Jump to content
SpookBuster

ODT Round 1 - SpookBuster [A] vs. TheTrashDebater [N]

Recommended Posts

Without further delay here is CX:

 

Just summarizing your impacts:
You just have three scenarios that lead to nuclear war?

 

Would China strike first?

 

If there are cyberattacks already and happening quite often why haven't your impacts been triggered?

 

Why do you have nuke war for all your impacts?

 

On your first advantage:

When was the last breach in US cyber security by China?

 

Why hasn't cyber security been dealt with if it is the biggest issue?

 

Why hasn't cyber attacks pilled over if they remain high and constant?

 

ON scenario one:

What does the election of Moon mean for NK actions and relationship?
 

If china is cracking down on NK why hasn't your impact been triggered?

 

How do we expect NK to participate in a nuke war if they barely have the tech. to make it to the coast of Japan?

 

How are US-China relations now?

 

Scenario 2:

Would you say relations have improved over Trump's presidency?

 

When did we start a trade war with China?
 

Are you saying nuke war causes extinction?

 

Advantage 2:

What are these "norms"?

 

 

Solvency:

What makes China say yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without further delay here is CX:

Thank you so much for being so fast and making up for my delay!

Just summarizing your impacts:

You just have three scenarios that lead to nuclear war?

Yes

Would China strike first?

That isn't our specific internal link but as relations decline rapid escalation from both sides becomes inevitable. So not necessarily but they could.

If there are cyberattacks already and happening quite often why haven't your impacts been triggered?

We're on the brink. I would argue that our Chowdry ev from inherency argues that Obama was able to push back conflict through his work in 2015 but what Trump does next is uniquely key to determine whether or not the impacts happen.

Why do you have nuke war for all your impacts?

Strategic oversight. Also nuke war matters since it will kill us all.

On your first advantage:

When was the last breach in US cyber security by China?

Chinese hackers recently hacked a U.S. defense system. I can give you much more specific ev if it comes up but hacks definitely are happening.

Why hasn't cyber security been dealt with if it is the biggest issue?

We've tried and failed. There's a lot of mistrust and misunderstanding (doesn't preclude say yes though).

Why hasn't cyber attacks pilled over if they remain high and constant?

On relations? They have. Relations are strained due to cyberattacks and allowing them to continue will eventually collapse relations entirely. The first piece of ev on rels talks about how dealing with cyberattacks now before it crushes the entire relationship is key. 

ON scenario one:

What does the election of Moon mean for NK actions and relationship?

Probably on the brink as Kim's nationalism is being validated.

If china is cracking down on NK why hasn't your impact been triggered?

Because we haven't denuclearized NK? The U.S. and China are on pretty different pages when it comes to North Korea.

How do we expect NK to participate in a nuke war if they barely have the tech. to make it to the coast of Japan?

Disagree on the tech, I think NYT is pretty good, but also lash-out triggers a larger conflict even if North Korea alone doesn't have capabilities.

How are US-China relations now?

Declining.

Scenario 2:

Would you say relations have improved over Trump's presidency?

No. But he definitely can make them better by resolving cyber-security issues.

When did we start a trade war with China?

Haven't yet, Harold indicates that distrust over cybersecurity means we lose the ability to coop elsewhere due to an atrophying of trust.

Are you saying nuke war causes extinction?

Yes? Immediately it causes huge death tolls but the fallout and nuclear winter cause extinction.

Advantage 2:

What are these "norms"?

Norms about when and how cyber-weapons can be used and how we attribute cyber-attacks. Harold et al. 16 from solvency is pretty specific. The specifics probably don't matter too much, just the fact that we agree on limiting cyberattacks to prevent conflict.

 

Solvency:

What makes China say yes?

Speaking of Harold et al... this ev. argues that the U.S. and China have similar ideas about cybersecurity. Additionally, Lindsay talks about how China will say yes: to preserve relations, interconnectedness, and trade and to limit the possibility of miscalc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-X of the 1nc

 

Nuclear Imagery

1.What's the link?

