Jump to content
TheSnowball

ODT Round 2 -- TheSnowball [A] v. SpookBuster [N]

Recommended Posts

CX:

1. In what ways can the U.S. extend deterrence over Taiwan?

By doing the cp? Can you clarify?

2. How does the counterplan solve U.S.-China relations?

I'll do this in the 1nr but conceding to China leads to worse relations in the long run.

3. How does a company turn a war into a profit-making opportunity?

The military industrial complex. Huge arms manufacturers, security agencies, and contractors benefit immensely from perpetual war. They employ lobbyists and are represented by powerful people in the government who then drag us into wars.

4. What do we rely on besides human nature?

Cultural and societal values as well as individual choices. I think humans are almost definitely more complex than pure biological urges and I think it is factually incorrect to say that everything we do can be explained by survival, and by extension, greed. You're going to need some serious evidence to back up that claim.

5. What does the alternative do differently than the status quo?

It rejects the aff.

6. Explain the Jevons Paradox.

New technologies that allow us to exploit the environment to a lesser extent also allow us to produce more. More efficiency, which leads to less resource use, leads to more production, so more resource use.

7. You say capitalism as a structure is collapsing now. Why does viewing something through a capitalist lens keep socio-economic systems from shifting away from profit-making?

I don't think that's the link. Can you clarify this too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To follow up 1, if China attacks Taiwan, do wenuke China?

 

To follow up 5, so if capitalism is a sinking ship and the alternative doesn't get off it, what's the point?

 

To follow up 6, does that cycle continue perpetually?

 

To follow up 7 the link is about the way we view Taiwan but the impact is about the effects of capital systems. How do they interact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To follow up 1, if China attacks Taiwan, do wenuke China?

No. Our Cole card indicates that their would be certain "red lines" and certain responses. Those responses might include embargoes or sanctions as well as (conventional) military intervention.

To follow up 5, so if capitalism is a sinking ship and the alternative doesn't get off it, what's the point?

I don't think the collapse of capitalism is a bad thing. I think the better metaphor is capitalism is a hole in the ship and a bunch of people are already going to patch it up since the hole is becoming evidently dangerous and hindering to the progress of the ship. The plan, in this case, would be an effort to make a larger hole.

To follow up 6, does that cycle continue perpetually?

Yes

To follow up 7 the link is about the way we view Taiwan but the impact is about the effects of capital systems. How do they interact?

I mean the obfuscation link is certainly about how you frame Taiwan which matters because it shapes the policy and shapes how the plan is perceived, but the other two links are about the actual plan action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision and pseudo RFD for this round might end up being a little late. My laptop's being repaired at the moment.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine Chaos, thanks for judging!

 

I'm doing my best to get the 2nr in but it's going to be an hour or two late. I'm really sorry. Is that fine with everyone/

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine Chaos, thanks for judging!

 

I'm doing my best to get the 2nr in but it's going to be an hour or two late. I'm really sorry. Is that fine with everyone/

No worries!
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the 2nr - Relations, Solvency (Glaser and Say No), Cap, Clarity CP, and Appeasement DA. It's 58 words over which I know is a lot so either the 2ar can reciprocate or if that's too crazy I can try to cut it some more. Really great debate, you're very good, and good luck at the rest of the tournament.

 

 

2nr Round 2.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>2AR - Nuke War, Relations, Solvency, CP, DA. Really fun debate, and I think it's a close one. I was hoping for a cap k 2NR. You're great too and good luck.</p>

2AR ODT R2.docx

Edited by TheSnowball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been online for a while and just saw this. I wish you'd started round 3 already. RFD should be incoming today or tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts:

This plan is vague and I have no idea how it would be implemented. Would the US go forward and make a public statement that it's abandoning Taiwan? Would China do the same with regard to the SCS? What does "saying yes" look like in terms of its consequences on US military presence in the region? These questions go unasked and unanswered. I would have especially liked to see the negative explore the possibilities of China saying yes, but lying, or China saying yes but later changing its mind. There's no viable way for the US to enforce any agreement, and trusting China not to be expansionist seems like a mistake given the litany of warrants given by the negative, but since this argument is never made I'm forced to assume that in a world where China says yes, the US gets access to guaranteed Chinese containment forever, potentially solving back a lot of the problems with the plan.

