Jump to content
JaxonRCummings

Vdebate JaxonRCummings (Aff) vs. Rnivium (Neg) on China

Recommended Posts

The 2NC is a surprise. Have fun. Open to CX. Answer the 2AC CX when you can.

Mfw the whole 2NC is a plan flaw: 

giphy.gif

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

·         Why is grammer so important?

·         Why jis using an apostrosphe wrong a voter?

·         Why is captilization so Important?

·         Why should we prefer the Chicago manyal of style card, when it states nothing about having to capitialize the F or G in the Federa. Government?

·         Why do we Need a counter Interp when we say Topicality is bad?

·         How is the demand text not the topical version of the Aff?

·         How much bullshit are you pulling saying that grammar hurts fairness and education?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

·         Why is grammer so important?

 

It's the underpinning of language.

·         Why jis using an apostrosphe wrong a voter?

 

Because it takes out the solvency of the Aff, hurts fairness and education, and is jurisdictionally illegitimate.

·         Why is captilization so Important?

 

Because you're referring to an etity which does not exist.

·         Why should we prefer the Chicago manyal of style card, when it states nothing about having to capitialize the F or G in the Federa. Government?

 

It proves 'federal government' is not a proper noun.

·         Why do we Need a counter Interp when we say Topicality is bad?

 

Because our interpretation is the only one the judge has in front of them to evaluate.

·         How is the demand text not the topical version of the Aff?

 

You misuse grammar.

·         How much bullshit are you pulling saying that grammar hurts fairness and education?

 

Very little.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fallow Up:

 

On July 18 you commented that "I'm pretty sure war is the most topical form of engagement." do you still stand behind this belief?

 

Https://www.cross-x.com/60382-Cool-new-affirmative

Uh. That thread was talking about my satirical 1AC. I cited The Onion.

 

But yeah. If you had a case about war and still used the apostrophe in "People's Republic of China."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a point of clarification, both your answers to normativity and antrho have anthro stuff. Which is supposed to apply to which?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad this round went to completion, it's one of the wildest debates I've seen in a while. In short, I vote neg because there were too many new arguments in the 1AR.

 

For longer though, I will say I can buy "plan flaw bad" and even "topicality bad" under the right circumstances. And I think the aff made a lot of legitimate arguments about why topicality can be a hindrance to substantive debate. My biggest problem, though, is that the aff doesn't contextualize these concerns to a plan flaw. For example, I understand that breadth of affirmative cases is valuable and educational, but I was never told how exactly plan flaws limit the scope of potential plans, except to exclude ungrammatical affs which (as went conceded) are bad for the educational process. So, without contextualization, I'm forced to weigh whether or not topicality is a legitimate argument at all, and on this point I 100% side neg. It's difficult to justify why we shouldn't have a topic to debate at all. Instead of "vote aff to set a precedent against topicality" I feel a simple "reasonability good" would work much better. As for policing and discourse, I didn't weigh them because I don't have them flowed in the 2AC at all, although I think there is something legitimate to be said about plan flaws excluding people with dyslexia. If this argument was in the 2AC I would be much more lenient on the whole flow, honestly. Also the sequencing DA thing is pretty illegitimate - if you want to argue this, be sure to explain why aff conditionality is a good thing, or throw in the phrase "Normal means = it gets fixed" because otherwise I am very uncomfortable voting on "Well we'll just change the plan"

 

As for the negative, I enjoyed the plan flaw strategy and thought it was executed very well, particularly in the impacts of grammar. I will say that for the 1NC strat I would've preferred one less T violation and (perhaps) another substantive off, or maybe just more on case. I'm also v glad the 2NR wasn't the poetry flow, because honestly I was having some trouble flowing it. I blame a lack of kritikal debate in Missouri.

 

tldr: I vote neg because I think it would be real tough to debate with no topic and aff conditionality. Good debate, very interesting to watch and judge. I can take any questions if y'all have them.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 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...