 

2.How does our opposition to Nuclear War (and the use of nukes in general) lead to nuclear testing?

 

3.When was the last nuclear test on indigenous/native land? Also, which term do you prefer (indigenous, native, or something else entirely)?

 

4.What is "technosubjectivity"?

 

5.How does the alt change what IR scholars or Trump thinks?

 

Cap

1.What is your role in this "collective, trans-formative" project?

 

2.How is such a local, grassroots project able to overcome the most powerful system the world has ever known?

 

3.What does the world look like post-alt?

 

4.Is there no government in the world of the alt?

 

T

1.You're only impact is limits, right?

 

 

Follow-ups are likely. I'll hopefully have the 2ac done tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-X of the 1nc

 

Nuclear Imagery

1.What's the link?

Your three nuke war impacts and how they'll kill us all. Direct link from your evidence to both of our links.

 

2.How does our opposition to Nuclear War (and the use of nukes in general) lead to nuclear testing?

 It doesn't say it leads to nuclear testing, it's talking about how the use of nuclear weapons is still entrenched in humans even today.

 

3.When was the last nuclear test on indigenous/native land? Also, which term do you prefer (indigenous, native, or something else entirely)?

I don't have a preference as long as it isn't a slur of some sort. Anyways, I believe 1977, don't quote me on that but to my knowledge it was 1977.

 

4.What is "technosubjectivity"?

Once again don't quote me but it is something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.

 

5.How does the alt change what IR scholars or Trump thinks?

We are using the ballot to criticize your nuclear rhetoric, the judge signs the ballot in favor of the negative they promote anti-nuclear rhetoric and at the same time are able to save the indigenous populations from ontological violence.

 

Cap

1.What is your role in this "collective, trans-formative" project?

My role in the project is to advocate for it, it is up to the judge whether or not to accept that project.

 

2.How is such a local, grassroots project able to overcome the most powerful system the world has ever known?

Zapatistas from Mexico, empirics prove that grassroots movements have succeeded before. So we use those past successes to formulate the alt.

 

3.What does the world look like post-alt?

A world where the dangers of capitalism have far lessened.

 

4.Is there no government in the world of the alt?

Yes in the world of the alt there is government, just it won't be entrenched in capitalism like the current governments.

 

T

1.You're only impact is limits, right?

 We have no impact to T, we just have reasons to prefer for now.

 

Follow-ups are likely. I'll hopefully have the 2ac done tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New questions are in red. I probably already asked too many so no follow-ups unless I'm desperate. I forgot about an English project so I'll probably get you the 2ac tomorrow  :sob: . I'll do my best though.

 

Cross-X of the 1nc

 

Kato
2.How does our opposition to Nuclear War (and the use of nukes in general) lead to nuclear testing?
It doesn't say it leads to nuclear testing, it's talking about how the use of nuclear weapons is still entrenched in humans even today.
1. I am having a lot of trouble with the second half of your answer. What does the use of nuclear weapons being "entrenched in humans" mean? How/Why is this the case? How is this an impact? Does your average Joe off the street go around nuking people?

2. Your second kato card says, "...justifies an ongoing extermination waged against indigenous peoples and the first world under the pretense of 'nuclear testing' " and your DeLoughrey 9 card is an impact to nuclear testing. What is your impact if not nuclear testing? How do these cards apply if that isn't your impact?

5.How does the alt change what IR scholars or Trump thinks?
We are using the ballot to criticize your nuclear rhetoric, the judge signs the ballot in favor of the negative they promote anti-nuclear rhetoric and at the same time are able to save the indigenous populations from ontological violence.

But how does promoting anti-nuclear rhetoric do anything outside of the round? These mindsets are deeply rooted and a vast majority of people (I'm talking like 99.99%) aren't watching this round, so how does the judges endorsement affect anything but our records?

