Jump to content
danhep

[LD] [Autonomus Medical Choices] - KAA99 (Aff) v. Danhep (Neg)

Recommended Posts

This is going to be a tough decision, but I'll make some preliminary comments here:

 

I felt like you were two ships passing in the night on the constitution NC. Zane (that's your name I think?) I think you misunderstood the purpose of the NC, the "impact" is proving the falsity of the resolution, namely by proving that the govt ought not give adolescents the right to make autonomous medical choices because it conflicts with the constitution. It's a framework with offense to it. I also think each of you were trying to be comparative, but there was no weighing done so I have no idea why I should reject the constitution because it colonizes our epistemology if Dan is winning that the constitution is the basis of state action.

 

Also, I Command+F'ed each of your speech docs with the word "outweigh" and I found 0 in the 2AR and 3 in the 2NR, although they weren't actually weighing args. You guys need to weigh more, it makes it hard to evaluate rounds absent any.

 

Dan, on each of the Ks I think the whole overview thing is really just explaining the K, which doesn't really help me. I think a better thing to do would be to extend each arg on the line by line, answer his arg, weigh if necessary, and give the implication of this. An example could be "extend _____ which shows that he links bc _______, he says no link but he misunderstands bc _____ and even if he does, there's still a risk of a link so you can still vote of the K. If I win the link, all I need to show is that the perm is bad and that the impacts outweigh the 1AC and you can vote on the K." 

 

Both of you need to signpost a bit better, and avoid redundant re-explanations of args when signposting.

 

One final suggestion, don't go for so much!!!! If you have another round together, I'd highly recommend shortening the word count to 300wpm to get used to how you actually would spread in rebuttals when extemping stuff. I doubt any LDer extemps at 400wpm throughout their entire speech. Dan, you spent like 1-2 minutes explaining why condo is good yet you went for everything in the 2NR and it didn't seem like any of your alts conflicted anyway? When there's several big args like no links and perms on each off and there's three offs left in the round, I have to go through each one and decide who's winning each, and even then it's hard to do that since you basically didn't weigh.

 

Both of you need to isolate which layers come first. Dan, you give a bunch of voters in the 2AR, but I don't know which comes first and you're not giving me any real reason for why you're definitively winning each one. There's two (maybe three) frameworks in the round that actually have texts for them so I know what links to them and the implication (PS I have no idea what the implication for "ontology first" or "epistemology first" is- how does that impact the truth/falsity of the rez/the judges obligation?) Neither of the K impacts link to the constitution NC, I can't tell whether the K impacts link to the AC FW, and these random "epistemology first" or "ontology first" or weird OOO role of the ballot thing or "ethics impossible under cap" or Bostrom are literally impossible to go through all of and see who's winning offense to each one, it's honestly ridiculous to see who's winning offense to 7 different framing devices where there's no weighing done between them and I have no idea which ones I should be evaluating first.

 

Sorry for the somewhat harsh criticism, I definitely think the easiest way to make this round better is by:

-reducing the word count- A LOT

-not going for so much

-weighing more

-focusing more on the big picture

-isolating layers

-weighing more

-weighing more

-isolating layers

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly the same comments as last time, you both need impacts (that's the weighing stuff in the post above) and signposting. Like 6 people in the past round told you to stop using author names for that but what's in the speeches? A bunch of arguments saying 'Extend Smith 90.' Stop.

  • Upvote 1

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...