Jump to content
TheSnowball

China Vdebate -- Rnivium [a] vs. NativeWarlock [n]

Recommended Posts

Cool. GG. NativeWarlock I was waiting for you to find the bit at the end of the Zhenxing article saying your side was more realistic.

Where at lol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the conclusion. "In conclusion, the “positive side” is closer to the reality of China-Africa oil ties. Also, it is more easily accepted by African leaders and the public in China. But it is necessary to make some targeted adjustments of China’s policy so that it can adapt to a more complicated world. The road to consensus is based on facts and data, not personal preferences, experiences and anecdotes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the conclusion. "In conclusion, the “positive side” is closer to the reality of China-Africa oil ties. Also, it is more easily accepted by African leaders and the public in China. But it is necessary to make some targeted adjustments of China’s policy so that it can adapt to a more complicated world. The road to consensus is based on facts and data, not personal preferences, experiences and anecdotes."

Ohhhhhhhhh poop on my part

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

figuring out my decision atm, double checking my flows if i missed anything, just a few quick notes that i jotted down after reading the 1AC/1NC

aff: maybe look into colonialism, not neo colonialism, the lit is stronger because the majority of serious colonialism authors are pretty much on the dot when they say that colonialism is still around, and if its not its still exceptionally powerful. the lit is fun and much more interesting. also, you definitely misundertand the way you the kantian ethics card works. Mellion argues that the ONLY coherent ethic is a kanatian one, which means the scenarios are not really helping you when you read this, which brings me to the neg

neg: the easiest shot you could win is concede the kantian ethics framing and then go hella hard on the K and case turns, because it removes the majority of all their own offense, they have to either perf con/contradict themselves or kick every advantage but human rights, which can easily be turned with more investment into the coloniality lit. also not a fan of anthro, the afropess link is much stronger and wouldve made the round amazing imo, i think there is too much lit to ignore both that and coloniality Ks that wouldve made the round easier for you

final decision to come, stay tuned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So on Kant, are you just saying I should either go all in on human rights or other moral imperatives or not read that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So on Kant, are you just saying I should either go all in on human rights or other moral imperatives or not read that?

so the mellion card is specific to explaining how we need to act with respect to the categorical imperative, (which is quite well reasoned, although pretty problematic, especially ableist and heteronormative, and that i dont have enough time to really go into detail on and explain fully), but when you read a card like this it changes the way impacts can be weighed - it means that the only way i as the judge can decide is who best fulfills the principles of the categorical imperative, which specifically excludes weighing consequences of actions and instead requires a weighing that takes place prior to action. this means that you either have to go all in on this and say "fuck it" to any terminal impacts. i would like to note that the lit on why kantian ethics are not just wrong and reasoned imperfectly, but exceptionally fucked up for the differently abled and is incredibly heteronormative is huge and is a good link in on pretty much every single K ever. its even more important for you to know that kantian ethics cant really be applied from the perspective of the state. i think the idea of using a kantian frame can be strategic, but if the other team has any idea of what to do youre going to get destroyed

so to answer your question in simple terms, yeah either only read kantian ethical impacts and win that that is the only coherent ethical system or kick it and read some more terminal impacts. there is a human rights perception link into heg but idk where i have it. the link is basically that the US needs to have a good human rights track record or else we lose significant heg because we dont take strong stances on fucked up shit and it encourages countires to push and push until it sparks nuclear exchange

decision to come

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this 2ac /: 
the line "As a human, the judge’s first and foremost role is to protect humans. It’s logical that this is our ethical responsibility." 

:(

the perfcon isnt really a perfcon, more of a standard contradiction and the terminal impact work isnt great ;/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this 2ac /: 

the line "As a human, the judge’s first and foremost role is to protect humans. It’s logical that this is our ethical responsibility." 

:(

the perfcon isnt really a perfcon, more of a standard contradiction and the terminal impact work isnt great ;/

I get that line is problematic given that humans are a lot more destructive than animals. Though, to a degree, we shouldn't let all the humans die to save the animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that line is problematic given that humans are a lot more destructive than animals. Though, to a degree, we shouldn't let all the humans die to save the animals.