 

Cap
3.What does the world look like post-alt?
A world where the dangers of capitalism have far lessened.
Sure but can you be more specific. Is it a communist society?
4.Is there no government in the world of the alt?
Yes in the world of the alt there is government, just it won't be entrenched in capitalism like the current governments.
So every action the current government does is bad because it's "entrenched in capitalism"?
T
1.You're only impact is limits, right?
 We have no impact to T, we just have reasons to prefer for now.
 Then why should the judge vote on it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright since I'm having a bit of trouble getting it up here I am just gonna answer it like this.

 

The Kato K:

1. It talks about how the use of nuclear weapons is still present, hence the "entrenched in us", because this entirely stems from the fear of nuclear war, and no people don't go randomly nuking people.

2. The impact is the other i action of the natives from the fear of nuclear weapons. The the DeLoughery evidence talks about the justification of nuclear use on natives to "protect the others"

3. Because if you start at the ballot the idea spreads, if I convince the judge that nuclear representations are bad the idea will spread. Hence my alt's tag "open up space for resistance".

 

The Cap K:

1. It is a society without capitalism being entrenched in everything around us. Just because we want to exclude capitalism does not make us communist.

2. If we use state based solutions like your plan that prop up capitalism.

 

T:

1. Sorry did not mean to confuse it, I have voters, which are the limits arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holden jesus dude going for kato and the one card cap k i dont know whether im impressed or disgusted with you

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holden jesus dude going for kato and the one card cap k i dont know whether im impressed or disgusted with you

What can I say Patrick? Consider this my college years because I'm experimenting. Which if funny I say that because I would have nothing to expirement for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First on Case:

What is the status of the rest of the case?

 

Can you name one thing Trump has done differently than Obama with China?

 

Where is your evidence which proves that the planet will be uninhabitable to contradict MY evidence that says it will be, may I add an ENVIRONMENTAL scientist, so why should we prefer your word over their's?

 

Where's your evidence that disproves our CNN 16 card that debunks the impact of your first scenario?

 

Then on the impacts you contradict yourself by saying that there's a massive death toll then you say extinction, which will you defend? 

 

Then on your empiric's argument did India and Pakistan use nuclear weapons?

 

Then on your China war scenario you say that MAD doesn't apply to this?

 

Then are you going to continue to defend your second advantage?

 

Who is your solvency advocate?
 

How does Inner-Kes lack a warrant?

 

If your author contradicts themself who should we prefer?

 

Where does Segal say views are aligning?

 

So if we used your logic we should not care if norms fail?

 

If China doe not have control over all of the actors in the cyber attacks then what use does the plan provide?
 

Why don't you need to win spill over?

 

Is my evidence not at the same standard as yours?
 

So my 4 reasons why China will say no does not matter as long as one author says it does?

 

How long did the Kargil war last?

 

What was the death toll?

 

How much damage was done?

 

Are you separating the two internal links into scenarios now?

 

Has Trump specifically said he'll escalate tensions due to cyber attacks?
 

So should we disregard history as a source?

 

If relations haven't crumbled even with the vicious cyberattacks what will be too much and trigger your impacts?
 

Kato:

So you don't link even though you have representations of a nuclear apocalypse in your case?

 

So you think we should ignore the otherization of any group?

 

Then on your framework, wouldn't we just trigger the impact if we weighed your aff?

 

You say reject Pinker then use his evidence, which will you defend?

 

Why does rejecting representations fail?

 

Why should we weigh proximate causes?
 

If we weighed extinction wouldn't we just be triggering the K impact?

 

Why does inequality require Util?

 

You talk about three perms, which will you defend?

 

So should your impacts be weighed over the suffering of structural violence?

Cap:

If the state props up global cap why should we do the plan?

 

Does your plan require action by the state?

 

You have 2 perms on this one, which will you defend?
 

Where do we mention a revolution?

 

Why does Trump mean that the revolution won't work?
 

