Jump to content
Smitty

Smitty (AFF) vs. kylerbuckner (NEG) Surveillance Topic

Recommended Posts

Cx

 

Could you extrapolate on the plan?

 

Does death o/w racism or vice verse? Why?

 

Is racism ontological or ontic per the 1AC?

 

Contention One

 

What does your Kateb 92 evidence talk about? Are you saying that the USFG has threatened its citizens with going nuclear?

 

Contention Two

 

Your Menn 15 evidence seems to indicate that Iran is the epitome of the international surveillance shade the US is getting, if Russia is second how distant are the two? Basically, how many more 'infected' computers does Iran have as opposed to Russia?

 

Your Ernst 14 evidence indicates that China could shut down our grid, how does this card apply to a Russia scenario per your Miles 14 ev?

 

What are the warrants in your New York Times 12 evidence?

 

What are the warrants in your Latynina 3 evidence?

 

Is water a human right?

 

Solvency

 

Your Shapiro 14 evidence, where in there does it say that the Freedom Act is going to solve for 'NSA infected computers' in other countries.

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cx

 

Could you extrapolate on the plan?

The plan specifically limits the NSA surveillance through a few mechanisms. It requires an actual accountable FISA court with a special representative to report on what cases are being allowed. It amends the patriot act and the NSL Here's some of the legislative text:

 

"Amends the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 to require the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to audit the effectiveness and use of FISA authority to obtain production of tangible things from 2012 to 2014, including an examination of whether minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General adequately protect the constitutional rights of U.S. persons. Directs the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, for the same 2012-2014 period, to assess: (1) the importance of such information to the intelligence community; (2) the manner in which such information was collected, retained, analyzed, and disseminated; and (3) the adequacy of minimization procedures, including an assessment of any minimization procedures proposed by an element of the intelligence community that were modified or denied by the court.

 

Requires such Inspectors General to report to Congress regarding the results of such audit and assessment.

(Sec. 109) Requires amendments made by this Act to FISA's tangible thing requirements to take effect 180 days after enactment of this Act.

Prohibits this Act from being construed to alter or eliminate the government's authority to obtain an order under the tangible things requirements of FISA as in effect prior to the effective date of such amendments during the period ending on such effective date.

(Sec. 110) Prohibits this Act from being construed to authorize the production of the contents of any electronic communication from an electronic communication service provider under such tangible thing requirements."

 

Does death o/w racism or vice verse? Why?

I would say both impacts are pretty bad

 

Is racism ontological or ontic per the 1AC?

Can you clarify?

 

Contention One

 

What does your Kateb 92 evidence talk about? Are you saying that the USFG has threatened its citizens with going nuclear?

Respecting individual rights is the only way to guarantee a free state where there is respect between citizens and the government. It is when the government starts controlling our lives and stripping our rights that the right to rebel is justified, which leads to inter-civil conflict that could easily escalate

 

Contention Two

 

Your Menn 15 evidence seems to indicate that Iran is the epitome of the international surveillance shade the US is getting, if Russia is second how distant are the two? Basically, how many more 'infected' computers does Iran have as opposed to Russia?

The evidence doesn't make a clarification on number, but how in the past America has targeted Iran due to fear of nukes. It mentions the time when the US used infected computers to shut down centrifuges. Russia dislikes the US asserting dominance over the entirety of the Middle Eastern region, as well as most surveillance used by the NSA.

 

Your Ernst 14 evidence indicates that China could shut down our grid, how does this card apply to a Russia scenario per your Miles 14 ev?

'China and one or two other countries'. The evidence says china in one card, but it is clear in the other card that Russia has the capabilities to use a cyber attack

 

What are the warrants in your New York Times 12 evidence?

Lethal chemicals could be injected into the water system. The evidence mentions trains and highway systems that could control the output of a lot of raw materials, but more or less it gives an internal link to blackouts which leads to a disruption of the water filtration system. If I can win a risk of a cyber attack, then I garner those impacts just purely based off blackouts.

 

What are the warrants in your Latynina 3 evidence?

