Jump to content
TheTrashDebater

China VDebate- TheTrashDebater(Aff) v. Nonegfiat(Neg)

Recommended Posts

CX:

 

(Sorry these are all out of order. I wrote them as they popped into my mind)

 

You say for the aff to advocate anything beyond the resolution itself is arbitrary and unpredictable. How many rounds have you had where a team has advocated for just the resolution without further specification? How many camps teach that style of debate? How many squads do you know of that do that?

 

Why do our indicts about herbal medicine not apply to TCM?

 

What's going on with this RVI? It seems entirely self-referential, ie "give us an RVI because the ability for us to run an RVI is good". But is there any actual offensive reason to vote aff on T?

 

You say war turns capitalism. How does the aff solve war?

 

You're about 200 words over the limit, which is not an inconsequential number. So why did you choose to read that massive condo block when you could have made the same argument in far shorter time?

 

On plague reps, you say do the aff in the mindset of the alt. What does that look like?

 

What is engagement in the context of the aff, and what does it look like for the OSTP to increase its engagement?

 

Why do China threat reps exist, and what does the aff do in response? 

 

You say just because TCM is becoming popular doesn't mean it's not suppressed. What would it look like for TCM to not be suppressed, and how does the aff achieve that?

 

On the tag of the Smith evidence for plague reps, you say the aff solves the K because it creates a new model for descisionmaking. What are you talking about?

 

What's the difference between 3 perms and 3 conditional advocacies, or 8 perms and 8 conditional advocacies?

 

"We don't need to mandate an action". So what exactly is the burden of the aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX:

 

(Sorry these are all out of order. I wrote them as they popped into my mind)

 Nah it's completely fine, no need to be sorry

 

You say for the aff to advocate anything beyond the resolution itself is arbitrary and unpredictable. How many rounds have you had where a team has advocated for just the resolution without further specification? How many camps teach that style of debate? How many squads do you know of that do that?

Well granted I haven't been to too many tournaments because I'm a first year from a rather small school compared to the others in our circuit so I can't say that I've seen a team just use the resolution but I haven't had the chance to compete that much either.

 

Why do our indicts about herbal medicine not apply to TCM?

Because you're grouping TCM as just herbal medicine, which it isn't.

 

What's going on with this RVI? It seems entirely self-referential, ie "give us an RVI because the ability for us to run an RVI is good". But is there any actual offensive reason to vote aff on T?

It's all or nothing, if you prove that the aff is untopical we lose, if we prove the aff is topical you lose. You decided to run T and you shouldn't be allowed to skew the 2AC without expecting to have it weigh the round. That's just blatantly abusive.

 

You say war turns capitalism. How does the aff solve war?

Santos 03, the third advantage.

 

You're about 200 words over the limit, which is not an inconsequential number. So why did you choose to read that massive condo block when you could have made the same argument in far shorter time?

I don't see the point of this question, could you elaborate more?

 

On plague reps, you say do the aff in the mindset of the alt. What does that look like?

Where we stop overhyping diseases that aren't a threat.

 

What is engagement in the context of the aff, and what does it look like for the OSTP to increase its engagement?

Engagement is the OSTP creating engagement that wasn't there before with China, dialogue.

 

Why do China threat reps exist, and what does the aff do in response? 

It gives the US an excuse to pick fights with other countries, the aff changes the reps of TCM.

 

You say just because TCM is becoming popular doesn't mean it's not suppressed. What would it look like for TCM to not be suppressed, and how does the aff achieve that?

It would be that if TCM is more effective than western medicine TCM would be used without a question. The plan.

 

On the tag of the Smith evidence for plague reps, you say the aff solves the K because it creates a new model for descisionmaking. What are you talking about?

Decision-making in terms of a national emergency.

 

What's the difference between 3 perms and 3 conditional advocacies, or 8 perms and 8 conditional advocacies?

The difference is, the aff has to answer each advocacy clearly and not drop anything about it when the neg could drop it with a drop of a dime. With perms you can type 15 words and it would be knocked out.

 

"We don't need to mandate an action". So what exactly is the burden of the aff?

The burden of the aff is to affirm the resolution. That's how policy debate started, the aff gave advantages to the resolution and the negative gave disadvantages. Obviously debate is different now but all we have to do is affirm the resolution and be topical then we fulfill the aff's burden.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word count is 2926 I believe, neg can reciprocate in the block.

 

That number seemed off to me, so I did a manual word count which put you at over 3,100. Do you have any weird formatting in this speech that might be messing with Verbatim's counter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That number seemed off to me, so I did a manual word count which put you at over 3,100. Do you have any weird formatting in this speech that might be messing with Verbatim's counter?

