Jump to content
Nonegfiat

China- Nonegfiat (A) vs PailAmbrose (N)

Recommended Posts

Awesome. Ill give myself until the end of today for the 1ar. Looks like this debate will be over pretty quickly, so thanks for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly why didn't you just impact-turn grammar and call it colonialist or something

 

edit: oh wait i didnt read it this actually happened

Edited by NickDB8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly why didn't you just impact-turn grammar and call it colonialist or something

Thats kinda what i was getting at with the third RVI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats kinda what i was getting at with the third RVI

Honestly, I missed that point bc I just kinda skimmed the 2AC/2NC regarding the plan flaw bc, no offense to either of you, its pretty much a meme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I missed that point bc I just kinda skimmed the 2AC/2NC regarding the plan flaw bc, no offense to either of you, its pretty much a meme

You should see my vdebate with 13 minutes of plan flaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was honestly planning on kicking the aff and just going 5 minutes on the plan flaw rvi, and I actually downloaded a book to cut cards from and wrote half the speech, but then i realized i was probably gonna lose on theory, and i was giving up a valuable opportunity to work on my 1ar efficiency, so now im working on a normal one :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was honestly planning on kicking the aff and just going 5 minutes on the plan flaw rvi, and I actually downloaded a book to cut cards from and wrote half the speech, but then i realized i was probably gonna lose on theory, and i was giving up a valuable opportunity to work on my 1ar efficiency, so now im working on a normal one :)

god bless. I hadn't thought of that argument before and I didn't know what to say, genuinely I don't think I'm going to run plan flaws anymore bc of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

god bless. I hadn't thought of that argument before and I didn't know what to say, genuinely I don't think I'm going to run plan flaws anymore bc of it

Well this was my first time answering a plan flaw and so i just argued whatever i could come up with. Glad to know i at least did something right!

 

Also, full disclosure, i did extend the RVI, so dont get too comfortable lol. But yeah 5 minutes of that would just be total BS. A real race to the bottom, a hella abusive skew, and a waste of a very engaging case/da debate

 

Anyway, the 1AR will be up by tonight. I hope to get it up within the next 2 hours, but im not sure when ill get wifi

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1AR is 1614 words, feel free to reciprocate

 

the order is the environment advantage, the china rise advantage, the japan da, and the plan flaw

 

 

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

umm what

I think he means the rvi is too strong to win the plan flaw, not that hes gonna drop it. Like he's probably gonna address it and argue why it's not a voter, but i dont think he's gonna be banking on it for the win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should see my vdebate with 13 minutes of plan flaw.

So i just finished skimming that debate and... wow. It is seriously a marvel

 

-The 1AC is nuke war good

-The 1NC is 8 off, including like 3 T violations

-The 2ac answers the plan flaw by saying "we're grammatically correct" and leaving it at that

-the block responds with 13 minutes of plan flaw, wins

 

Like just wow. What a work of art. This is policy debate taken to its extreme and its freakin awesome

Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this 2AR is not my prettiest speech, but here it is. The order is case and the DA.

 

 

 

Paul, this was an immensely fun debate, and it helped me a lot by showing me ways to improve, both in the content of my 1AC and in the way I answer arguments, so thanks for having this debate with me. 

 

I just want to publicly say, Paul is a freakin awesome debater. This round really gave me a run for my money. Like seriously, this guy is legit.

 

Anyway, everyone is welcome to give feedback, but Vinay, Ian, and Ryan will deliver the official RFD's.

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished judging that other vdebate - RFD tomorrow because my hand hurts from flowing and my head hurts from thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished judging that other vdebate - RFD tomorrow because my hand hurts from flowing and my head hurts from thinking.

Yeah i said i would judge that one as well. Im not even touching it until tomorrow because my brain is finished for today. Especially since its a baudrillard debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll go first:

 

Top level comment: This debate was really messy. Both sides could use work on grouping arguments and not developing things so late in the debate. I felt like the 1AR onwards was a completely different debate from 1AC-1NR. 

 

Into the trenches:

There's only one overarching question I have for this debate- what was biggest risk in the debate- the china rise adv or the Japan DA?

 

This is why I think the debate is messy, because essentially both flows become one large line by line without linking it back to which part of the DA was being debated or what internal link does x argument apply to. In the end there are some key concessions that frame the way I vote in the debate. 

 

First is the hunt evidence on the japan DA which I understand as an impact booster to the DA, and it's also applied to the weighing debate as a reason to prefer the DA on timeframe. The problem with this is that the neg concedes the 1AR johnson indict to hunt which indicates that hunt, who is writing for rand corp, is inflating threats to make a profit for rand and the rest of the MIC. Hence I reduce the risk of the DA, since timeframe is no longer a consideration for the DA.

 

Second problem I have is the etzioni evidence, which is applied by the aff as impact defense to US-china war. The aff never answers this evidence until the 2AR when the aff says the renshon evidence takes it out. This is too late a cross-application, and also is not a true argument, as renshon is talking about status competition as a trigger for war, but etzioni says wholesale us-china war is irrational due to interdependence economically, high costs, and slow economic growth. As such, renshon does not answer etzioni, and I conclude no risk of us-china war. 

 

So what I'm left with is an advantage with no impact, and a small-ish sized risk of a DA. 

