Does that mean if I'm in the "United States," I'm somehow in every state at the same time?

3) Limits debate, if I do an aff in a different state, what additional "unreasonable research" do you have to do to negate the aff? It's the same aff...


4) What ground do you "lose," per se? Your ground definition is also about "specific states doing the plan." Where does the aff mandate that?

1) What's the net benefit?

2) Where do either of your cards say "terminating the program" is a good idea?

3) Puentes is about state solvency of the aff, how does it apply to your cost overruns CP?

1) Where do you read an impact to bioD?

2) The navy just relocated multiple combat ships to Mayport, how does that not trigger the "thousands of additional vessel trips" your Petersen evidence talks about?"

3) Petersen is an assistant to VIRGINIA senator Jim Webb, how is he a an unbiased source?

4) The introna evidence talks about our relationship with being, how does ONE instance of biodiversity loss solve the way humans view being as a whole (animals, objects, etc.)

1) Can the alt result in any version of the aff during this debate?

2) Who does the alt, and how does it spill over?

3) The alt "reconcieves violence," meaning it changes our approach to identifying violence. How is that the same thing as stopping violence or letting individuals know that it's all their fault.

4) If we win our impacts are real, is that a reason for action?

5) The kappeler link is based off an increase in militaristic intervention to solve violence, the aff maintains naval presence which results in a decrease of said intervention. Can you quantify a solid link to the aff for me?

1) The Zenko card is about deaths from terrorism, where does the aff say terrorism has to kill everyone?

2) Montiero is about unipolarity, where does the aff defend that?

3) The Neocleous card is in the context of Bush-era policy and the war on terror. Both of those are over, what's the unique link to the aff, seeing as there's no alt?

4) Noorani evidence, where does the aff defend a "benign hegemon" or "incorporate the world order into the United States for the forseeable future?"

Edit: How do you want me to split up the case flow? What cards go on what advantages?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites




1) the quote just proves our definition to be legit. the reason we argue that it SHOULD apply is for fairness

2) the word "in" can be interpreted in a lot of different ways (i'm assuming that you will have a CI, etc). we argue that when it comes to laws or bills implemented by the state, the use of "in" meaning "throughout" like this sentence "the act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction 'in' their respective counties." applies better than you, as an individual, being "throughout" (in) the United States.

3) if you want to defend that mayport ports would be built in every state then go ahead. because mayport TI would probably only apply to Florida, you only doing the plan in florida means that there could be a plan only done in ohio, etc. that means that we have to research all of the transportation that is currently in every separate state. its more about the amount of affs that we would have to research if all 50 states could do their own separate plans than the affs themselves.

4)im not quite sure if i understand the question, but we lose a lot of links and DA ground



1) a shift towards making TI more profitable. the puentes evidence talks about how the only way we can do this is by issuing benefit/cost-analyses. more will be in the block, but the net benefit is avoiding cost overruns (which ruins economic competitiveness which is key to your heg advantage)

2) neither of them do, but we argue that our internal link to solvency is stronger than yours

3) if the idea of your plan is good, the CP solves the whole aff better



1) the introna card talks about how putting ourselves as humans above manitees, whales, and all organisms dependent on these species leads us to value some beings over others which allows for many other forms of discrimination and genocide

2) the peterson card still talks about the 5.2 million cubic yards of dredged material that would only result from the plan. its a linear effect

3) no more biased than your authors

4) its about what becomes justifiable



1) all of the aff solvency represents violence as something that is not a human choice. if the plan text had been represented differently, it potentially could have happened in the world of the alt, but because it was promoted in a way that was laced with representations that link to the impact of the k, in this debate- no.

2) we fiat that when the judge rejects your representations by voting neg, he/she embraces a world where violence is individually driven. the spillover is through the reality that is shaped by the representations. the kritik is more about stopping the misconception of violence.

3) it's not our job to stop violence, this is actually part of the problem. government action can never diminish violence, only individuals can. because of the belief that individuals have no choice, violence continues in areas where it could be stopped. we can't fiat that a neg ballot lets EVERYONE know about this re conception (just as the plan wont ACTUALLY happen), but we can look to the methods or aspirations of each teams advocacy and thats what the judge votes on (because that is the only thing about this round that we can truly control)

4) no. just because your impacts are real doesn't mean that the plan solves for them.. and also, your representations are the thing that needs to be rejected.

5) the link is the way that you represent war-solvency as government based



1) its not about relation between deaths and the aff, the number of deaths are just a statistic proving that terrorism is blown our of proportion and that it is just as inevitable as AMericans being crushed to death by their televisions or furniture.

2) hegemony: "leadership or dominance, esp. by one country or social group overothers." we just assumed that with an adv of hegemony, you meant the United States being the one hegemon. if that is not what your adv is based on, please tell us!!!!!!