I think the argument presented is a heavy claim with no warrant, I think its problematic and without warrant, although there are people who write litersture to support it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the argument presented is a heavy claim with no warrant, I think its problematic and without warrant, although there are people who write litersture to support it

Fair enough.

 

edit: Though I did read Bostrom and the Linker evidence.

Edited by Rnivium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the argument presented is a heavy claim with no warrant, I think its problematic and without warrant, although there are people who write litersture to support it

Still judging right? No hurry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

omg i thought my rfd was up it took like an hour to type omfgggg

oh well ill give you the short version

i voted neg here

i think a lot of the debate gets lost in the 2AC for a few reasons:

1. i dont think there was nearly enough offense coming out that i could weigh effectively for a couple of reasons. I thought that the explanations on the terminal impacts werent especially clear for me, or at least werent meaningful enough to weigh against the negs impact calc in the 2nc/1nr. 

2. i think the time allocation couldve been much better - the amount of defense on the K i had flowed was pretty tremendous, even if some of it was quite good, while other stuff not being quite so good. basically it kept you from covering a lot of the other stuff on case, which is probably why the terminal impact work wasnt great

3. i think you didnt handle the turns particularly well so i ended up with three or four on case turns in the 1NR im willing to vote on that you had mitagory defense on but not strong responses to them

4. the responses to the no perm arguments were not good, probably because the terminology just confused you, becasue the wording was a little confusing - its probably intended to be so that way it gets undercovered

 

I think that the neg did a really good job on case, i wouldve liked to hear the term turn a lil more, i gave you some turns that werent labelled as such because they were functionally turns but that wont be the same for other judges

im dissapointed the K wasnt in the block, i think they 2ac was just a shitton of extra links for you to leverage, each one being an independent turn to the perm if you spin it correctly. i understand not going for it based on the fw/theory stuff but goddamn you couldve made that 1ar hellfire if you went for it, not even with it in mind for a 2nr, even just as a timesuck becasue they way ovecoverred with very little that couldve become offense

i like the solvency work in the rebuttals, especially the double bind, which i end up buying because it becomes very clear and well explained how it works which i appreciate. i am so sad you didnt go for hella case turns for the 2nr because i gave you a lot of leverage on them, but i totally get why you would prefer to have the da/cp combo, especially with key components being undercovered

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hella late, but I'll post my RFD here

 

I vote neg, for a couple of reasons

 

1) i think neg wins the util debate pretty easily.  Cummiskey is read in the 2NC, and the 1ar/2ar doesn't have a response to it besides "deontology is most rational" which never gets explained, so i default to equality/util stuff yada yada

 

2) There's a ton of ink on on the solvency flow for the plan, but not for the CP.  I think there's a high risk that China says no, or is at least pissed off by the plan, whereas its conceded that everyone loves it when the US unilaterally exports more oil.  It may not be direct engagement, but the neg has some good spin on why they prevent more Chinese advances

 

3) The DA link isn't great, but its coherent enough that I feel the risk of Nuke war outweighs aff impacts, especially given the high likelihood of solvency by the.  The perm definitely triggers the link (although no chance its severance).

 

There was wayyyyyy to much perfcon by the neg that was pretty unacceptable and I probably would'be pulled the trigger on if aff had called them out on it.  Taking heg good and the security K through the block was kinda insane, and not something you should repeat.  Also, that perm was not severance, but I had to throw it out anyway because there was no response

 

Aff, I feel like you need to do more work making the advantage scenarios more coherent.  Straight off the bat, it seems like helping China export oil while limiting their diplomacy seems pretty contradictory.  Also, the Africa module for heg is a little convoluted, and it just seems impossible that losing control over African investments impacts our Heg, and the IL is a little shady.  I think you should pick the advantages that work best for you, and sit on those, instead of throwing stuff out to see what sticks.

 

Neg---correct decision to go for the DA/CP, definitely least covered by the 2AC

  • 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...