How does the market solve when the capitalist based market trigger our impact?

 

Then you talk about the Zapatista's, would you say that there are some examples saying that state based solutions fail?

 

T:

We list aff's that can be ran, why should we prefer your interp when we have proven QPQ aff's cause too much loss of neg ground

 

You call upon a solvecy advocate on the mix and match argument but where is yours?

 

Edited for two questions BTW

Edited by TheTrashDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First on Case:

What is the status of the rest of the case?

Advantages are condo, plan text is uncondo

Can you name one thing Trump has done differently than Obama with China?

Baucus ended his ambassadorship in January 2017, as President Donald Trump nominated Governor Terry Branstad from Iowa as the next Ambassador to China.

Max Baucus, the ambassador to China and the main guy your card cites, was fired. Additionally, a laundry list of other stuff. If you don't think the Baucus example was sufficient ask me because I can give you a lot more.

Where is your evidence which proves that the planet will be uninhabitable to contradict MY evidence that says it will be, may I add an ENVIRONMENTAL scientist, so why should we prefer your word over their's?

Our Helfand card indicates that in 2006, a climatologist and a professor of atmospheric and ocean sciences collaborated to test the effects of nuclear war. They used state of the art simulations that nyquist didn't have access to and they came to the conclusion that nuclear winter was correct based on simulations of even a small war (much smaller than the affs scenario). Their study was independently verified by two other climatologists. I could go on and on about all the studies and experts our card cites, but you are definitely behind on the quals debate.

Where's your evidence that disproves our CNN 16 card that debunks the impact of your first scenario?

NYT and the analytic I made about how it's blatant propaganda

Then on the impacts you contradict yourself by saying that there's a massive death toll then you say extinction, which will you defend? 

Both? Initially, the war will cause like 20 or 30 million deaths. The resulting climatic shifts will cause extinction. Even if we lose the extinction debate we still access massive death tolls because, fun fact, wars kill people.

Then on your empiric's argument did India and Pakistan use nuclear weapons?

No. Doesn't mean the U.S. and China won't. This arg is mainly to prove that war between two nuclear armed countries is definitely possible and MAD doesn't just make it go away.

Then on your China war scenario you say that MAD doesn't apply to this?

I do say that. Can you clarify the question? I can explain my warrant/reasoning if that's what you want.

Then are you going to continue to defend your second advantage?

Unless something crazy happens, yeah.

Who is your solvency advocate?

Harold and Lindsay are the primary solvency advocates. I would also argue that many of our internal links serve as pretty good solvency advocates.

How does Inner-Kes lack a warrant?

It's a three-line card which basically re-states, "the U.S. and China have different interests" in different ways. I also answered the only semblance of a warrant I got from it.

If your author contradicts themself who should we prefer?

Can you clarify?

Where does Segal say views are aligning?

The recent announcement that the PLA is establishing Strategic Support Forces, which will combine space, cyber, and electronic warfare units, may provide an institutional basis for greater engagement between the two militaries

a. "greater engagement between the two militaries"

b.  This comes after the sentence that is like Beijing denies all cyber-attacks so this shows that they now admit to using cyber warfare.

So if we used your logic we should not care if norms fail?

I still access my advantages. Not necessarily saying we shouldn't care, but it doesn't affect the impacts in this round

If China doe not have control over all of the actors in the cyber attacks then what use does the plan provide?

I think they do. My wording may have been a little unclear but your card just says it's complex not that it's out of control. Also, we are now only discussing relations which means that having an open dialogue where we come to an agreement on norms still solves even if it doesn't 100% end cyber-attacks forever.

Why don't you need to win spill over?

Because it only matters in the context of preventing global cyber-war. For relations it's just between the U.S. and China.

Is my evidence not at the same standard as yours?

You're going to have to be more specific. In general it probably is, but if you're talking about the say yes debate then yours is at a higher standard. This is because Harold point blank asked influential Chinese people (such as academics, military personnel, and even government officials) about the plan and they liked it/agreed with it/ would say yes. This means that since your ev is just western speculation you should have to do more work to prove that our ev is wrong.