3) you fighting terrorism is functionally a "war on terror". the bush "war on terror" being over actually makes the link more unique. if we reject the "War on terror" that you wage, we reject the constructed threats

4) the second advantage


water war= adv 1 

warwars=adv 2 

last card=applicable to both, flow it wherever



also, sorry if it takes us some time to respond in between speeches. we'll try to post as quickly as possible!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


#3, mayport can only be done in florida, so why doesn't predictability (or even state fiat) check back for the so-called "limits explosion"

#4, you ran nothing but generics, can you tell me exactly what da links or cp ground you lost from this aff?



#1, where did you read a net benefit in the 1nc? Which card makes those internal link claims?


Also, you said neither of the cards mention terminating the program. I'm holding you to that, ok?



#1, introna classifies all matter as forms of being. Are you saying there's a direct relationship between killing whales in ONE instance and looking down on other people or rocks or any other form of matter? 1) describe that slippery slope to me, and 2) explain how it's unique (where does introna mention whales/manitees, name one person besides you or your partner that walks outside and says "I love you, mr. Rock"



Ok, the spillover will be cool, but can you tell me how the judge causes it in this one round?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


3) with your interpretation, it allows for too many specific adds that the neg can't prepare for

4) we didn't run the args bc we didn't have links, but a 50 states cp wouldn't have made much sense, national trade off das probably wouldn't have either, because you didn't give us an amount of money we will assume that spending money in one state is less than spending in all 50, and equity cps wouldn't have made sense



1) our first card talks about revolutionizing the process of federal spending projects, more will be in the block

And ok



1) yes

The mindset of one living being being more important than another living being allows us to justify any amount of genocide or discrimintion with the notion of "natural human dominance". While trying to diminish this mindset, the plan does nothing but promote it



1) cards will be in the block, but representations shape reality

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. reasons to reject the team?

2. what is the timeframe of your impacts?


on deterrence

1. "the navy is key to manage the transition" transition to what?

2. what's your definition of terrorism?

3 . which of your cards states that terrorism is inevitable at norfolk?

4. why would terrorism be "inevitable" at norfolk? (what are the terrorists targeting, why would they attack in norfolk over somewhere else?)



1. if we had run 10 DAs, on average, would each of those DAs had better or worse argument development than our 3 conditional advocacies?

2. if the counter plan is to terminate the plan if the plan starts to cost more than estimates, why is having a cost estimate for the plan a reason to vote for the plan over the counter plan? What's the significance of your O'Rourke card?

3. (Edwards 12) "government can't cut costs without creating egregious overruns" ... "there is little if any downside if federal projects in their districts double or triple in cost. Indeed, cost overruns are usually a benefit" could you explain these two phrases in the context of this debate?



1. could you explain why "policy simulation is key to agency"?

2. (Coverstone 5) are we losing political activism when we run this kritik? it talks about how citizens should debate about government action, but where does it say debate should only be about government action? Role-playing without question teaches students to be comfortable with the language of powerand that language paves the way for genuine and effective political activism Is the neg not role-playing?

3. what would be an example of an alternative (on any kritik) that is less vague than ours and what makes it less vague?

4. "reps shape reality and won’t spillover out of this round" if the representations that we use in (and out of) the debate space shape the reality that we live, how does this not spillover outside of this round?

5 . how does the double bind prove the first perm on the k?

6. were dinar 2, beller 4, moore 4 and owen 2 supposed to be on  case? if not, can you explain how they apply to the k?

7. how do any of the perms solve if our k is partially a kritik of the way you understand solvency to the plan?


anthro (not biod)

1. why was the dredging stopped?

2. what do you mean by this "rational decision making requires understanding what is or is not a cost"?

3. what are "portable impacts"? why should we prefer them

4 . how does the bernstein 2 card relate to the k?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

also on the kappeler k-

8. (Fisher and Shragge 02) You say activism and organization on the local and global level is necessary, how is this the same thing as re-conceiving violence? How do we acknowledge that we are the cause of violence on a global scale rather than individually? and how does your plan help us do this?


on anthro-

5. why is an oil spill that kills animals bad?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. CP Illegit, Solvency Advocate Theory, Conditionality, Framework, Vague Alts
2. The Dinar evidence says 2014, so half a year for water wars. Heg impact by 2020, I can read more evidence on that if you want. The Beller card gives a linear impact, and the BioD stuff indicates it will happen very soon.

1. Transition to a stable, multipolar world
2. A surprise attack involving deliberate use of aggression for (mostly) political reasons.
3. The Kimberlin and VFC cards make that claim.
4. Two arguments: First, Norfolk is an important naval base (the only carrier base on the east coast), which is surrounded by government buildings/structures, turning it into a "symbol of the west." Second, the Kimberlin evidence (more recent) indicates that Norfolk has become the busiest port on the east coast, and an attack now is uniquely likely. Also, terrorists don't have the network already in place, and they perceive other targets as 1) too hard to attack, or 2) unimportant.

