Jump to content
neeve

China Debate- neeve (affirmative) versus daveat156 (negative)

Recommended Posts

PM'ed- taking over for partner-

 

okay so why vote AFF

 

Whats the impact

 

How do you engage?

 

What is a human

 

So mournings cool for like assuming other peoples bodies, but how do people (ie black folk) who do not have a relationship with their body access morning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PM'ed- taking over for partner-

 

okay so why vote AFF

Do endorse mourning as a political strategy

 

Whats the impact

Eugenic violence

 

How do you engage?

If you mean with regards to the USfg, we engage emotionally with nonhumans in China

 

What is a human

Stanescu says someone white, cis, and male probably falls into that category.

 

So mournings cool for like assuming other peoples bodies, but how do people (ie black folk) who do not have a relationship with their body access morning?

We think that those bodies are incalcuable because of emotional dysselection- thats why black folks are divorced from their bodies

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am too- okay so:

 

How do you counter define "PRC"?

 

Whats the brightline ti reasonability?

 

How does your case list answer the resolution?

 

Why is community bad?

 

Why is community the SAME thing as stasis?

 

 

The k:

What does perm do both look like?

 

If you dont defend that a "human" exists then who are you critiquing?

 

Why dont you link to auto-immunity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

note: this rfd was written at 2 AM pacific so feel free to disregard or question it

 

I vote aff- I think there are 2 problems in this debate:

1) the neg block limited the 2NR

after the block, in my mind there was only 1 way for the neg to win and that was going all-in on the K. The block didn't develop FW to a winnable depth in my mind because you don't have a convincing TVA that solves most of the aff and you are behind on the impact turn debate coming into the 2NR- had you gone for FW you likely would've lost because of those 2 things. 

the k itself also wasn't as developed as it should've been: You need to be reading/creating more links, you need a more robust and substantive perm wall rather than your current 2 theory arguments, links are da's, and this silly reject text argument (DELETE IT NOW), you need to spend less time on the non-turn impact level of the K, and more time explaining the alt (i.e. less jargon, more explanation of ideas, and also how it solves the aff- otherwise you need to read K framework)

 

2) I think the neg chose the wrong K to read 

I thought the choice of weheliye against an anthro aff was strange to say the least....?- especially since this aff didn't have any clear/obvious race links and is not really a big proponent of humanism. I think a better selection might have been either trying to out-left the aff with another K (university, psychoanalysis, warren are 3 that come to mind), or read a generic like any death k with the intent to collapse to FW

bottomline: i don't think weheliye set you up well here

 

the 2AR cleaned up the debate well in my mind and made it impossible for me to vote aff- there's lots of link defense to the point where i'm struggling to find a reason the aff links; second, the perm doesn't seem to have any obvious DA's at the end of the debate; and third, said perm has a risk of a net benefit which is the aff which isn't resolved by the alt alone- hence I vote aff

 

other general thoughts: 

1) i didn't like the auto-immunity DA debate- it evolved from a purity bad argument in the 2AC to a competition/debate good/bad argument by the end which didn't make sense to me because the connection between those two wasn't really made by either side yet they both jumped into it

2) I think the block had too much case in it- like I felt the entire 1NR case debate was a waste of time since it involved going for claudio and related offense, which i almost felt was a contradiction with the K which didn't really seem to be embracing a political solution in the alt

3) If the debate was done differently and came down to FW I would probably vote neg because I don't think that this aff is reasonably debateable or refutable- you aren't going to find much on why mourning as a political strategy is bad let alone articles that say this form it will take is bad for society- be careful about writing an aff like this that's way out there in future

 

well anyways, hope this helped, 

vman

Edited by vmanAA738
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do apologize for any delay here. My wifi went out and I don't think reading and judging text documents off of my phone would be fair or proper to either debater. Now that it's back on I'm going to start looking over the round. I'll probably have my decision up in a few hours. Once again I apologize for any delay. Can't wait to start!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1AC-

Alright I'm writing this as I go. So personally I think that some great offense on the neg's FW was the Butler 04 card from the 1AC and could have been used as a turn.