So my 4 reasons why China will say no does not matter as long as one author says it does?

I answered all four warrants. Sure. If I win one reason for say yes that I can prove outweighs/solves your say no then yeah.

How long did the Kargil war last?

May 1999 – July 1999

What was the death toll?

A couple thousand depending on the source. It's literally just an example though.

How much damage was done?

A lot? Idk what you mean or how to quantify that.

Are you separating the two internal links into scenarios now?

No, sorry for the confusion I was just using the word scenario colloquially (as in a hypothetical sequence of events) they are still both internal links to war although I don't really see how it matters.

Has Trump specifically said he'll escalate tensions due to cyber attacks?

He has said on many occasions that he might use nukes. He also has indicated that he doesn't get MAD through a discussion of the nuclear triad. He also doesn't know the difference between first use and first strike. Not necessarily due to cyber attacks but as I've explained throughout the 2ac, we have an uncontested internal link to war it's just a question of whether it will go nuclear and Trump makes that incredibly likely.

So should we disregard history as a source?

Most of the time yes. Just because something hasn't happened it doesn't mean that it's impossible. Ex. I've never beaten you in a debate so I never will or vice versa. Also, you should prefer our well-warranted specific scenarios about how X will happen rather than you literally saying the words "empirics prove". No empirics were provided you just said those words. Finally, history definitely flows aff nukes have been used twice in our context, and hundreds if not thousands of times in the context of the Kato K.

If relations haven't crumbled even with the vicious cyberattacks what will be too much and trigger your impacts?

Relations are crumbling. Things like the attempted 2015 dialogues and the brief lull in attacks have avoided triggering the impacts but Trump has made it uncertain and needs to reaffirm commitments.

Kato:

So you don't link even though you have representations of a nuclear apocalypse in your case?

That's my claim. I agree I have nuke war scenarios but I disagree about it causing your impacts or trading off with your alt.

So you think we should ignore the otherization of any group?

I obviously don't think ignoring it is good but I think other issues should come first in our impact calculus and priorities. Extinction or humongous death tolls are some of those other issues.

Then on your framework, wouldn't we just trigger the impact if we weighed your aff?

No. I've already talked about nuclear war now we should determine if talking about it or not doing a policy is better. Also, more importantly, your card is about depictions of nuclear war not about weighing it as an impact. Finally, all the reasons of outlined that weighing the aff is good probably outweigh.

You say reject Pinker then use his evidence, which will you defend?

I say reject his garbage work on violence, which our card very specifically indicts, not reject pinker as a whole. Just because his history studies are bad doesn't mean his psychology work, the thing he's actually an expert in, are false.

Why does rejecting representations fail?

I simply disagree on the fact that ideas will spread. This K has been run hundreds of times and yet very little has changed. Trump and the IR theorists who focus on nuclear war aren't watching. You haven't proven that voting negative will trigger any larger or even in round change. Newman talks about how people are stuck in endless cycles of representational critique and never leave the ivory tower to actually make real world change. He pretty specifically debunks the idea that, "if i win ideas will spread".

Why should we weigh proximate causes?

Two reasons: First, because they explain the world the best. Saying that one thing is "the foundation of all... physical violence" is incredibly disingenuous and probably problematic. Specifically in your K, war, violence in general, and violence against natives occurred long before nukes even existed which means looking at what specifically caused those instances of violence (rather than a general trend) is best. Second, root causes are infinitely regressive. In debate no matter what theory/impact your aff upholds I can claim something is the root cause of it. The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs is probably the root cause of your K since humans wouldn't be here without that but that isn't a useful historical lens since its too vague.

If we weighed extinction wouldn't we just be triggering the K impact?

Answered above also extinction is probably distinct from nuclear war

Why does inequality require Util?