1. Well, straight turns (and speed) prevent people from running 10 DAs. Conditional advocacies are uniquely abusive because you can kick out of them at any time. The argument underdevelopment argument is that instead of having to answer the stuff I say, you just say "not going for X, concede the perm, etc."

2. Well, the O'Rourke "card" is just there to show the first plank of the CP is normal means.
3. Cost overruns are inevitable and there's no impact. You're misinterpreting the second line, it just says that Program administrators and public officials like cost overruns because it means that more money goes into their community.



1. Roleplaying the government leads to an active citizenry because it teaches us the ways of bureaucracy (what Coverstone calls "the language of power"). Students who engage in policy simulation are better able to put forward their proposals in the real world and influence actual decisionmaking.
2. Top of the Coverstone card. I can quote other parts if you'd like:

"Control of the US government is exactly what an active, participatory citizenry is supposed to be all about. After all, if democracy means anything, it means that citizens not only have the right, they also bear the obligation to discuss and debate what the government should be doing. Absent that discussion and debate, much of the motivation for personal political activism is also lost."

That's where the double bind comes in - your criticism is mutually exclusive with roleplaying the government (fiat, etc.) The only way for you to work within the government is to fiat a mindset shift of everyone in congress - in which case there will be some theory in the 1AR.
3. Well, my suggestion would be to put more than "re-conceive violence" down for the alt. Explain what that entails, and maybe what it looks like in the 1NC.
4. We're 3 HS debaters (well, I'm almost done, so two HS debaters and one college kid) in a Vdebate on cross-x.com, so I doubt that the representations we put forward will affect what happens in the governmental sphere.
5. If we're not the USFG, then the perm solves because 3 people don't affect policymaking. If we are the USFG, the perm solves because we have control over how others percieve the plan, so one instance is nothing compared to all others (seeing as you have no links that talk about mayport)

6. Beller 4 is a VTL/structural violence addon. The other cards are defenses of the 1AC's reps.
7. Well, the perm cards indicate that the plan can work despite the reps problems (if there are any). Also, reps shape how we perceive threats, not how we solve them.
8. Kappeler represents local determination. The aff stops a US imperialism, lashout, and a power vacuum by fostering multilateralism and cooperation. I'm pretty sure that counts as acknowledging we cause problems. Also, even if we cause problems, you have not read evidence that indicates that carriers/desalination can't solve those problems on a global level.


Introna DA (is that right?)

1. Lack of funding

2. I don't see how doing the aff is the unique link into a slippery slope of subjugating animals and...oh wait, we ALREADY DO THAT. It's a bastardized intrinsicness argument - doing the plan is not mutually exclusive with valuing nature or whatever.
3. Skills that can be taken out of the debate round (which is why they should be preferred). Message if you want more info on this one :)

4. It's a flaw with Introna's ramblings. The reason why all beings are not equal is that organic beings value/affirm their own lives/existences. A rock is a rock. A laptop is just a laptop, nothing more.

5. It's an internal link turn. Either there's no impact to killing animals and therefore no internal link to introna, or saving those animals is important because, to quote the 1N's answer, "putting ourselves as humans above manitees, whales, and all organisms dependent on these species leads us to value some beings over others which allows for many other forms of discrimination and genocide." If you save some animals, we save a LOT more :P





Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

2. yes, i would like more evidence on the timeframe in the 1ar



3. because all you said was "to put more than", if there is more than "re-concieve violence" in the block as an alt explanation, is it still "too vague"?

6. so the cards should be answered in terms of the kritik, correct?


anthro (sorry that this was confusing, we want to run it as anthro)-

4. so living organisms have an inherent value to their lives?

5. i should have phrased this question differently. i know the impact to our criticism, but without that in mind (the way the author wrote those cards), can you give me a run-through of the chain of events that the turn describes and what final impact the plan avoids in a world where you are not granting us the genocide impact?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Sure :)



3. Well it would be nice, but won't get you out of the theory arg. Should have specified those things in the 1nc, that's key to stop advocacy shifting.

6. Yup :D


DA (it's cool, so I treat this like a k now? Also introna =/= anthro)

4. well, they affirm their own existence as opposed to inorganic beings.

5. Well, since the only impact to bioD was introna, the addon has no impact in a world where there's "no impact to the da"

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

okay thank you. one more quick question-

i wont hold you to any specific countries you list, but could you just give me an idea of which countries would become part of the multipolar control?

(i might be misunderstanding your argument)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and the old NATO countries. The prolif senario applies to Iran.

And yes, I already planned to

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.

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.


  • Create New...