It is more or less said better in the Adams 11 ev. Once a power plant goes out, it could cause a chain reaction of explosions because chemical plants would go in overheat mode but would not be able to be cooled down

 

Is water a human right?

Well, I read a tag that makes that claim...sooo....yes?

 

Solvency

 

Your Shapiro 14 evidence, where in there does it say that the Freedom Act is going to solve for 'NSA infected computers' in other countries.

Backdoors only exist in a world of limitless NSA surveillance. The plan would require a prohibition on using any type of system backdoor and would mean companies that host all the computers with these backdoors would be able to decodify them with the knowledge that the NSA is not going to use these computers. At worst, there's still an internal link to trust and relations based off the perception of decreasing the NSA's power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cx

 

Could you extrapolate on the plan?

The plan specifically limits the NSA surveillance through a few mechanisms. It requires an actual accountable FISA court with a special representative to report on what cases are being allowed. It amends the patriot act and the NSL Here's some of the legislative text:

 

"Amends the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 to require the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to audit the effectiveness and use of FISA authority to obtain production of tangible things from 2012 to 2014, including an examination of whether minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General adequately protect the constitutional rights of U.S. persons. Directs the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, for the same 2012-2014 period, to assess: (1) the importance of such information to the intelligence community; (2) the manner in which such information was collected, retained, analyzed, and disseminated; and (3) the adequacy of minimization procedures, including an assessment of any minimization procedures proposed by an element of the intelligence community that were modified or denied by the court.

 

Requires such Inspectors General to report to Congress regarding the results of such audit and assessment.

(Sec. 109) Requires amendments made by this Act to FISA's tangible thing requirements to take effect 180 days after enactment of this Act.

Prohibits this Act from being construed to alter or eliminate the government's authority to obtain an order under the tangible things requirements of FISA as in effect prior to the effective date of such amendments during the period ending on such effective date.

(Sec. 110) Prohibits this Act from being construed to authorize the production of the contents of any electronic communication from an electronic communication service provider under such tangible thing requirements."

 

So you're revising FISA? Just clarifying. 

Do you reduce regular surveillance or what does the freedom act do in particular?

 

Does death o/w racism or vice verse? Why?

I would say both impacts are pretty bad

How should the judge weigh the impacts? Are they equal?

 

Is racism ontological or ontic per the 1AC?

Can you clarify?

Is racism an issue of ontology or just literal racism?

 

Contention One

 

What does your Kateb 92 evidence talk about? Are you saying that the USFG has threatened its citizens with going nuclear?

Respecting individual rights is the only way to guarantee a free state where there is respect between citizens and the government. It is when the government starts controlling our lives and stripping our rights that the right to rebel is justified, which leads to inter-civil conflict that could easily escalate

What's the tipping point/bring for this?

 

 

Contention Two

 

Your Menn 15 evidence seems to indicate that Iran is the epitome of the international surveillance shade the US is getting, if Russia is second how distant are the two? Basically, how many more 'infected' computers does Iran have as opposed to Russia?

The evidence doesn't make a clarification on number, but how in the past America has targeted Iran due to fear of nukes. It mentions the time when the US used infected computers to shut down centrifuges. Russia dislikes the US asserting dominance over the entirety of the Middle Eastern region, as well as most surveillance used by the NSA.

 

Your Ernst 14 evidence indicates that China could shut down our grid, how does this card apply to a Russia scenario per your Miles 14 ev?

'China and one or two other countries'. The evidence says china in one card, but it is clear in the other card that Russia has the capabilities to use a cyber attack

 

 

K. So one more time, russia is going to 'cyber attack' us why?

 

What are the warrants in your New York Times 12 evidence?

Lethal chemicals could be injected into the water system. The evidence mentions trains and highway systems that could control the output of a lot of raw materials, but more or less it gives an internal link to blackouts which leads to a disruption of the water filtration system. If I can win a risk of a cyber attack, then I garner those impacts just purely based off blackouts.

How can cyber attacks contaminate the water supply? 

 

What are the warrants in your Latynina 3 evidence?

It is more or less said better in the Adams 11 ev. Once a power plant goes out, it could cause a chain reaction of explosions because chemical plants would go in overheat mode but would not be able to be cooled down

Are you talking nation wide blackouts or what?