1NC-

Though I can't vote on FW because both teams dropped it. Then on the K for the 1NC I agree with Vman in that you could have chosen a better one. Especially during 1AC CX with their description of human being "white, cis, and male." That is literally language K's, queer K's, anti-blackness, and fem. I do like how you contextualized the links to the aff though but they could have been much stronger. Your case could have been much stronger. I do like that you attack the method but it would have been better with a line by line attacking each card of the 1AC, seeing as there is only 6.

2AC-

On the 2AC I think that the FW definitions could be much better on the source but that was never attacked. Also I don't see the TVA stuff being needed as they never presented one till the 1NR, but I'll get onto that later. I like the 3 DA's to the FW you present. Then on case good answers and turns as well as preempts to their attacks on their method on the LBL. Then finally on the K I like the double bind you say, your answers are good but you could have done a lot more for the impacts, I agree with the 2NC with that.

2NC-

On the K, I do like your explanation of the impacts, as they help me as a judge understand what they are better. Good explanation of the alt. Though on the PIK debate you never pointed out how exactly you do solve the aff which kind of confuses me. Then good answers to perf con. Good answers overall on the K links to anthro. Though on the link debate the mourning link to my knowledge was completely new but it did answer the root cause argument, then good link analysis overall. I absolutely love your perm answers. You answered the auto-immunity disad well with the terror link. Then good case answers.

1NR-

On FW I don't think that the TVA was a good idea to take up 1NR time when it didn't even come up as an argument in the 1NC. I do like your answers to their disads but you never explained how SSD solves so I didn't really get the framing issue argument. I don't really get what your going for besides "case list bad" in the limits debate. Though your TVA debate was really good. Then I like your reasonability answers. Then good impact turns.

1AR-

This speech was a really crucial point for this debate because the block did a fantastic job at ballooning in my opinion. The Case debate was great and you did good at pointing out the turns that ultimately took out their FW in my opinion, but you could have done better analysis on Mikulak. Then on FW you did good answering all of their turns and such. If they had gone only for FW it would have definitely resulted in an aff ballot for me. On auto-immunity I really don't like how it boiled down to competition and what not, which really strived away from its thesis. Good answers on the perm debate but your warrents could have been better. Great job on bettering the link debate but you completely drop the impacts. Overall great speech to answer the block though

2NR-

Good choice on conceding FW. I really don't like how the case debate boiled down to "a teddy bear is different from an endangered Panda" as you did good analysis but I agree with the aff that there is no link so case ultimately wasn't really a voting issue. Now onto the final part of the debate and the most important that was the neg's last effort. You did drop that the K turns case and that the K solves the case, which means I have to weigh the aff and you never did any impact calc. Your severance argument was new in the 2NR so I couldn't weigh, nevertheless they win it. I can't really buy the Black queering link because you dropped why they don't link. Then your homogenization link doesn't really stand due to 1AR analysis you didn't refute. I felt like the perm could have gotten a lot more analysis. Then on Auto-immunity I don't like how it boiled to how it did but you did have good analysis.

2AR-

I agree with Vman on this cleared up A LOT of the debate. The Aff wins case due to the conceded Stanescu card and the conceded link turn to the DA's. Then the analysis on the K overall made my decision a lot easier.

 

Overall- I think this debate was very competitive and I had no idea who to vote for until the 2AR which proves how good the debate was. Ultimately I had to vote aff due to the conceded link analysis in the 1AR explaining how he Aff does NOT link. For the neg I do think your argument choice for the K could have been better and auto-immunity could have been a much better opportunity. Then for the aff get better definitions for FW. Congratulations to both teams for a fantastic debate though.

 

EDIT: In short I vote aff on conceded link arguments for the K.

Edited by TheTrashDebater

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...