No, I just did another word count using verbatim and it put me at 2926, 1195 for highlights and 1731 for the words in tags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I just did another word count using verbatim and it put me at 2926, 1195 for highlights and 1731 for the words in tags.

 

We're on the same page with the highlights, so it must be something with the tags. I just went back and checked the 1NC via the same manual method and it doesn't have the same issue of incongruence, which indicates that the problem is your specific speech document and not Verbatim's word counter being broken. Your formatting is kind of all over the place - maybe that's it?

 

At any rate, please trim your speech down by about 350 words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're on the same page with the highlights, so it must be something with the tags. I just went back and checked the 1NC via the same manual method and it doesn't have the same issue of incongruence, which indicates that the problem is your specific speech document and not Verbatim's word counter being broken. Your formatting is kind of all over the place - maybe that's it?

 

At any rate, please trim your speech down by about 350 words.

I just did a manual count and came up with 3,100 words as well, I apologize for being difficult and I'll look at my verbatim to see what is wrong with it. I will go ahead and trim my speech and reupload it, I am really sorry if I came off as rude.

Edited by TheTrashDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few follow ups and then im good for cx

 

1. If the role of the aff is to affirm the whole resolution, is the role of the neg to negate the whole resolution?

 

2. If that's the role of the aff, why did you spec at all?

 

3. Is TCM not herbal medicine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few follow ups and then im good for cx

1. If the role of the aff is to affirm the whole resolution, is the role of the neg to negate the whole resolution?

I didn't say they have affirm the whole resolution, there's a reason why there is an and/or. The aff has to affirm the resolution in a way that is topical, the neg just has to negate the resolution and the aff.

 

2. If that's the role of the aff, why did you spec at all?

Because if I didn't I'd be hit an Aspec, and a vagueness shell every round I was aff.

 

3. Is TCM not herbal medicine?

We defined what TCM actually is in the 2AC, that was the first Zheng 13 card.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lied-- 2 more

 

1. Im really confused about what you're saying about the burden of the sides. The aff can be as specific or as vague as they want and the neg just has to deal with it? If i got up here and read a bunch of topic disads, do they get weighed under your interp?

 

2. Can you please explain in your own words, without referring me to evidence or quoting evidence, what is TCM? What are some examples of Chinese traditional medical practices or treatments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lied-- 2 more

1. Im really confused about what you're saying about the burden of the sides. The aff can be as specific or as vague as they want and the neg just has to deal with it? If i got up here and read a bunch of topic disads, do they get weighed under your interp?

No, the aff doesn't get to be as specific or as vague as they want. I said that the aff has to affirm the resolution in a way that is topical while the just has negate the resolution and if they want the aff case as well. Then yes they do if they are disads to the resolution as a whole.

2. Can you please explain in your own words, without referring me to evidence or quoting evidence, what is TCM? What are some examples of Chinese traditional medical practices or treatments?

TCM are the medicinal practices and treatments used by the natives within China. Acupuncture, cupping, shiatsu massage, Tui na massage.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just got very interesting, anyways here's CX:

I'll start on the K:

What is the status of the new K?

 

Bataille refers to "God, Spirit" in the crad, do you endorse this religious langauge?

What was Bataille referring to in the card, human life or words?

Don't you link into your own K with your second Vadhana card undermining the value of TCM?

Then you say that you sacrificed ALL resolutiobal engagement with your Radiohead performance, yet you address the aff's engagement with the red through topicality and a vagueness shell, then you went on to engage the aff which does engage with the resolution by describing how the aff doesn't work. Which stance will you defend?

Are you expressing that death is good?

What are the lyrics associated with this time?

Where does your Cioran 34 card specifically talk about China?

Then does your Hirsch 14 card endorse death as a good thing?

What exactly is the alternative to the K?

What exactly is the impact?

Now on to PIC's theory:
So do you endorse abuse?

Then you say limits is bad but you ran them in the 1NC, which will you defend?

You go on to say education is bad, would you have learned about Bataille's theory without the educational process of debate?

Then would you say that the huffington post is a reliable source?

Then you say running a PIC is a reason to vote neg, so if a negative team runs a PIC in a round they automatically win?

You also ran education for a standard in the 1NC, which will you defend?

On to RVI:
Where do I say to drop you on my RVI?

Also you double turn yourself several times, why?

Condo:
You justify that abuse is good, why?

Framework:
How is the ability for the K to solve applicable?

Why is deliberative productivity bad?

Then you say if your framework is abusive that's good, why?

Edited by TheTrashDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just got very interesting, anyways here's CX:

 

I'll start on the K:

What is the status of the new K?

It's not new, but condo. As I said after the 1NC, everything is condo

 

Bataille refers to "God, Spirit" in the crad, do you endorse this religious langauge?