 

Is water a human right?

Well, I read a tag that makes that claim...sooo....yes?

 

Solvency

 

Your Shapiro 14 evidence, where in there does it say that the Freedom Act is going to solve for 'NSA infected computers' in other countries.

Backdoors only exist in a world of limitless NSA surveillance. The plan would require a prohibition on using any type of system backdoor and would mean companies that host all the computers with these backdoors would be able to decodify them with the knowledge that the NSA is not going to use these computers. At worst, there's still an internal link to trust and relations based off the perception of decreasing the NSA's power

Cool, but the question still stands. How does repealling this type of surveilance prevent computers in other countries from having NSA 'infections' in them?

 

 

 

 

 

Putting together a 1NC -  should be up soon.

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Cx

 

Could you extrapolate on the plan?

The plan specifically limits the NSA surveillance through a few mechanisms. It requires an actual accountable FISA court with a special representative to report on what cases are being allowed. It amends the patriot act and the NSL Here's some of the legislative text:

 

"Amends the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 to require the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to audit the effectiveness and use of FISA authority to obtain production of tangible things from 2012 to 2014, including an examination of whether minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General adequately protect the constitutional rights of U.S. persons. Directs the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, for the same 2012-2014 period, to assess: (1) the importance of such information to the intelligence community; (2) the manner in which such information was collected, retained, analyzed, and disseminated; and (3) the adequacy of minimization procedures, including an assessment of any minimization procedures proposed by an element of the intelligence community that were modified or denied by the court.

 

Requires such Inspectors General to report to Congress regarding the results of such audit and assessment.

(Sec. 109) Requires amendments made by this Act to FISA's tangible thing requirements to take effect 180 days after enactment of this Act.

Prohibits this Act from being construed to alter or eliminate the government's authority to obtain an order under the tangible things requirements of FISA as in effect prior to the effective date of such amendments during the period ending on such effective date.

(Sec. 110) Prohibits this Act from being construed to authorize the production of the contents of any electronic communication from an electronic communication service provider under such tangible thing requirements."

 

So you're revising FISA? Just clarifying. 

 

Incorrect, that is one part of the plan. FISA Courts are the main core of how the NSA gets their warrantless wiretapping, and this makes the NSA a legitimate agency. As the other parts say, the Patriot Act is amended which significantly curtails their surveilling abilities

 

Do you reduce regular surveillance or what does the freedom act do in particular?

 

The FREEDOM act, in general, guts the NSA's surveillance capabilities and puts more accountability in government.

 

Does death o/w racism or vice verse? Why?

I would say both impacts are pretty bad

How should the judge weigh the impacts? Are they equal?

I mean, that'll be determined by our framing during the round.

 

Is racism ontological or ontic per the 1AC?

Can you clarify?

Is racism an issue of ontology or just literal racism?

I would say it's not a one-stop issue and has a lot of complexities to it. It's an overall issue of how America views people and this disposable terrorist mindset is rejected by the 1AC. Allowing the NSA to deliberately target muslims or jihads is racist and should not be allowed under any system of government.

 

Contention One

 

What does your Kateb 92 evidence talk about? Are you saying that the USFG has threatened its citizens with going nuclear?

Respecting individual rights is the only way to guarantee a free state where there is respect between citizens and the government. It is when the government starts controlling our lives and stripping our rights that the right to rebel is justified, which leads to inter-civil conflict that could easily escalate

What's the tipping point/bring for this?

Right now.

 

 

Contention Two

 

Your Menn 15 evidence seems to indicate that Iran is the epitome of the international surveillance shade the US is getting, if Russia is second how distant are the two? Basically, how many more 'infected' computers does Iran have as opposed to Russia?

The evidence doesn't make a clarification on number, but how in the past America has targeted Iran due to fear of nukes. It mentions the time when the US used infected computers to shut down centrifuges. Russia dislikes the US asserting dominance over the entirety of the Middle Eastern region, as well as most surveillance used by the NSA.

 

Your Ernst 14 evidence indicates that China could shut down our grid, how does this card apply to a Russia scenario per your Miles 14 ev?

