Jump to content
stephaniRhodes

Tear Apart My Overfishing DA On Artificial Reefs

Recommended Posts

Ok...

 

first sobel 14 is in the context of fishing once the fish are at a sustainable. the link destroys the rest of the DA because it proves that the reefs will congregate fish in a way that will boost biod.

 

second the Uniqueness bites the brink argument because they essentially contradict (just looking at it on face, i may be wrong)

 

needs to be impacted out alot more btw. "affecting lives" not an impact.

 

unrelated....formatting...its a no

Edited by CosmicLobster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like you arent actually cutting your cards properly. You need entire paragraphs not just the part you plan on reading 

I second this; this DA look cut horribly and the warrants are amazingly bad, if you're winning on this then idk what to tell you then lol

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need More tangible impacts. Your impacts are affecting human lives. IDK What that means and A tiny inconvenience probably doesnt matter when the affirmative wins that they solve for extinction of ALL LIFE!!!!

They need to be competitive

 

Also the hurts bio-d if anything is just internal link evidence. Again you should quantify what that means  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definitely major formatting issues. While there are many commonly accepted variations on formatting styles, they should roughly follow this

 

Last name [space] Date-qualifications (First Name, "Title," Publisher, Date of publication, Date Accessed, URL)//Initials of person who cut the cards

 

Example

Collins 11/14/14 (Gail, “Congress Extends Itself,” New York Times, November 14, 2014, Accessed November 14, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/opinion/gail-collins-congress-extends-itself.html)//AD

 

The name and date should be in size 13 bold font (if you use verbatim, which you should, then it will be F8, or the cite formatting)

http://paperlessdebate.com/verbatim/SitePages/Home.aspx

 

You need to include the full paragraph(s) that you're pulling stuff from

 

You need a better link card. That card does not have enough warrants to be sufficient

 

Your order is wrong. It goes UQ -> Link -> Internal Link -> Impact (if you include a brink, it would go after the link, but it may be wise to pocket that for the block)

 

You have no terminal impacts. Furthermore, you should only put one impact on a standard DA.

 

Edit: here is a sample DA shell

 

 

 

Dems winning now—better coordination and Republican infighting 
Parker and Confessore 10/4
/14 (Ashley and Nicholas, “Democrats Lean Heavily on PACs in Coordinated Push to Counter G.O.P.,” New York Times, October 4, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/us/politics/democrats-lean-heavily-on-pacs.html?ref=2014-midterm-elections&_r=0)//AD
They are countering…money and good will.

 

AND: Massive public backlash to the plan
Jenkins, 14

(Krista, professor of Political Science at Fairleigh Dickinson University, "Pick Your Vice: To Light Up or Double Down? Americans Reach for Their Lighters", May 8, publicmind.fdu.edu/2014/vices/ NL)
Americans bluntly say…marijuana,” said Jenkins.¶ 

 

AND: That makes the dems lose the election
Salvanto, 14

(Anthony, CBS News. “How presidential approval can make or break a midterm” 2-8-14 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-presidential-approval-can-make-or-break-a-midterm//wyoccd)
There’s debate every …those interpretations.)

 

AND: GOP Senate would block EPA-led climate change regulations—those are key to prevent warming
Sarlin 13 

(Benjy, Political reporter at MSNBC "Dems win filibuster fight as John McCain defuses ‘nuclear option’" MSNBC. 07/16/13http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/dems-win-filibuster-fight-john-mccain-defu)
From the outside …any new rules.

 

AND: Warming is real, causes extinction, and controls all the case impacts
Sawin, 12

(Janet, Senior Director of the Energy and Climate Change Program at the WorldWatch Institute Aug. ’12 ¶ “Climate Change Poses Greater Security Threat than Terrorism,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/77, accessed 9/30/12,WYO/JF
As early as…late to respond.

 

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like you arent actually cutting your cards properly. You need entire paragraphs not just the part you plan on reading

 

Agreed, there's no way these are cut correctly.

 

The uniqueness evidence is really very bad. It just says a couple of fisheries have improved their practices. That means nothing.

 

The link evidence just isn't warranted.

 

The brink evidence seems to overwhelm uniqueness, because I don't see how it is specific to artificial reefs, which makes the impacts to overfishing inevitable.