Bataille uses that language in a metaphorical sense, based the transcendent effect that religious rituals had on ancient people as observed by Bataille. We replicate that transcendence with our surreal poetics. Actual religion is of no importance to our argument.

 

What was Bataille referring to in the card, human life or words?

More context please

 

Don't you link into your own K with your second Vadhana card undermining the value of TCM?

No

 

Then you say that you sacrificed ALL resolutiobal engagement with your Radiohead performance, yet you address the aff's engagement with the red through topicality and a vagueness shell, then you went on to engage the aff which does engage with the resolution by describing how the aff doesn't work. Which stance will you defend?

I don't think I used the word "all". But regardless, the fact that we did any sacrifice at all is reason to vote neg. Still, we'll go onto demonstrate our commitment expenditure and waste by kicking those arguments. Also, we don't need to be coherent. I ran the arguments I wanted to run because I thought 8 off would be fun, so I needed to think of arguments to add.

Are you expressing that death is good?

No

 

What are the lyrics associated with this time?

The purpose is exactly the same as it was in the 1NC. The lyrics make me happy. This time, it's Subterranean Homesick Alien by Radiohead. I like that song a lot, and I hope you look it up and end up liking it too. 

Where does your Cioran 34 card specifically talk about China?

It doesn't

 

Then does your Hirsch 14 card endorse death as a good thing?

I don't believe it does

 

What exactly is the alternative to the K?

We've performed the alternative

What exactly is the impact?

Yang and Featherstone outline this really well. We innately have destructive urges, but because we live in a post-industrial capitalist dystopia, everything has its value determined by its ability to produce, be useful, and we are to accumulate. We've collectively decided that things like reading Radiohead lyrics in a debate round are useless and a waste of time, so we suppress those urges to waste and indulge. So instead, we take out our destructive desires onto our environment and onto each other. So that's war, climate change, and ecological degradation. That's Yang. Featherstone specifically talks about how the project of productivity is self-frustrating and neverending, so the neoliberal war machine turns outward looks to expand to integrate more people into its system, thereby destroying them and reducing them to economic data (also causing war and imperialism). So another piece of the impact is VTL.

 

Now on to PIC's theory:

So do you endorse abuse?

In the debate understanding of the word, yes. We endorse abusive arguments insofar as they expose and frustrate attempts by the debate community to impose coherence onto the space. Once that's already happened, abusive arguments are neither here nor there.

Then you say limits is bad but you ran them in the 1NC, which will you defend?

Limits are bad

 

You go on to say education is bad, would you have learned about Bataille's theory without the educational process of debate?

Learning for learning's sake isn't bad. Learning as a means to an end is bad. I learned about Bataille because it was fun and makes me happy, while debaters learn about policymaking because they want "advocacy skills" and to "understand the world". That's bad.

 

Then would you say that the huffington post is a reliable source?

That card is from a professor of education, who wrote an article for the huffington post. We're asking you to trust in their qualifications, not the huffington post's.

 

Then you say running a PIC is a reason to vote neg, so if a negative team runs a PIC in a round they automatically win?

Having offense on the flow does not automatically grant you a win, no.

 

You also ran education for a standard in the 1NC, which will you defend?

Education bad, and my ability to perfcon parts of the 1NC is good because it throws a wrench into your drive to make debate a space for productive discussion.

On to RVI:

Where do I say to drop you on my RVI?

That's what an RVI is. Unless by RVI you meant something other than Reverse Voting Issue.

Also you double turn yourself several times, why?

You'll need to be more specific and then I can answer your question

 

Condo:

You justify that abuse is good, why?

I've explained this above

 

Framework:

How is the ability for the K to solve applicable?

We outline harms with your assumptions about debate and productivity, and we think it's important that we do something in response to those harms

 

Why is deliberative productivity bad?

a) we can't actually enact change and pretending like we can leads to ressentiment. Rather than pretending we can influence the world and getting frustrated, we should embrace joy and share our favorite songs lyrics and become sovereign and happy in this space.

B) the idea that debate has to be a space for productive discussion, deliberative or otherwise, is bad, that's the entire K. 

 

Then you say if your framework is abusive that's good, why?

Asked and answered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We performed the alternative" is vague, which performance was the alt, then how does it solve for the K?

 

How can you assume my assumptions about debate?

 

You say that you are kicking all resolution engaging arguments, does that include the T, vagueness, the presumption, case, and the PIC?

 

Then under your interp double turning yourself doesn't matter, why?

 

Then let me clarify, where does Bataille refer to words as a link to your K?

 

Was the K a double bind, just asking?

 

Then so the new performance is an alternative for another K?

 

Then how do the tags relate to the card if the card doesn't relate to China like the Cioran 34 card does?