 

The third problem I have is that I agree with the aff's analysis of the satake evidence. The neg tries to spin satake as neg evidence, but it's pretty clear in stating that the japanese have revised their defense policy to indicate a stronger posture, and "greater Japanese military capabilities" and "greater security roles". The 2NR analysis on trying to say if the alliance is dysfunctional, there will be prolif doesn't seem to be true given the warrants in satake, as the evidence concludes both that Japan's military posture is growing more robust, which means prolif is a bigger possibility, while also saying that US commitments to Japanese defense have grown even with this new defense robustness. I believe that this concludes me to think that the alliance is stable and won't be broken, even if japan hawkishness is increasing in the squo. 

 

So what I'm left with in the end is an advantage with no impact, and an almost zero risk DA. 

 

So where I end up voting negative on is the yan turn. I do think the plan is a form of containment, despite what the aff tells me otherwise. Particularly damning is the 1ar argument that situationally acceptable containment is acceptable. Right then and there the aff is done for on the yan turn because you've functionally ceded the link that you are containment in some form, which yan turns with the fake friendship bad arguments which is what the aff tries to do, while retaining situationally acceptable containment. Competition solves existential risks (although i would've liked a clearer explanations of which ones and how), which means given everything else that happened in the debate, this is the only place where I can vote without triggering some form of presumption. 

 

Hence, I vote negative on the Yan turn.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll go first:

 

Top level comment: This debate was really messy. Both sides could use work on grouping arguments and not developing things so late in the debate. I felt like the 1AR onwards was a completely different debate from 1AC-1NR.

 

Into the trenches:

There's only one overarching question I have for this debate- what was biggest risk in the debate- the china rise adv or the Japan DA?

 

This is why I think the debate is messy, because essentially both flows become one large line by line without linking it back to which part of the DA was being debated or what internal link does x argument apply to. In the end there are some key concessions that frame the way I vote in the debate.

 

First is the hunt evidence on the japan DA which I understand as an impact booster to the DA, and it's also applied to the weighing debate as a reason to prefer the DA on timeframe. The problem with this is that the neg concedes the 1AR johnson indict to hunt which indicates that hunt, who is writing for rand corp, is inflating threats to make a profit for rand and the rest of the MIC. Hence I reduce the risk of the DA, since timeframe is no longer a consideration for the DA.

 

Second problem I have is the etzioni evidence, which is applied by the aff as impact defense to US-china war. The aff never answers this evidence until the 2AR when the aff says the renshon evidence takes it out. This is too late a cross-application, and also is not a true argument, as renshon is talking about status competition as a trigger for war, but etzioni says wholesale us-china war is irrational due to interdependence economically, high costs, and slow economic growth. As such, renshon does not answer etzioni, and I conclude no risk of us-china war.

 

So what I'm left with is an advantage with no impact, and a small-ish sized risk of a DA.

 

The third problem I have is that I agree with the aff's analysis of the satake evidence. The neg tries to spin satake as neg evidence, but it's pretty clear in stating that the japanese have revised their defense policy to indicate a stronger posture, and "greater Japanese military capabilities" and "greater security roles". The 2NR analysis on trying to say if the alliance is dysfunctional, there will be prolif doesn't seem to be true given the warrants in satake, as the evidence concludes both that Japan's military posture is growing more robust, which means prolif is a bigger possibility, while also saying that US commitments to Japanese defense have grown even with this new defense robustness. I believe that this concludes me to think that the alliance is stable and won't be broken, even if japan hawkishness is increasing in the squo.

 

So what I'm left with in the end is an advantage with no impact, and an almost zero risk DA.

 

So where I end up voting negative on is the yan turn. I do think the plan is a form of containment, despite what the aff tells me otherwise. Particularly damning is the 1ar argument that situationally acceptable containment is acceptable. Right then and there the aff is done for on the yan turn because you've functionally ceded the link that you are containment in some form, which yan turns with the fake friendship bad arguments which is what the aff tries to do, while retaining situationally acceptable containment. Competition solves existential risks (although i would've liked a clearer explanations of which ones and how), which means given everything else that happened in the debate, this is the only place where I can vote without triggering some form of presumption.

 

Hence, I vote negative on the Yan turn.

 

Thanks for the feedback. I agree the debate could have been better organized. I just have a couple of questions--

 

So you vote on the Yan turn-- why exactly didn't you buy the arguments that we can end status comp and continue containment, when we read 1AC evidence about the importance of balancing engagement with hedging? Like our argument is never that all containment is bad, so how could I have answered Yan better? Because I feel like I spent a lot of time in the 1AR and especially the 2AR on how we solve status comp without ending all containment, and I'd like to hear a bit more about why those arguments didn't sway you and what could have been done differently.

 

You said that my cross application to etionzi was new in the 2AR-- I thought I made that argument in the 1AR. The two underlined warrants in the 2AR are also underlined almost word for word in the 1AR. I didn't call etionzi out by name until the bottom of the impact flow, but the argument that status comp gives states a rational reason for war was pretty much unchanged from the 1AR to the 2AR, the same two warrants are underlined in both speeches; I just forefronted it in the 2AR because I thought it wasn't particularly well addressed in the 2NR. I also don't understand your decision to throw out the Renshon analysis. The neg never articulates your trigger argument, so that feels a lot like intervention. Renshon also says verbatim, states that initiate and win conflicts get boosts in prestige, so how do you conclude it's only talking about trigger?

 

Edit: I think if I had to redo this debate, I wouldnt bother trying to de-link from Yan and just go for coop good. That would be harder with the alt causes debate, but it's probably a better idea than trying to delink. Props to Paul for a potent case strat. I was definitely in a double bind on case, there's no denying that

Edited by Nonegfiat

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...