Broadly, I agree with the criticisms of Glaser made by the negative's evidence. However, I felt that the negative did a bad job applying those criticisms to this specific round, which meant that I wasn't able to treat those criticisms as anything more than a general ad hominem. For the record, I would in theory be totally willing to vote for a policy affirmative that didn't read any carded evidence. I would have liked to see the negative pointing out specific instances where Glaser's analysis privileges theory over observation. For example, regarding the "say yes" debate, Glaser doesn't quote any statements by Chinese officials about their openness to a grand bargain, nor does he give examples of past Chinese policy actions that reveal they care more about Taiwan than the SCS. Instead, he decides that in his own opinion, China probably cares more about Taiwan than the SCS, and therefore China as a rational actor would act on its interests and probably say yes. This is a very head-in-the-clouds form of "evidence" regarding the concrete motives of specific Chinese individuals like Xi. But no specific arguments such as this were made in the context of the Glaser good/bad debate, which was disappointing. I could probably have cross applied certain negative arguments from other places to the Glaser debate, as their potential applicability was clear, but ultimately I felt like that would be interventionist.

It was unclear to me whether or not the DA was supposed to link to a world in which China says no. The negative might have intended for me to imagine a world in which the US publicly asks China to agree to this deal, China says no, and then the US security guarantee unravels while China expands, but if that was the intention it wasn't clear to me, and I did not evaluate the probability of such a scenario when making my decision. As it was, I treated the "China says no" debate as a solvency argument with the impact of presumption. The indicts of Glaser were not high quality enough for me to assign zero probability to China saying yes, so I made my decision by assuming China would say yes if asked and then evaluating the US entanglement scenario and the DA to decide whether or not the CP was better than the plan. The relations advantage I assigned basically zero weight, it didn't matter given that no coop seems likely to occur.

Some of the arguments in the 1AC relations advantage would have flowed better if they'd been put in the war advantage, IMO.

I know I said in my paradigm that I think people should address the theses of Kritiks more often, but I wasn't imagining it as a separate section of the flow, and the affirmative's argument was extremely low-quality, even for evolutionary-psychology. A better place than evo-psych to look for fundamental defenses of capitalism would be in Hayek's article On the Uses of Knowledge in Society which considers capitalism as an information-processing system determining the allocation of scarce resources. This line of argument functions best alongside criticisms of centralized planning. The affirmative shouldn't have conceded the implicit claim that non capitalism will save the environment, should have read some impact defense, and should have argued that markets are essential to smart environmentalism. The evidence read by the affirmative on poverty and QOL under capitalism was tangentially relevant, but not adequate as a response to the extinction claims of the 1NC, and going for a bigger stick reason that capitalism is good would likely have been smart.

Good decision by the negative not going for the Kritik, I think. You were obviously winning the impact debate, and the link was fun, if perhaps a bit of a stretch, but the alternative was bad and you conceded that the affirmative gets to weigh case. I likely would have voted affirmative on presumption given that you weren't making any arguments about ethics, and from a consequentialist point of view my own faith in capitalism has no bearing on whether or not it exists. Also, if capitalism is collapsing regardless, I don't see why the alternative helps anything.

In general, I felt like both debaters got caught up in the minutia of the line-by-line and flurry of author names. The warrants within different pieces of evidence were seemingly forgotten as soon as the claims they supported were flowed, resulting in weird situations like the affirmative initially claiming that China's treatment of Hong Kong is nightmarish and motivates Taiwan to pursue independence, and later claiming that Hong Kong would serve as an ideal model motivating the ROC to sign a peace treaty rather than pursue war. This sort of weird dissonance happened several times during the debate because neither of you paid enough attention to the warrants of arguments to notice when contradictions or tensions happened. Don't just flow claims or taglines, if that's what you're doing.  It might be helpful to break up large pieces of evidence into several smaller cards, as this would force you to write down each of the specific relevant arguments made by the evidence. There was also a lot of misconstruing of evidence and powertagging that was kind of depressing. Finally, a lot of arguments and extensions in the rebuttals by both teams seemed like they were new, or at least heavy on spin. Don't do this. I don't have an infinitely big flow or a perfect memory of what's said in each speech, and even though this is a v-debate going back to double check is really annoying and difficult.

Questions? I might not answer, if they make it too obvious who won, or if I want to preserve plausible deniability. But you should try asking anyways.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for judging and feedback - a few questions:

 

Do you think I should ditch the weird advantage overviews after the 2AC and just do line-by-line?

 

Should I attack the thesis of a Kritik on the impact debate?

 

Do you have any other advice for reflecting about the big picture besides reading evidence more closely and paying attention?