I think you misread our card it says "inherent equality". The argument is that since all life is equal killing 10 people should outweigh killing 1 person.

You talk about three perms, which will you defend?

All of them.

So should your impacts be weighed over the suffering of structural violence?

Yes. Extinction outweighs.

Cap:

If the state props up global cap why should we do the plan?

Solves extinction. Also see literally anything I said about the link debate in my 2ac.

Does your plan require action by the state?

Yep.

You have 2 perms on this one, which will you defend?

Both of them.

Where do we mention a revolution?

That's what I understood the alt to be. I meant it pretty broadly as a collective rising up against the current system. This card definitely links to your alt.

Why does Trump mean that the revolution won't work?

His election proves that class consciousness, a key prereq to any collective, transformative project, is at an all time low. Basically he proves that people don't recognize the systems that oppress them

How does the market solve when the capitalist based market trigger our impact?

Your impact is wrong. The free market develops new technologies and regulations meaning that the environment is constantly exploited less and less, resolving your impact.

Then you talk about the Zapatista's, would you say that there are some examples saying that state based solutions fail?

Sure. That should have absolutely no bearing on this debate though. Our aff solves and using the state is mostly good.

T:

We list aff's that can be ran, why should we prefer your interp when we have proven QPQ aff's cause too much loss of neg ground

1. You don't list aff we can run, check your 1nc. 2. We have defense on all of your impacts (such as loss of neg ground, which isn't even in the 1nc btw) 3. I provided a bunch of reasons why our interp are better such as: you use the EU's definition which is uniquely unpredictable while I use the best definition for China and we limit the topic while also providing equitable ground to each side.

You call upon a solvecy advocate on the mix and match argument but where is yours?

I answered this above. Harold et al and Lindsay as well as some of my internal links

Edited for two questions BTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright that is all for CX. 2NC will probably be up in the next 5 minutes. This one's a doozy and you are probably gonna hate me after I present it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright order is case (specifically impacts, solvency, advantage 1 and inherency), Kato (they are organized by the headings) and then a new off, if you'll excuse I will get ready for theory and I now stand open for CX.2NC.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for future reference, since the neg doesn't have any more cx's this debate, the amount of questions asked in the previous cx was way too much. there's no way you could ask that many questions in a 3 minute period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for future reference, since the neg doesn't have any more cx's this debate, the amount of questions asked in the previous cx was way too much. there's no way you could ask that many questions in a 3 minute period.

I was probably over on my previous cx so it's ok

 

Probably should of asked this earlier, but what's the status of the off (all of them)?

Kato

1. Explain your second card on util please (Anomaly).

 

Derrida

1. Does war exist?

 

2. Why can't nuclear war happen (please give me all the reasons you'll use through out the debate)?

 

3. How is the bombing of Japan not an example of nuclear war?

 

4. Can you point me to a spot in your third Derrida card that mentions extinction and its inevitability?

 

5. Can you point me to a spot in your fourth Derrida card that mentions military expansion or preemption?

 

6. How does your alt spill-over?

 

I'll definitely have follow-ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was probably over on my previous cx so it's ok

 

Probably should of asked this earlier, but what's the status of the off (all of them)?

Condo

 

Kato

1. Explain your second card on util please (Anomaly).

 Just as the tag says, Util is bad

 

Derrida

1. Does war exist?

 

2. Why can't nuclear war happen (please give me all the reasons you'll use through out the debate)?

Empirically denied, highly improbable, MAD, that is all that comes to mind for now

 

3. How is the bombing of Japan not an example of nuclear war?

Because both sides didn't use nuclear weapons

 

4. Can you point me to a spot in your third Derrida card that mentions extinction and its inevitability?

No

 

5. Can you point me to a spot in your fourth Derrida card that mentions military expansion or preemption?

No

 

6. How does your alt spill-over?

If your impacts are true then we do nothing. Which helps us understand pain

 

I'll definitely have follow-ups

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...