Jump to content
KushPatel

vDebate Education Topic: KushPatel (aff) VS NickDB8 (neg)

Recommended Posts

Pleasure debating with you Nick, some interesting issues were debated.

Feel free anyone to provide tips, comments, and etc on the debate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pleasure debating with you Nick, some interesting issues were debated.

Feel free anyone to provide tips, comments, and etc on the debate!

I’ll write and rfd when I can. Might take a bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aloha my people, here's the RFD. Sorry if it doesn't make sense I'm tired af and I still gotta prep more.

 

 

 

Also good job to both debater for a good debate

 

 

 

Also I do apologize if I seem to get a little mean, I'm just trying to provide the best feedback I can

 

 

 

 

Cool, couple of things here. But in short I voted neg on the DA, mostly

 

 

So just to clear it up, the thing that I felt most comfortable voting on was the AUMF DA, seeing how the only argument ever read on this by the aff was an overly powertagged, 3 sentence long piece of evidence that didn't even pertain to the DA. No amount of spin could ever save you from that. Also the DA was conceded to o/w the case which I presume would be the better option than the aff in any world.

 

Now onto the issues I had with this round:
 

 

Aff-

 

I felt that most of your answers were really surface level, yeah you had ink on the flow but nothing that would seriously make me doubt evaluating the arg you are trying to refute. You need to be more offensive, attack more on the DA's, the CP, the K, and the PIC. You need to get into the depths of the argument and tell me why I'm not ever going to vote on this. Also I like the idea of your aff but I see major holes in it, you have literally no internal link to ever be able to access to terror about why the plan is key to stop self radicalization and you gave me no reason how your plan solved for the culture advantage. So please if you ever run this aff again patch up the holes.

 

 

Also have better ways of answering the case arguments, you conceded a bunch of stuff that could have helped you have an aff standing

 

Neg-

 

I didn't really understand the choice of arguments in the 2NR but that's just me, if I were you I probably would have gone for the adv. CP and the AUMF DA but that is once again just me.

 

I feel like you could have explained why the case arguments you made mattered in the context of why the aff isn't a viable voter, especially linguistic imperialism. I felt sad that didn't get covered more in the 2NR.

 

 

Here's the run down for each arg:
 

 

Case-

 

I buy the linguistic imperialism turn on culture, if you're advocating for teaching english to refugees you definitely link to this

 

Terror was a dead meme after the 1NC, I'm sorry but I looked and saw all the cards and my jaw dropped

 

Aff you could have answered the impact defense better but I know you were on a crunch, great job getting case out there though Nick that made me happy when I saw the amount of case you had

 

This ended up flowing neg due to the conceded warrants of the negative attacks and turns

 

K-

 

Aff you made too many new arg's in the 1AR, they would have been good to have in the 2AC so that I could have evaluated them properly, however the K didn't get extended so you were in the clear

 

Also please make a perm, I don't care what way shape or form, just make a perm

 

Also have ! defense so that he doesn't get to leverage a conceded impact against you

 

Neg I thought you did a good job answering and extending what you needed. Thank you for explaining what the heck you were kritiking so I could understand what the heck I'm flowing

 

Had this been extended in the 2NR I would have felt comfortable voting neg on this as well

 

Spending DA- 

 

This is where I thought the aff was strongest in answering the off, you gave good impact defense and non UQed the DA which made me feel good, so I felt it was a good strategy choice by the neg to concede it

 

This probably would have flowed aff

 

Adv. CP-

 

Even though the aff made a perm, there were no refutations as to why the CP couldn't solve the case which is a huge framing issue when it comes to CP debates. If the CP has proven case solvency and even the slightest risk of DA then the CP o/w. So make sure to cover solvency

 

Good job by the perm for covering the perm and showing me why it solves the case

 

This would have flowed neg if it had been in the 2NR

 

The PIC-

 

This was the other off case extended in the 2NR, which I could understand why. The aff never attempted to make a perm and just said "we don't rep terrorists as refugees" even though the neg gave me 7 rhetorical examples as to how you link.

 

Also just because you kick terror doesn't mean you can win the PIC, the damage is done and the rhetoric is out there. You also conceded the impact to the PIC and why the neg o/w you even under memmi. So ultimately I had to vote you down, the Giroux evidence was a step in the right direction as well as the Rappaport evidence but in the end I bought the neg's analysis over these cards and why they shouldn't be evaluated

 

Neg I thank you for the explanation of the arg and how they linked using 7 rhetorical examples which I find to be heavily persuasive. I personally would have gone for this and frame the NB as the Memmi evidence (racism) in the 2NR with case for argumentive choice but once again that is just me

 

It flowed neg in the 2NR

 

AUMF DA- 

 

Here's the final off, as I explained in my TLDR rfd there was just not enough done on this to ever be able to win this. One powertagged card will never be enough and the conceded analysis on why it turns and outweighs the case just makes it even easier to give the neg the DA and why it o/w

 

Good job by the neg for the explanation and extentsion on why the DA o/w I appreciate that

 

This flowed neg in the 2NR

 

 

 

So I hope that was indepth enough for you. If y'all have anymore questions about the RFD please PM. Also if any other judges would like to join me in a panel that would be fine if they debaters are ok with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally, the 2NR was just the PIC, but seeing the word count was incredibly short, I threw AUMF on for fun. I thought about the advantage CP, but I think it probably still links to the AUMF DA, and I kinda planned on kicking the education plank and going for the terror planks to resolve that, but they kicked terror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally, the 2NR was just the PIC, but seeing the word count was incredibly short, I threw AUMF on for fun. I thought about the advantage CP, but I think it probably still links to the AUMF DA, and I kinda planned on kicking the education plank and going for the terror planks to resolve that, but they kicked terror

Cool. I hope my RFD was somewhat clear and concise on what was done well and what wasn’t.

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...