 

Is the solution to plan vagueness a more detailed plan or better clarification later on?

 

It seems very difficult to explain each advantage and the DA in the worlds of "says yes" "says no" "says yes but lies" or "says yes and goes back on it." Is there an efficient way to break that down?

Edited by TheSnowball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think I should ditch the weird advantage overviews after the 2AC and just do line-by-line?

 

Ditch them imo, but don't "just" do line-by-line. You should contextualize the arguments you make on the line-by-line and reintroduce specific ideas from the 1AC by heavily referencing specific arguments and cards and ideas introduced in the earlier speech. So there will be some repetition, but it won't be awkward and irrelevant to the specific ideas that are clashing.

 

 Should I attack the thesis of a Kritik on the impact debate?

 

Yes, but it should probably occur in the course of making other arguments rather than as its own thing, although treating it as its own thing could be justified in some instances. Also, Kritiks are going to have multiple statements that could be considered their thesis. Saying "the thesis" is kind of misleading. I just meant that people shouldn't be afraid to attack the assumptions or big underlying worldviews attached to the Kritik, in the same way that Kritiks try to attack the assumptions of 1ACs.

 

 Do you have any other advice for reflecting about the big picture besides reading evidence more closely and paying attention?

 

Reading evidence more closely is the main thing. It also indirectly helps if you read "obvious" arguments which are very common and more popular, as opposed to original handmade Frankensteinish arguments that you glue together yourself. Obvious arguments tend to have more of a narrative attached which makes consistency easier and deviations from the theme of the argument stand out more.

 

 Is the solution to plan vagueness a more detailed plan or better clarification later on?

 

Both, but the main one you have control over is a more detailed plan. However, I actually hate this plan/case because it's so hard to imagine implementation. Some vagueness is probably intrinsic to this idea because it's so weird. Broad shifts in US policy such as this generally consist of many different actions, as a process, with lots of feedback and changing decisions occurring over time. If China does X, we do Y. Our initial negotiating position is Z, but if A, B, C happens we're prepared to make various concessions depending on what we get for it. That sort of process is hard to consider in terms of the fiated instant policy changes that are traditionally considered within debate. The lack of dedicated solvency advocates for abandoning Taiwan probably doesn't help, either.

 

 It seems very difficult to explain each advantage and the DA in the worlds of "says yes" "says no" "says yes but lies" or "says yes and goes back on it." Is there an efficient way to break that down?

 

I don't think you can realistically cover all possible permutations of arguments, so you'll have to end up picking one or maybe two and focusing on them. You're right that it's difficult. I was just intending to raise the issue of these different possibilities to the negative's attention as a relevant path they could have explored, I wasn't claiming that all imaginable combinations of possibilities should be discussed. A few of Ankur's old posts on this website have some weird framework arguments to that effect though, if you're interested in this idea and can find them using the search function.

 

Also this ugliness is probably another reason that QPQ isn't T.

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the cap alt, my point was that capitalism was collapsing now and that was GOOD. Was that miscommunicated? Was that refuted?

 

If capitalism is collapsing now, I can do the affirmative and capitalism will collapse anyway. If you intended to say that doing the affirmative would stop capitalism from collapsing, basically like a cap DA, then that was miscommunicated, yes, and frankly I don't see why you read an alternative in that event. The reasons you give that capitalism is collapsing are things like there's no more room to displace marginalized groups, and we're nearing the ecological limits of economic growth, and stuff like that, so it wasn't at all obvious that voting affirmative somehow stops this from occurring. An obfuscation link shouldn't stop that sort of material change. My perception of that flow was that you read a Cap K, realized in the block that your alternative was bad, and tried to recover by arguing that capitalism was going to collapse anyway, accidentally invalidating the reason I'd want to vote for the alternative. The 1NC K's structure makes very little sense if interpreted as a DA.

 

From a consequentialist standpoint, if capitalism collapses no matter what, might as well do the plan and avoid the China war. If you wanted me to use a different ethical perspective, that wasn't made clear enough.

 

Maybe what you were trying to get at is that the alternative causes capitalism to collapse faster? But you didn't say this outright, and the importance of causing capitalism to collapse a week earlier seems very minor. And I doubt I'm so important as to delay capitalism's collapse by even one week.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Capitalism Kritik turned into de-development, but without linking it to an economy advantage, in my opinion. The lack of a substantive alternative also made it difficult to resolve the "root cause link," now that I reflect on it.

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...