Jump to content
Spacehack

Round 592: Superpanda8 (Aff) V. Spacehack (Neg)

Recommended Posts

I can judge-  I default policymaker, but do what you're comfortable with.


T- love a good T debate, default competing interps, can be persuaded by reasonability. I think there not only should be a discussion of how your interps differ but where they overlap. 

DA's- love them. Politics DA's are intrinsic to the plan. I'm not persuaded by theory cheapshots on DA's. Like every other judge on the face of the earth, I like having impact calc, and earlier is better. I'd much rather the debaters focus what aspect of impact calc they are winning and impact why that is important, i.e. "magnitude outweighs probability" type stuff. 

CP's- are fine. As a general rule of thumb, having 2 or less conditional advocacies is fine, and more becomes abusive. Obviously, if you can defend more, do more. Running 3 isn't an automatic aff ballot. PIC's are good word pic's are not. Consult/condition/anything that is plan plus are probably not competitive and are cheating, but I will focus on the debate that happens. I tend to believe that a cp should be both textually and functionally competitive. "Perm do both" is not an argument. "Perm do both shields the link because X" is an argument- an argument requires a claim, warrant, and impact.

K's- not well read in literature. I will vote on them. There should be a discussion of why the k comes before the plan or vice versa. I think I am a good judge for a K that links to the plan (be it a super specific link, or a mechanism of the plan [such as economic engagement]). I'm ok of reps k's based on a certain advantage. I'm terrible for dirty word k's that are not in the plan, unless they say incredibly offensive words that would get them punched in the real world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge to finish the panel of 3. PM me when the debate is done.

 

Paradigm-wise, I can be swayed towards one way or the other. My default is Tabula Rasa (with the caveat that I will vote on Defense), but I can be persuaded (with standards and reasons to prefer) which paradigm I should use (with the exception of Stock Issues. I'll never vote in a stock issues paradigm). Convince me one way or the other on Tech vs. Truth. I don't have a preference. I need to see really good clash in the rebuttals. There shouldn't be any new cards in the 2NR. If there are, it's a signal to me that either a) you didn't read good evidence before, and B) you're using evidence as a substitute for clash. 

 

CASE DEBATE: I LIKE IT. Heg Good/Bad debates particularly are interesting to me. Impact Turn debates end up being the funnest. I will vote on Inherency as long as you impact why non-inherent affs are bad.

 

T/Theory: I like these debates, but they often go way off the line by line. Overviews on T are necessary. I don't like RVIs, but I won't interfere if it becomes an argument. Make sure you compare interpretations. I'm very interested in the whole perming T interpretations idea. I default Competing Interps and generally always view the debate from C/I. However, if it's a novice case area or something simple/well-known, reasonability is the aff's best friend for me. I will pick up theory on DAs like intrinsicness, but there needs to be more in the 2AC than a quick blip if you want to expand on it in the 1AR. Quick cheapshot theory arguments aren't good for the debate unless it's more explained. Tiny "that's an independent voter" lines aren't great, but I will consider them. Potential Abuse is a bad argument, and in-round abuse/skew should be proven. Don't run T and then run generic links on all of your other offcase positions, especially if you're facing a common aff. It just shows me that the T argument is being run as a time skew/strat skew.

 

 

Framework: You should have a plan text or an advocacy statement or some kind of declaration to debate. Give me a clear Role of the ballot (applies to all of this paradigm).

 

DAs: I like them. impact Calc should start in the block. I'll explain that more below. I agree with everyon ARGogate and Hotstepper have to say about DAs. New Impact Modules/Links in the 1NR are fine.

 

CPs: I will vote up any CP as long as it's proven by the negative as germane and theoretically good for debate. 2AC perms can't be small one-liners. I want an explanation as to why the perm  avoids or solves the Net Benefit. I've never understood "Perm do the plan and all non competitive parts of the CP." PICs are always good (Word PICs are more meh, but whatever. I'll vote them up). Dispo is crap. More than 2 Condo advocacies is pushing it. CPs should be functionally and textually competitive. I agree with ARGogate and Hotstepper here too. CPs should have solvency advocates, at least for the topic (AKA on a States CP vs. an HSR Aff, I really like 'States solve HSR', I'll accept 'States solve transportation infrsatructure,' and will never consider 'States can pass policies.')

 

Ks: This is my blind side. I'll vote on them, but I debate in a very policy-oriented area, and haven't had a whole lot of exposure. I get all the simple stuff (Security, Absurdity, Cap, V2l stuff, x-ism), but I have zero experience with the extreme literature of intense philosophers like nietzsche and baudrillard and like-wise K authors. Always include a simple explanation in your block overview telling me what the K is about. Other than that, I understand the theory behind Ks, how they work/are run, etc. Floating PIKs are abusive but nothing the 1AR can't handle. I'll listen to any type of K. I like specific links, but generic links are fine. There needs to be a very clear reason why the K prevents the impacts of the 1AC.

 

You can run mostly everything. If you want to convince me that genocide=good or that the plan disobeys the guiding principles of time-cube, go for it (although it's morally ridiculous). Going above the word limit by a little bit is fine, as long as it's not too excessive. 

 

I am strictly non-interventionist. I will not "judge-kick" the counterplan for a team unless there is impact calculus for both the CP and the Status quo. I will not push my own personal thoughts into arguments. I will only read cards after the round if and only if both debaters ask for it and impact why the card is a big deal/a pile of BS in the 2NR/2AR. Even then, I will only judge what was highlighted/read in the debate, and will not look in between the highlights to point out flaws in the evidence for the other team, as that should have been an argument made in the debate. If a team brings up the fact that the non-highlighted portions are BS and that I should read that, then I will. 

