Jump to content
Bayernuard

ODT Round 1 - dante111 [A] v. Bayernuard

Recommended Posts

Three post CX limit good?

 

1. Why vote aff?

 

2. What is a HIA in the context of the affirmative?

3. Do you have a solvency advocate that actually says the aff decreases healthcare costs? I guess on that tangent, does the Rao & Ross evidence ever actually cite why the implementation of the 1AC is good?

4. What is your end goal in the presentation of the 1AC?

 

5. Why hasn't disease caused extinction yet as per your Quammen evidence?

 

6. Why hasn't Trump lashed out yet, as per the Foster evidence?

 

7. Can you please point to me a single warrant in the USAID evidence?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three post CX limit good?

(Not until you explain what you mean by this)

 

1. Why vote aff?

(Vote AFF based on the predicated belief of 1. whatever the AFF provides is functional and will always be better than anything the neg will cast on the round 2. By the neg simply asking the question of "Why vote AFF?" it opens up the debate space to where frivolous theory and trash arguments becomes acceptable therefore destroying the entire premise of debate. Please take into note that this has actually happened in real life, my teammate, whom I would believe to be one of the best in the state of Texas for PF, has quit and even left the school because of the allowance of things like this in the high school realm of debate.)

 

2. What is a HIA in the context of the affirmative?

(HIA, or Health Impact Assessments are governmental reviews done by the school that allow for the EPA through the NEPA to establish a positive understanding of whether or not the school environment is best suited for the student to get the most out of his/her/etc education. )


3. Do you have a solvency advocate that actually says the aff decreases healthcare costs? I guess on that tangent, does the Rao & Ross evidence ever actually cite why the implementation of the 1AC is good?

(Yes, the belief of the AFF in having a solvency advocate is the Rao & Ross 14 card that brings about the principle of decrease in healthcare costs. This second question directly ties back to the explanation I give for your question #2. I'm not going to repeat myself. )


4. What is your end goal in the presentation of the 1AC?

(The end goal in the presentation of the 1AC is to do what debate was always and has fundamentally always been which is to inform both the opponent, you, and the judge (idk who), that the necessity for better and to even have HIAs of schools are the key to this round overall. )

 

5. Why hasn't disease caused extinction yet as per your Quammen evidence?

(It has, research has proven that Quammen is correct in the the epidemic of zoonotic diseases wiping out entire species of animals and that a true researcher would know if you have ever taken biology that the food chain of the ecosystems puts humans towards the top of the list and that these diseases have begun to affect the animals that humans interact with and ingest most i.e. cows, pigs, fruit bats, goats, etc. meaning that we will be next. This is a mix of the bottleneck theory/Selectionism/Domino Effect. ) 

 

6. Why hasn't Trump lashed out yet, as per the Foster evidence?

(Trump has lashed out through economic sanctions as well as increased deployment of military forces... North Korea incident, Syria Incident, Russia Incident, Mexico, United Kingdom ((Great Britain)), Japan, China, Germany, Iraq, Iran, Canada, etc)

 

7. Can you please point to me a single warrant in the USAID evidence?

(Yes. First you see that there is a tag, a tag is a specific title that does not copy the title of the news article because a tag is supposed to summarize the point of the news article. Second, there is the warrant which consists of the body of the card and even to the extent of the Author, Date, and accredited background of the Author. In this case, the Author is the US Government, more specifically the United States Agency for International Development. The United States Agency for International Development is an agency of the United States Federal Government that is responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and developmental assistance. )

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just mean that each cross examination gets three posts from the asker.

 

Just a couple follow-ups:

 

1. Let me clarify - does the judge vote affirmative because the hypothetical implementation of your plan text is good?

 

4. Do you think that the 1AC has any impacts independently of fiat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. yes and no, ultimately the judge votes affirmative because the plan is something that is both good and works. 

2. yes being a complete pre-fiat plan allows for the aff to be topical and effective in the debate space. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more follow up:

 

2. Can you rephrase/elaborate upon this response? If your aff is prefiat, how do you acces any of your impacts? Do you have any evidence that proves that the 1AC is uniquely good on a pre-fiat level?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so i just realized i didnt post a paradigm on the forum page for the tourney. I'm a junior from Cabot HS and have been debating for 3 years. Basically do whatever you want. I have debated the k most of my debate career, besides my novice year when I read a policy aff, but I am willing to listen to any argument. good luck and have fun! 

 

if you have any specific questions just let me know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize, the answer that I had provided was meant for another thread/round. 

 

The AFF, is *not* pre-fiat and that this is just a case where it we have come up with the complete job because of agency coordination and the overlying problem which HIAs can solve meaning we have access to our impacts and that the 1AC is still a viable proponent in voting aff for this round. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome, thanks for the clarification!

1NC is three off and case in the order of advantage one, advantage two, solvency.

Edited by Bayernuard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX Questions, I apologize for the lateness of these 

 

1. Why vote neg?

 

2. Which args are condo?

 

3. Historically prove to me which wars the US participated that economic collapse was not the cause of war

 

4. Give warrant for point 6,7, "finally" AND all of adv 2

 

5. Where in your Antonio evidence does it warrant specifically that the Rao Ross 14 evidence is powertagged 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOTE: No bolding because I’m on mobile. Sorry!

 

CX Questions, I apologize for the lateness of these 

 

1. Why vote neg?

We think that the aff is bad and we’ve provided reasons why.

 

2. Which args are condo?

The kritiks are condo.

 

3. Historically prove to me which wars the US participated that economic collapse was not the cause of war.

We think that economic collapse was a.) not a unique cause of war and that b.) war happened after the economy recuperated.

 

4. Give warrant for point 6,7, "finally" AND all of adv 2.

I’m on mobile, so I can’t cite quotes at the moment, but I’m pretty sure all those points are indicts of your evidence, in which case it’s your burden to prove warrants.

 

5. Where in your Antonio evidence does it warrant specifically that the Rao Ross 14 evidence is powertagged.

Antonio’s a separate argument from the Rao and Ross indict.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow up questions:

(1.) Who is we?

(4.) Theres no clear link chain to come to those conclusions. thats the reason why im asking 

(5.) Then antonio is your only argument against solvency correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow up questions:

(1.) Who is we?

We is me. Not used to debating on my own.

 

(4.) Theres no clear link chain to come to those conclusions. thats the reason why im asking.

The argument is just that none of your evidence is warranted. You can feel free to prove me wrong in your speech.

 

(5.) Then antonio is your only argument against solvency correct?

I think that your solvency evidence isn't very good, and we have some alt causes on the advantages, but Antonio is the only offensive argument on solvency proper.

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

×