'China and one or two other countries'. The evidence says china in one card, but it is clear in the other card that Russia has the capabilities to use a cyber attack

 

 

K. So one more time, russia is going to 'cyber attack' us why?

 

3 internals to this. One, bad relations. Two, trust issues. Three, future backdoors.

 

What are the warrants in your New York Times 12 evidence?

Lethal chemicals could be injected into the water system. The evidence mentions trains and highway systems that could control the output of a lot of raw materials, but more or less it gives an internal link to blackouts which leads to a disruption of the water filtration system. If I can win a risk of a cyber attack, then I garner those impacts just purely based off blackouts.

How can cyber attacks contaminate the water supply? 

One, the chemical supply chain as mentioned above. Two, all I need to win is that a cyber attack causes a blackout which guts the water supply

 

What are the warrants in your Latynina 3 evidence?

It is more or less said better in the Adams 11 ev. Once a power plant goes out, it could cause a chain reaction of explosions because chemical plants would go in overheat mode but would not be able to be cooled down

Are you talking nation wide blackouts or what?

Coast-to-Coast of the US

 

Is water a human right?

Well, I read a tag that makes that claim...sooo....yes?

 

Solvency

 

Your Shapiro 14 evidence, where in there does it say that the Freedom Act is going to solve for 'NSA infected computers' in other countries.

Backdoors only exist in a world of limitless NSA surveillance. The plan would require a prohibition on using any type of system backdoor and would mean companies that host all the computers with these backdoors would be able to decodify them with the knowledge that the NSA is not going to use these computers. At worst, there's still an internal link to trust and relations based off the perception of decreasing the NSA's power

 

Cool, but the question still stands. How does repealling this type of surveilance prevent computers in other countries from having NSA 'infections' in them?

 

Kaspersky already found the trojan in these computers, it's a known issue that the US has to verify on their end that they will discontinue immediately. If there is a risk of the same trojan on a computer in the future, the NSA will not be able to do anything with it or operate that infected computer post-plan

 

 

 

 

 

Putting together a 1NC -  should be up soon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX

 

K-

1. So what, your alt is to deny the existence of the 1AC?

 

2. What does the alt do to reform racist state politics?

 

3. Why does decreasing surveillance increase biopolitical control over people in the US?

 

4. What's the warrant in Clifford 1? It seems to agree that individuality is a pretty important thing but doesn't indicate why preventing extinction is bad.

 

 

DA-

1. Why is democracy good intrinsically?

 

2. How the hell does the plan hurt democracy when the NSA is a literal violation of our rights?

 

 

T-

1. T version of the aff?

 

2. Since when did the 1AC claim to change anything outside the US besides relations and perception? Your ONLY piece of link offense is one line of a card that ignores contextualtiy of the argument.

 

3.  If I win that surveillance is curtailed substantially through the plan, why vote neg on T?

 

4. What's a topical aff under your interp?

 

CP-

1. How is the CP competitive?

 

2. Where do you read ANY CP solvency that says A. Polls are effective, OR B. States must have their say in decreasing NSA surveillance?

 

3. The Aff takes a stance on limited government by curtailing surveillance. Why would the states want the Status Quo over the Aff?

 

4. What good is democracy when people are being denied human rights and targeted by racist agencies such as the NSA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX

 

K-

1. So what, your alt is to deny the existence of the 1AC?

It's to deny the 1AC - not the existence but the extentsion of power rather. Basically just to deny instances where power can grow. 

 

2. What does the alt do to reform racist state politics?

Power relations control the rc of racism so it breaks down the power of the ultimate patriarch, the USFG. 

 

3. Why does decreasing surveillance increase biopolitical control over people in the US?

It's the effects of your plan that is biopolitical. 

 

4. What's the warrant in Clifford 1? It seems to agree that individuality is a pretty important thing but doesn't indicate why preventing extinction is bad.

in a unilateral leveling of social relations predicated on the right to each and every individual, this principle regulates the exercise of power"

Basically that trying to solve for the individual fufillment of each and every person is just an expansion of power. 