 

Like every judge, I like good impact calculus. Impact Calculus should preferably start in the block for the negative. The 1AR shouldn't be forced to also do impact calculus, due to the time crunch (it can wait until the 2AR as long as it's nuanced). But the 1AR should never drop Turns Case arguments.

 

I will consider defense. I agree with Ankur and some others on this site that O/D is getting out of hand. However, you still need some offense. For example, if you're the negative: If your 2NR is a DA and Case Defense, the case defense is sufficient to hedge against the case. AKA you don't need a link turn on case). Bottom line: Defensive arguments are still arguments, and a simple "it's all defense, there's still a risk" is not a persuasive argument if the defense isn't answered sufficiently). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the Judges mostly: Can CPs be topical?  

In my circut they can't. So just for clarification.

If the aff makes the theory argument that they can't, I'll evaluate the theory as objectively as I can, however, my default is that topical cp's are fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1NC will be up sometime tonight:

 

CX:
 

1. Your Dreyfuss evidence says: "Yet more than two-thirds of 

voters support easing travel restrictions on Cuba, and 75 percent (86 percent of Democrats) back the 
idea of a meeting between US and Cuban leaders. Conservative groups, from the US Chamber of Commerce to 
the US Conference of Catholic Bishops want to end the isolation of Cuba". If this is true why won't the embargo be lifted in the status quo?
 
2. Why does Cuba spill over to other issues?
 
3. Your Morgan evidence talks about a nuclear strike on Moscow or Israel. How would Latin American terrorism impact that?
 
4. Pastrana says " As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by 
scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be 
expanded so as to allow direct cooperation in research." Why do we need to lift the whole embargo to solve this advantage?
EDIT: Also: 
 
 
5. Does the plan necessarily result in the embargo being lifted or can it result in the status quo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The actions of Politicians don't necessarily reflect the wishes of the citizens, especially when politicians are constantly worrying over reelections.  It's also hard for United States politicians to negotiate with a repeatedly hostile country such as Cuba. For example in 1996 Castro's millitary shot down 2 American Civilian aircraft, killing four.

 

2. Bio-diversity- When an Oil spill happens in joint US-Cuban waters both the US and Cuba need to have access to the best recourses to save marine wildlife and preseve Bio-diveristy  
Scientific Comunity-  Cuba scientfically excells in Disaster prevention, vacination, mitigation and other areas of scientic study that would be of much intrest to the U.S to gain/share information on and the U.S. has numerous areas of scince it would love to share with Cuba.
Terrorism- Iranian-based Terrorist groups and comunist-based terrorist groups that target the U.S. are gaining a strong foot hold in Latin America, ending the embargo would clear pathways to decrease and be rid of said terrorist groups in Latin America.

Relations with Latin America and other countires: The embargo is causesing a rift in the U.S's relations with other countires  and seen in my Birns evidence with the Summit of America's unaimous choice to want Cuba to participate in the next summit and the U.N overwhelmingly voting against the embargo.

 

3. Terrorists in Latin America, if left alone by the US to escalate to that point, have a definate chance of firring a Missile at Moscow or Isreal because if these countries were hit it would cause definate retaliation based off of their policies. In the retalions and back and forth that would follow the U.S would definately be damaged.

4. "As a Start" in order to fully benift the scintfic comunity the full embargo needs to be lifted so public and private scintific establishment, so both can engage in buying/selling of technology and send   scientists to leasrn from each respective comunity.

 

5. Only the plan can cause the status quo being lifted in suffcient time, to prevent terrorists from becoming too firmly rooted in Latin america for revoval. It also is harmfull to the procession of the scintific comunity to prevent progress in that field for any length of time,  which ultimatley could  be damaging to the entire human race.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The actions of Politicians don't necessarily reflect the wishes of the citizens, especially when politicians are constantly worrying over reelections.  

 

If they're worrying about reelections, wouldn't they want to follow what their citizens want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few starter CX questions:  

 

1.Do your CPs compete against each other?

2. What is the net benifit of your cps weighted against eachother, and then weighted agaisnt my plan?

3. Does your DA also apply to your CPs? 
 

4. What does the U.S. have in terms of earthworms?

: and finally I'm sorry SpaceHack but it turns out I will be able to attend Camp next week after all and I'm not sure how soon I'll be able to finish CX and/or my 2AC. Camp ends next Saturday though, so I'll be sure to have it up at least around then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few starter CX questions:  

 

1.Do your CPs compete against each other? The two counterplans are independent of one another so they don't.

 

2. What is the net benifit of your cps weighted against eachother, and then weighted agaisnt my plan? The net benefit to the first counterplan weighed against the plan is the fact that it is more moral (shunning evidence), and the politics DA. The net benefit of the other counterplan is the two disads, and also the turns on case.

 

3. Does your DA also apply to your CPs? The worms DA probably applies to the conditioning counterplan, but I would argue neither disad applies to the other counterplan.

 

4. What does the U.S. have in terms of earthworms? Not much, Cuba's the main exporter of vermiculture worldwide.

 

: and finally I'm sorry SpaceHack but it turns out I will be able to attend Camp next week after all and I'm not sure how soon I'll be able to finish CX and/or my 2AC. Camp ends next Saturday though, so I'll be sure to have it up at least around then. Have fun at camp! No worries, just whenever.

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...