 

I don't know why the impacts are so sub-par. Honestly just go on openevidence. Affecting lives isn't an impact, the bio-d card is bad (ie not warranted) and there's no extinction warrant so case will outweigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to include the full paragraph(s) that you're pulling stuff from

THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THING: If you get called out, You WILL LOSE and you WILL GET 0 SPEAKS and Potentially get kicked off your team and banned from tourneys. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your parents will disown you and no college will accept you and someone might potentially put a hit out on you

True story, I saw a novice get black-bagged at the second tournament of the year last year for doing this. We had to cut extra PTX updates for a month to get them back.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True story, I saw a novice get black-bagged at the second tournament of the year last year for doing this. We had to cut extra PTX updates for a month to get them back.

A novice got black-bagged at a tournament for putting out a hit on somebody? O.o

 

Edit: /s

Edited by Rigbert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss for words on that formatting. As the forums resident formatting elitist asshole I literally cannot find anything to say. 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Also you have an ehhh start place after all the formatting issues here add exction impacts and hmm the other impact of affecting lives change that alittle you could get killer impact ground for maybe happiness  or some type of ethics idea 

depending on circuit : like more liberal circuit I recommend

 something like Affects lives in a bad way

 Affect cause loss of ethical outlook in life

 or affects lives where we just stop caring bout in general

 recommend looking at the Chicago Urban Debate League open Evidence for the stuff they had against the Reefs Affs - to see what other debaters DA against the Aff look like

 - any of the kids who went to CDSI

- is that any good against reefs affs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, so I went through and formatted it with Verbatim (though it's still messed up...it's all I could do)/took out the underviews bc who needs those, but there are some major problems here.

 

1. Your cites (this might be an irrelevant point but cites are something I'm very picky about). First of all, you give neither a cite nor an author and date for your uniqueness. I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure that would be considered some form of ethics violation. Other than that, none of your cards are cited correctly. I understand that there are different ways to do it and to each their own, but for the most part, all of your cites are just an author and a date (which nobody would find acceptable). The only one that's even cited close to correctly is your link card, but even then there are some major holes (a link to your source, the title of your source, etc.)

 

Here's how I like to tag and cite stuff (how I learned it at camp):

Hey there here's a tag

Last name, year (First name, qualifications, "title of your source", publication, link to your source or page numbers if it's a book, full date, date accessed)

 

2. I went through your sources by googling the text in your cards. The only ones I could even find sources for were your uniqueness and impact cards, and only your first impact card was cut correctly.

 

Uniqueness:

What you should have:

Just in May, NOAA released the 2009 Status of US Fisheries report, showing that four US fisheries have been rebuilt to healthy levels after years of overfishing--Atlantic swordfish, Atlantic scup, Atlantic sea bass, and St Matthew's Island blue king crab, all returned to healthy levels. In US waters, 85% of fish stocks examined were free from overfishing. Conservation works.

 

What you have:

Just in May, NOAA released the Status of US Fisheries report, showing that four US fisheries have been rebuilt to healthy levels after years of overfishing--Atlantic swordfish, Atlantic scup, Atlantic sea bass, and St Matthew's Island blue king crab, all returned to healthy levels. In US waters, 85% of fish stocks examined were free from overfishing. 

 

Now this is admittedly close to the original (you should still have the last part though). But the other impact card...

 

Impact card B:

What you should have:

Socio-economic Effect
As mentioned earlier, millions of people rely on fishing for their livelihood and nutritional needs. For decades, oceans have provided us with a bounty of seafood for these needs, but there is a limit to everything. Unsustainable fishing practices and overfishing over the last few decades have pushed our oceans to the limit and they may now be on the verge of a collapse, thereby affecting the everyday way of life and source of income of those who depend on them. With no productive fish left in the sea to fish, fishermen and fisheries are bound to go out of business in no time.

 

What you have:

As mentioned earlier, millions of people rely on fishing for their livelihood and nutritional needs. With no productive fish left in the sea to fish, fishermen and fisheries are bound to go out of business in no time.

 

Not even leaving stuff off the end, but cutting stuff out of the middle. That is probably one of the sketchiest things I've ever seen.

 

The fact remains, though, that I couldn't find the sources for your link or your brink (btw that should be tagged something other than "brink"), which is super sketch. If you transcribed it from an interview or something (which might be the case with your link card but idk), you should include that in your cite where the URL/page numbers would usually go with a link to the interview.

 

 

From what I can see your ev is okay, but by no means amazing and you should definitely look into finding better cards. It's a good idea for a DA, but you need to invest wayyyy more time into it to make it outstanding.

Biod DA formatted.docx

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is...a surprisingly good way of learning stuff now that I think about it. I'd do the same but my coach is really particular about showing other teams our evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we gonna ignore the fact that "NOAA released the 2009 Status of US Fisheries report" Is missing? From her evidence? 

Hannahkiin mentioned this in her critique.

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...