 

DA-

1. Why is democracy good intrinsically?

In the DA, our last piece of evidence talks about how patriarchal/unruly/tyrannical governments have killed 200 million people in one century. Democracy prevents this because its founded upon the people and made for the people. 

 

2. How the hell does the plan hurt democracy when the NSA is a literal violation of our rights?

When it's a big enough issue, (national security) the people need to have a say in matters. Otherwise we lose our democratic roots. When its an issues of something this big (e.g. reforming major sectors of nat sec and fed gov) you need to consult the people, instead of making some general choice for the vast population. 

T-

1. T version of the aff?

Decrease border surveillance, decrease NSA surveillance (metadata)

 

2. Since when did the 1AC claim to change anything outside the US besides relations and perception? Your ONLY piece of link offense is one line of a card that ignores contextualtiy of the argument.

Your scenario relies on Russia getting mad at us, your evidence claims that Russia got mad when they found computers outside  of the US and that pissed them off. 

 

3.  If I win that surveillance is curtailed substantially through the plan, why vote neg on T?

If you win beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are 100% topical there isn't one. 

 

4. What's a topical aff under your interp?

Under the domestic T, your Aff minus contention 2

 

CP-

1. How is the CP competitive?

NB is the DA + Solves Case

 

2. Where do you read ANY CP solvency that says A. Polls are effective, OR B. States must have their say in decreasing NSA surveillance?

Not states, the people need to have a say, it's just easier because states can tally quicker than a national survey. If you make the argument that polls are bad/suck I will refute it. 

 

3. The Aff takes a stance on limited government by curtailing surveillance. Why would the states want the Status Quo over the Aff?

To feel secure from terrorism and the such. Plus If I win any case turns there is that too. 

 

4. What good is democracy when people are being denied human rights and targeted by racist agencies such as the NSA?

It is certainly better than tyrannies/oligarchies, but if it were me I would want both 

My b for this crappy strat. Your aff preempted a lot of the stuff I had written and I didn't feel like writing something specific. 

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General-

1.  Status of the K and CP?

 

K-

1. OK, so what good does denying the 1AC do if I win these impacts are real?

 

2. Please isolate a link that has to do with the plan or the effects of it as per the 1NC

 

3. Why do you get to run a Democracy DA and a critique of biopolitics simultaneously?

 

CP-

1. Will you defend the CP as a consulation process?

 

2. Are you defending that the people's voice would be to allow the SQ of limitless NSA surveillance? Seems like the voice of the people would be in favor of the aff

 

Case

1. 1AC says decline in competitiveness will cause protectionism. How does this not answer and turn your Griswold ev which is entirely about how trade solves all linear war scenarios?

 

2. What about the 1AC will result in a worse form of racism than the NSA's targeted and blatant racism against muslims and islamics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General-

1.  Status of the K and CP?

Condo

K-

1. OK, so what good does denying the 1AC do if I win these impacts are real?

Stop the biopolitical power of the USFG?

 

2. Please isolate a link that has to do with the plan or the effects of it as per the 1NC

Utilitarian mentality/Framing and econ, as per the two links in the 1NC

3. Why do you get to run a Democracy DA and a critique of biopolitics simultaneously?

Power isn't intrinsically repressive. It's when someone uses their power relations to gain (x) over another person. Democracy is just a way to alleviate strains of power and have everyone's voices heard. In a tyranny, your lives are controlled by the state, in a true democracy you get a say in national ptx. 

 

CP-

1. Will you defend the CP as a consulation process?

Unorthodox at best, but sure.

 

2. Are you defending that the people's voice would be to allow the SQ of limitless NSA surveillance? Seems like the voice of the people would be in favor of the aff

Yes, if that's what they want. If the people want the plan to pass, then we pass it, but if not let's stick to our democratic roots and not pass the plan. 

 

Case

1. 1AC says decline in competitiveness will cause protectionism. How does this not answer and turn your Griswold ev which is entirely about how trade solves all linear war scenarios?

The Griswold 7 evidence concludes that econ interdep checks no war. Just because we aren't competitive doesn't mean we stop trading with other countries. At best you can win that it's a decline in trade but people will not attack us simply because it will tank their econ as well. 

