Jump to content
Smitty

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

Recommended Posts

1AR

 

Order is Condo, Case in order, T, FW, K

Cool. This was fun. 2NR should be up some time tomorrow or tuesday. I have an irl practice tomorrow lolz. First varsity round finished in T-minus 48 hours.  :flower:

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question to y'all - Looking through the speeches this just seems like a bunch of debate technical words thrown around and not a lot of explanation of the arguments that the evidence is making; I don't debate on the national circuit much but when I did the debates usually went down a different way; my question is: Do debates always go down like this on the national circuit? I understand there are various different styles of debating but I genuinely do not know if debate really goes down like this on in other areas...? I am by no means taking jabs at y'all, what y'all did above is something I probably couldn't have done since I'm not much of a technical debater. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only tech because that's what i enjoy and it's easier for word economy. I debate in a very lay KS circuit, but our squad is starting to go more out of state to get on the nat circuit. I'm graduating HS this year doe, so i'm probably going to stick with nat circuit jargon

 

I don't know if all debates go down like these, i've seen a lot go different ways so I would assume it's not all tech but there's a good percentage of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question to y'all - Looking through the speeches this just seems like a bunch of debate technical words thrown around and not a lot of explanation of the arguments that the evidence is making; I don't debate on the national circuit much but when I did the debates usually went down a different way; my question is: Do debates always go down like this on the national circuit? I understand there are various different styles of debating but I genuinely do not know if debate really goes down like this on in other areas...? I am by no means taking jabs at y'all, what y'all did above is something I probably couldn't have done since I'm not much of a technical debater. 

lol.I've been out of state once, (Heritage Hall, OKC) and I don't know what the national circuit is like bc I was in novice, and it was my first tourney doing policy. That being said, I guess I enjoy jargon some what, this is the way I've always debated, and our circuit (in arkansas lol) has some surprisingly good judges, who are for the most part good w/ anything. This is just the way I was taught. 

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should be writing a paper atm, but going off of just the 2NR and the 2AR...

 

OV-Both sides need to chill a little. Some snark is fine, don't be calling people's speeches half-assed though. Liberal use of 'lolz' just tanks your speaks.

I vote aff because they have a small risk of reducing racism and a risk of link turning the K, but there's no impact to that [K] soooo...yeah. Marginally outweighs.

 

Case-both sides underdevelop case. No one is responding to the actual arguments made by the other team, and just saying 'extend x, it takes out y' with no reference to any kind of warrants or analysis. I see, at best, tagline debating which makes this a hard question to resolve.

TLDR for individual case flows: I give the aff a risk of reducing racist collection policies. That's about all they get from this page.

 

Econ-I have no idea why mass political opinions and majority rule have any effect on protectionist policies, and I don't know why protectionist policies check back for whatever Jervis 11 is actually saying. I don't know how the aff actually prevents protectionism, or how the NSA causes it in the first place. I have to err neg on defense here because even if I by that there might be some lash out to this, I don't know what the impact is. You say 'extinction' but don't really answer the (poor) extension of Griswold that countries have an economic incentive not to escalate things. Furthermore, even if you're winning this scenario, I don't know why the aff resolves any of those impacts in the first place, there's no even a reverse causal warrant I can spin out of a connection to the NSA. You may be thinking 'well I did that work in the 1AC' which misses the point that you should be extending your internal links to leverage against their defense. Explain why their defense doesn't assume NSA surveillance doing X/Y/Z.

 

Racism-Better job by the aff extending their I/L's, I err aff on a risk that NSA surveillance is pretty racist and that we should probably not do that. A 2NR claim of 'Biopower causes dehumanization' has exactly 0 warrant backing it up. Also, don't use Berube, it's shit, written by a coach for debaters, and in the context of AI. I also never see a link extension to the K so there's like no risk of defense. I'll cover that further down.

 

Grids-Two ships passing in the night. First, for the neg, I have no idea why metadata is key to stopping cyber terrorism. You need a warrant. I can't flow your extension of E week because it's a claim without a warrant. NSA backdoors argument takes out any risk of a turn, but there's no impact extension so I give this to no one. I have no idea how the aff accesses an internal link to human rights from grids so I'm not weighing that either.

 

Solvency-What's this about a perm on the case flow? I can't weigh a perm because no one ever told me what the perm was...

What's the Hodges card say? I need a warrant here. I guess I err not neg on infinitely regressive prior questions. I don't know what ending backdoors is sufficient to solve for so yeah.

 

K

 

FW

2NR-You're gonna need to give me a little more than 'cross apply framing work.' I don't have a reason to prefer the epis impacts first arg. 

2AR-Don't be rude. I default aff I guess, but you should be more techy here which will help with clarity. First, clearly extend your interpretation, then do the work.

 

2NR Proper

If the state isn't always repressive and only bad when power is held over another group...then how does the aff not link turn you here. You didn't extend a single link here. I see some comment about a 'util link' with no explanation of how 'preventing extinction' triggers biopolitical repression.

 

What's the alt? You say it reforms the state by 'denying power' but what's this look like? I just don't get your phone analogy at all.

 

You don't do near enough warrant analysis here. I don't know why I shouldn't buy a link turn, I also don't know what the link turn is. You should line up a line by line with a consistent formatting: "They say X, but [extend your args and develop them]"

 

I don't know why the extension of Foucault 78 and that quote actually is a link to util or what impact it justifies.

 

I don't know how the perm gets coopted. I don't know what Burke says. You need to actually be winning links to the aff to say they're DA's. Also, that isn't enough for the perm to not be net beneficial, you need to be winning that the case doesn't do anything for those 'link DA's' to outweigh extinction (assuming best possible 2ar)

 

I don't know why they silence voices of oppression when they stop the NSA targeting Muslims, I don't know why the perm will coopt the plan.

 

Refusal of what?

 

Wait, now you're overthrowing the state? What's the alt?

 

2AR

No real risk of a link from util, but that's more from the 2NR than the 2AR. Saying util is neutral is probably missing the point I assume his evidence is making, which is that it never ends up actually being that, but without reading the cards, meh.

 

I don't know what the perm is. I can't weigh anything here.

 

You didn't even extend your condo args at the top of the 2AR so not weighing that.

 

You're winning a risk of a link turn but you should do a better job extending Dickinson and Grossburg, which are clear offense. Tie your analysis to a card to increase its weight. I'd make the flow math a little more clear here, if the state is inevitable, then the neg just lost UQ for their links. This means, even if you lose the link turn, you still don't reject the aff b/c their impacts are inevitable. Then do your link turn analysis.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad for the messy debate - haven't gotten around to downloading verbatim. I'll make sure to do that. GG. 

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few questions for some of the judges --

 

On the Kritik, were my explanations of the permutation and the grossberg debate inefficient? I'm not really sure how to articulate the perm in a way that doesn't sound intrinsic, and I felt like I just beat the dead horse on Grossberg so I didn't want to overdo it

 

 

 

On the case, I know my extensions were pretty bad. I'm just trying to get out of a bad habit of crushing case but spending too much time on it. Were the extensions just lacking an extra step, or was there a lot more that could've been done (obviously besides 2AC kicking kateb)?

 

 

Condo - I know i'm winning a lot more stuff on the flow, but wouldn't my counter interp (idk if yall had it flowed as interp or counter interp since I didn't say what was what) give me enough to get access to education and fairness?

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...