Jump to content

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

Recommended Posts

I deleted the 1nc and the link in the vdebate isn't working. Could you email it to me then? My email is argogate3@gmail.com


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may as well post the 1nr here, in case anyone was following along.





If there is "no round spillover" as you said on the cp, how do reps spillover? Which card in the 2nc talks about how specifically students' reps spill over?


The 2nc cards are in the context of how we rhetorically present animals as lesser beings, but the 1nc introna card talks about how we as individuals value being. Introna even says that presentation isn't as important as personal ethics. If I personally value all forms of being and advocate the plan, how does the plan link to the 1nc k?


2nc cards about animals, 1nc card about all forms of being. Could

Yóu give me a definition, as per the 1nc card, of what "being" is.


What does this "clearing beyond ethics" (introna card) look like? Could you describe me how I can live and show infite hospitality towards all forms of being?


What aspect of debate do I hurt by being "unfair" and "uneducational," and why don't other rounds check back fairness/education claims?


If I viewed all life as ethically equal, would it be better to save every human on earth or a handful of animals?



So for clarification, Hamas is not an extremist group?


If the aff doesn't mandate military action to prevent terrorism at norfolk, how will this specific aff turn into a war on terror?


As you so wonderfully put it in that rhetorically powerful case speech, we've been constructing threats since 9/11. What's the unique impact? Where do you read a brink card?


Where do your cards make a distinction between terrorism as a general concept and terrorism in one port. Also, neither card is written by state police...


The deudney card is from 1999 and mentions one example of cooperation. The card is also in the context of predicting a global trend from the middle east. How does it apply to our evidence?


The water wars framing card, where does it say that states are seeking cooperation in the status quo? It just cites already-present agreements.


That card is also in the context of IR, where does it talk about how we present water threats in the US?


If we win our threats are real, is that a reason for action?


Even if our threats aren't real, how does developing desalination tech make them real? Where do the cards mention nuclear power or mayport?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


1. on the cp, we talk about how the "rules" we set in this round wont affect the the "rules" set in other rounds. on the k, we argue that the representations that you use while setting up arguments, the way YOU see the world is flawed.
2. the only way that we can understand your ethics/beliefs is through the way that you articulate things. we cant see into your brain, so we have to go off of what you first bring up and how it is represented to the viewer (the 1ac). even if you personally agree with what we are kritiking, the only way that we can know that is if you tell us. we believe that you would not have represented things in certain ways if they did not back up what you believed. (and there shouldnt be a re-explantion of your ethics, etc., in the 1ar- that could have been done in the 2ac.)
3. we believe the main idea of what introna is saying to be true, but we are defining a "being" as a living creature. we added the katz and oeschsli 93 card to better represent the alt (and we hear that you don't like the vague alts.. :P )
4. you don't do the plan, there are probably no pets or zoos, basically anything that would hurt something living would not be done.
5. education- its either uneducational for you because you don't truly learn and understand all of the aspects of your plan because you will just perm any advocacy that touches on parts of the plan you haven't thought through, or is uneducational for us because you just perm stuff instead of working through it and debating out its benefits, links, diasvantages, etc.
also, if you switch your advocacy now, there is no development of argumentation. everything that we've argued thus far goes away and never gets truly explained and debated and if we bring up anything else to negate your new advocacy, that only gets 5 minutes of development (and is probably insanely unfair)
fairness- if we let you shift your advocacy like this, we allow you to switch what you are advocating at any time in the debate to whatever you want it to be. this allows for things like new 2ar advocacies and permutations that sever out of everything but (for example) one dollar being invested in the plan which avoids links and it would be too late for us to bring up new t violations.
other rounds could check back on education, but not on fairness, if we lose this round because it is unfair, our next round isnt somehow going to make up for it..
6. there are more living things that arent humans than there are that are humans and with the alt we get to fiat no "alt rollback"
1. we would not represent them like that, no
2. our links are off of the plans prediction of terrorism happening at the port
3. and as you said, we are no longer in the bush era, when the government issues a plan to avoid terrorist attacks, it re-affirms the legitamacy of terrorist attacks and attacks back at those terrorists like we did see under the bush administration


4. they don't

5. it's about predicted wars, while it cites one specific example, we argue that the concept can be applied to this indo-pak "water war"
6. im not sure if i understand this question, but i feel like most people want cooperation rather than war..
7. aren't you arguing a war scenario between india and pakistan? and if you're talking about the add-on, that was answered on kappeler because i asked where you wanted it flowed and you said the k
8. yes, considering only this flow. "win" is also a word that we each may understand differently though, so..
9. it doesn't really matter how you go about stopping these "water wars", its about taking action to stop them at all that links


anthro again-
1. i don't really know what "any version" entails, but an affirmative that invests in what the 1ac describes- no, it still dredges/harms animals, an affirmative that solves for the advantages- possibly, but it would have to be a completely different plan than what you proposed
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


1. Touche

3. What happens to all the inanimate objects in your definition?



So what do we call these group? What's the proper way to represent Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc?

So what you're saying is that the plan somehow triggers a witch hunt for terrorists with boots on the ground invasion? Which card says sending a naval deterrent results in that?


So for clarification, giving nations clean water is bad because the discourse behind it eventually forces them to fight in water wars?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


3. we defend the status quo in terms of how we interact with them



1. i wouldn't even group them all together, and i would call them by their names, that seems to be clarification enough

2. it was an analytical argument

3. it's not about the discourse behind giving them the water, it's the discourse behind giving them the water to stop a potential war. again, the add-on wasn't flowed on case

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't have time for a substance 2AR

This would have been done faster had I not deleted my debate dropbox on accident (it's still redownloading all the files, and I have to go ask my partner for theory) :/




laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame going for condo....

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...