 

2. What about the 1AC will result in a worse form of racism than the NSA's targeted and blatant racism against muslims and islamics?

The state is racist. All of your politics will be racist because you merely attempt to expand your control over the people. Like, the state gladly justifies cutting off the arm to preserve the body, whatever they deem as a threat they can/will eliminate and since you are merely reentrenching their roots and deepening the states power, it basically turns all of case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I link turn the democracy DA, does that mean I win impact defense to biopolitics?

You can't impact defense in round rhetoric. Aside from that, no because democracies aren't intrinsically perfect either. At times they can be better, but it doesn't mean that democracies cannot be biopolitical. 

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kay, 2AC up

 

Order is Case in the same order of the 1AC, then T, K, CP, DA

 

Open for CX

No need for CX. 

 

Splitting the Block

 

DA 

CP

K

Case - Everything but framing. (in order of the flow.)

 

EDIT: forgot to attach the file lol

 

Open for cx. 

 

1NR soon, family stuff tm should be up Tuesday at the latest. 

2NC vDebate Smitty.docx

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need for CX. 

 

Splitting the Block

 

DA 

CP

K

Case - Everything but framing. (in order of the flow.)

 

EDIT: forgot to attach the file lol

 

Open for cx. 

 

1NR soon, family stuff tm should be up Tuesday at the latest. 

I mean, it's all cool that you don't want to CX him, but I think that after the 2NC,  before the 1NR, he should get to CX you.  :P

Edited by DebateSquash
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, it's all cool that you don't want to CX him, but I think that after the 2NC,  before the 1NR, he should get to CX you.   :P

He can cx whenever, I just assumed he didn't have any. Honest mistake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need for CX.

[2NC] 

That overview though...you generally don't want to be citing evidence. If you want to have an overview (and you don't really need one) just have one or two sentences explaining the K, that was just extending taglines. The judge has all that on their flow already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That overview though...you generally don't want to be citing evidence. If you want to have an overview (and you don't really need one) just have one or two sentences explaining the K, that was just extending taglines. The judge has all that on their flow already.

When do I need an overview? This is one of the things that I have yet to learn like when you need an o/v and the such and what an overview should look like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When do I need an overview? This is one of the things that I have yet to learn like when you need an o/v and the such and what an overview should look like.

 

In most cases you should be doing everything on the line by line and out teching them. In the cases where this doesnt hold true then you go to this:

 

Generally an overview is useful when it could be unclear what the thesis of your K is (worst case scenario) or if there's a meta level framing issue in play. Preferably your one nc tags should explicit and concise enough that your K is quite clear so overviews that are like 'here's what the heck we were saying' will be unnecessary. In the real world though, a lot of K debaters will get lost in ten dollar word pontificating in the tags amd muddle the flow, as some of our Deleuze friends here can attest fo.

In almost all cases the framing issues can be handled on the line by line (aka put your K of util/epis first stuff on the util first part of the flow). In the rare case you're dealing with a huge meta level issue (usually a dropped one) that's where a short, one to two ssentence overview can be useful.

 

Furthermore, you should be packaging each issue (or group) on the line by line as a mini K for the most part. Example:

Cap K

2Ac perm is reformism (that 92 card everyone uses)

2nc on that could be:

Now they say reform cap but there's a Hydra DA: Every attempt to reform capitalism just naturalizes its operations making it stronger

Kovel 2

 

Only the alternative can solve by [alt]

 

You want to put a link, an impact, and a contextual reason the alt alone is key to solve on there.

 

If they say cap is key to solve ag, you can have an 'environmentalism da:' they have it backwards, cap produces too much food, so it poisons the land and destroys crops to maintIn scarcity

Bifo 9

Only the alt can solve by integrating globalization from below's sustainable agricultural practices like farm coopts that don't use harmful pesticides

 

Stuff like that gives you independent quick voters to go for in the 2nr that are *modular* so you don't have to overstretch yourself trying to win every piece of the flow. Pick your best offense coming out of the one ar and sit on that.