 

You say that acting like we change things leads to ressentiment, but don't you try to enact change through the cap k and the plague reps k?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We performed the alternative" is vague, which performance was the alt, then how does it solve for the K?

Every time we do something that isn't productive but which brings me joy, that's the alt. It solves because it refuses the productivity framework that leads to all the violence misery, and which traditional debate reinforces

 

How can you assume my assumptions about debate?

You said my joyous performance doesnt matter and should be thrown out because it has no weight within the utilitarian framework of debate

 

You say that you are kicking all resolution engaging arguments, does that include the T, vagueness, the presumption, case, and the PIC?

Yeah

 

Then under your interp double turning yourself doesn't matter, why?

Because forcing debate to be a space for coherent, productive discussion is bad, and perfconning is one way to work against that will to productivity. If my arguments contradict or make no sense, that's a good thing because it's refusing your drive to posit usefulness as the standard for inclusion into spaces like debate

 

Then let me clarify, where does Bataille refer to words as a link to your K?

Bataille talks about activity broadly. What we do in debate certainly falls under "activity".

 

Was the K a double bind, just asking?

I dont follow

 

Then so the new performance is an alternative for another K?

No. I explained what the new performance does. And the answer is, exactly the same thing as the first performance

 

Then how do the tags relate to the card if the card doesn't relate to China like the Cioran 34 card does?

The tag talks about being caught in the vicious cycle of productive life for the promise of luxury and joy, but never attaining it under the framework of productivity. That leads to a certain disillusionment, described by the text of the card, where everything we try to do is ultimately self-defeating, like how Featherstone describes with American imperialism. We're ultimately overcome with the life-destroying contradictions of capitalism. The tag mentions china because this is true in the context of neoliberalism and the US's current relationship with China. Again, featherstone goes great with this card.

 

You say that acting like we change things leads to ressentiment, but don't you try to enact change through the cap k and the plague reps k?

Neither stance advocates policy action, so no. But they're condo, which we've argued is good. So we'll kick those. And even if you want to stick me with a perfcon, we've also argued why that's good.

 

edit: changed one answer for clarity

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you impeded on an activity that brings me joy and say it is bad, doesn't that link into the K?

 

Then just to clarify, you are kicking every single argument, 7 off and on case, and going for the K?

 

Then what if your incohesive arguments prevent me from doing something that brings me joy?

 

Then what if productive discussion like bottom up movements help solve for structural violence, would they be good then, or will productive discussions always always be bad?

 

Then what is a perfcon?
 

The double bind question, so if I didn't give it time in my speech would you have linked it to the K by saying that they undermined and gave it lesser value by forgetting to include it in their speech. Then if they do include it in their speech you link it like you linked the K to me?

 

If I apologize for undermining the performance does that solve the harms of the K?

 

If I kick case do I fit under your interp of framework, if not why?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you impeded on an activity that brings me joy and say it is bad, doesn't that link into the K?

I didn't impede on debate. You're free to argue that Bataille is wrong

 

Then just to clarify, you are kicking every single argument, 7 off and on case, and going for the K?

Yes.

 

Then what if your incohesive arguments prevent me from doing something that brings me joy?

I'm not sure how to answer that question. It's too vague and hypothetical. If you want to know how I'd answer "perfcons bad", make the argument in a speech, give some context and explanation, and then I'll be able to answer it.

 

Then what if productive discussion like bottom up movements help solve for structural violence, would they be good then, or will productive discussions always always be bad?

The argument is not that all productive activity is bad, it's that the mindset that says only productive things are worthwhile, which you displayed in the 1NC cross x and 2AC, is bad.

 

Then what is a perfcon?

Not the same as a double turn. A double turn is when you read both a link and and impact turn on the same flow, effectively flowing offense for the other team. A perfcon is when you do the thing you criticizes.

 

The double bind question, so if I didn't give it time in my speech would you have linked it to the K by saying that they undermined and gave it lesser value by forgetting to include it in their speech. Then if they do include it in their speech you link it like you linked the K to me?

Ignoring the lyrics altogether would not have given me nearly as big of a link. Also, there's no double bind. There's a lot you could have done beyond the dichotomy of insulting or ignoring the lyrics. You could have thanked me for reading them, or said something nice about them. Ideally, you would have read your own lyrics from a song that you really like. But instead, you chose to be dismissive

 

If I apologize for undermining the performance does that solve the harms of the K?

No, you can't delink. The damage is done

 

If I kick case do I fit under your interp of framework, if not why?

My interp that the K comes first? I'm not sure why you'd meet that by kicking case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just off the flow, I do apologize if I offended you on the song lyrics.

dont worry, you didnt :)

 

And, also off the flow, I do apologize if i've impeded on your joy by taking this round off the deep end lol

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×