 

Pardon any typos, my phone is broken and doesnt have spell check

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets start that big time CX now

 

1. Is the state always racist?

 

2. When has the NSA EVER stopped a cyber attack?

 

3. reasons to reject the team?

 

4. Why is it impossible to reject biopower in the world of the aff? Because I read a plan text?

 

5. Since when did I call for the ballot because of extinction?

 

6. Decreasing surveillance leads to a nazi genocide type state of exception - explain?

 

7. Why is it fair that you get to run contradicting arguments and then proceed to use those kicked flows to magnify the link on the K?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In most cases you should be doing everything on the line by line and out teching them. In the cases where this doesnt hold true then you go to this:

 

Generally an overview is useful when it could be unclear what the thesis of your K is (worst case scenario) or if there's a meta level framing issue in play. Preferably your one nc tags should explicit and concise enough that your K is quite clear so overviews that are like 'here's what the heck we were saying' will be unnecessary. In the real world though, a lot of K debaters will get lost in ten dollar word pontificating in the tags amd muddle the flow, as some of our Deleuze friends here can attest fo.

In almost all cases the framing issues can be handled on the line by line (aka put your K of util/epis first stuff on the util first part of the flow). In the rare case you're dealing with a huge meta level issue (usually a dropped one) that's where a short, one to two ssentence overview can be useful.

 

Furthermore, you should be packaging each issue (or group) on the line by line as a mini K for the most part. Example:

Cap K

2Ac perm is reformism (that 92 card everyone uses)

2nc on that could be:

Now they say reform cap but there's a Hydra DA: Every attempt to reform capitalism just naturalizes its operations making it stronger

Kovel 2

 

Only the alternative can solve by [alt]

 

You want to put a link, an impact, and a contextual reason the alt alone is key to solve on there.

 

If they say cap is key to solve ag, you can have an 'environmentalism da:' they have it backwards, cap produces too much food, so it poisons the land and destroys crops to maintIn scarcity

Bifo 9

Only the alt can solve by integrating globalization from below's sustainable agricultural practices like farm coopts that don't use harmful pesticides

 

Stuff like that gives you independent quick voters to go for in the 2nr that are *modular* so you don't have to overstretch yourself trying to win every piece of the flow. Pick your best offense coming out of the one ar and sit on that.

 

Pardon any typos, my phone is broken and doesnt have spell check

 

That actually helped a ton, thanks. 

lets start that big time CX now

 

1. Is the state always racist?

empirically, yes. intrinsically, no. There are plenty of ways the state can be not racist per se. However, when dealing with ptx like the such and enforcing things that are 'anti-racist' or something along those lines, e.g. the plan. It's usually propaganda and the state never really reforms permanently or stops any of the other instances of racism, which you have no spillover claims in the debate so. 

2. When has the NSA EVER stopped a cyber attack?

When has the grid EVER shut down for a longer than a week. 

 

3. reasons to reject the team?

Exacerbating biopolitical instiutions and endorsing action by them. 

 

4. Why is it impossible to reject biopower in the world of the aff? Because I read a plan text?

Well, there are all the links based off of your in round actions that were displayed in the 2NC and there was the Econ Link, Util Link, Ballot Commodification/Apoc Link, 

 

5. Since when did I call for the ballot because of extinction?

Gimme the ballot

That's Smitty in 15 

"Pedagogy isn’t first – policymaking is. Even if the plan does not happen, you still have an ethical obligation to reject scenarios for extinction. " 

 

6. Decreasing surveillance leads to a nazi genocide type state of exception - explain?"

 

Extrapolate

 

 

 

7. Why is it fair that you get to run contradicting arguments and then proceed to use those kicked flows to magnify the link on the K?

It wasn't a contradiction until you brought that ev into the round, you could have answered that differently, e.g. link turn or no link. 

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2Ac perm is reformism (that 92 card everyone uses)

2nc on that could be:

Now they say reform capSHIELD but there's a Hydra DA: Every attempt to reform capitalismSHIELD just naturalizes its operations making it stronger

Kovel 2

Hail Hydra!

 

(I'm sorry. I felt this was necessary)

  • Upvote 2

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...