Jump to content
ronniesportman

ODT RD 3 jhrish vs Ronniesportman//Misrap354

Recommended Posts

I’m on my phone and I don’t know how to make something a spoiler from a phone so I’ll just do the RFD straight up without a spoiler since it seems that I’m the last one.

 

I vote neg; the 2AC did not do what it needed to do. I understand your thought process in piecing together this framework block— you see it’s anti-T and so you recognize that the offense on normal T is gonna be a great way to impact turn this shell. But that does not mean that copying and pasting standards from your T shell is responsive to their standards. And like, it wouldn’t have even been hard to line by line these standards because some of these arguments are super flimsy. Like there’s an infinite scope of topical USFG action but a limited, predictable scope of body politic? What does that even mean? Even if the 2AC answers were responsive, the 1NC had 6 standards and you “answered” 3 of them. You don’t even try with the presumption stuff or the agential fantasy stuff or anything else, which is a whole lot of conceded offense to weigh against your disads on the interp that say things like “Lol you got beat on framework last round so why are you running it?” Unfortunately, it looks like you’re the one getting beat on framework this time around.

jhirsh you can ask the first questions if you have any, otherwise I have a few to ask

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah so first, thank you all for judging. I apologize if my tone in the round offended anyone once again, that was and never is my intent. I understand why the 2AC was a bad choice, I preempted them allocating the block far differently and let me emotions about some of their arguments get ahead of my brain. A few questions:

 

1) I truly do believe that exclusion is a viable net benefit to the perm, because the interp does exclude narratives - what about the exclusion argument wasn’t persuasive?

 

2) given that the 2AC was the wrong allocation, was there a better 1AR to give?

 

3) I understand a lot of how you believe I muddled the issues on the standards, but how did my offense against their methodology (the T arguments I read against their standards) not serve as sufficient turns to enforcing their interp?

 

I think that’s all for now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I truly do believe that exclusion is a viable net benefit to the perm, because the interp does exclude narratives - what about the exclusion argument wasn’t persuasive?

I don't have a coherent warrant in the 1AR or 2AR as to why this specific interp excludes narratives. The only time this is mentioned in the 2AR is as a reason FW in general is used by big schools to exclude narratives, but that clearly isn't what this FW interp is being used for -- you should think about this interp in the context of NDT finals from 2017. If your argument is that their interp if too far to the right, becuse it still requires politics, then the perm combines that interp with the counterp, which is way further right than the interp, so it probably doesn't solve that offense.

 

2) given that the 2AC was the wrong allocation, was there a better 1AR to give?

As I mentioned, I think the best 1AR try was cross-applying all this fiat good ev from the Fiat DA to Framework.

 

3) I understand a lot of how you believe I muddled the issues on the standards, but how did my offense against their methodology (the T arguments I read against their standards) not serve as sufficient turns to enforcing their interp?

I mean, some of these arguments are decent, but most of them are clearly in the context of being neg vs a K aff, which is not what this debate is. Reading your own offense on theory isn't a substitute for engaging with their offense.

 

LMK if there's anything else from either of you.

Edited by nihilistkitten
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3) I understand a lot of how you believe I muddled the issues on the standards, but how did my offense against their methodology (the T arguments I read against their standards) not serve as sufficient turns to enforcing their interp?

I think that’s all for now

It’s a little bit hard to answer that when you didn’t even extend those counter standards in the 1AR. You gotta impact it out and explain why it’s offense in the context of this debate, because all I see is a handful of lines ripped from a T shell Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mean to speak for anyone but I really hope that all the comments and shade thrown in this thread don't discourage the two debaters and any potential debaters from participating in vdebates in the future. Participation in this form of vdebate requires a lot of time and dedication and I hope both of you have learned something and become better debaters as a result of this one. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mean to speak for anyone but I really hope that all the comments and shade thrown in this thread don't discourage the two debaters and any potential debaters from participating in vdebates in the future. Participation in this form of vdebate requires a lot of time and dedication and I hope both of you have learned something and become better debaters as a result of this one.

 

Yes, absolutely. Please don’t take my salty comments as an indicator of your worth or skill as debaters. This is just how my RFD’s come off; you can ask Holden aka TheTrashDebater. This round just had a handful of notable mistakes, and as a judge, it’s easy to hone in on those errors because they make giving the RFD simple, not because you’ve committed crimes against debate and you should feel bad about it. In rounds, I have done plenty of worse things than anything that happened in this debate, so again, don’t read this as condemnation. You both are very smart and capable debaters so definitely keep at it. Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I have 2 big questions as of now.

 

1. Would the judges mind elaborating on how the perm debate was evaluated...did u buy it was the same perm etc.

 

2. What did u guys think f the whiteness turn leading up to the 1AR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Would the judges mind elaborating on how the perm debate was evaluated...did u buy it was the same perm etc.

IDK what you mean by "the same perm." I explained what I think about the perm in my RFD.

 

2. What did u guys think f the whiteness turn leading up to the 1AR

I didn't really flow that debate, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Would the judges mind elaborating on how the perm debate was evaluated...did u buy it was the same perm etc.

IDK what you mean by "the same perm." I explained what I think about the perm in my RFD.

 

2. What did u guys think f the whiteness turn leading up to the 1AR

I didn't really flow that debate, to be honest.

 

Did you buy that the Perm characterization in the rebbutal was the same as the 2AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you buy that the Perm characterization in the rebbutal was the same as the 2AC

 

Some of the justification is certainly new, but the characterization is probably the same given the 2AC describes it as "I can read a policy aff, you can read a k aff."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I have 2 big questions as of now.

1. Would the judges mind elaborating on how the perm debate was evaluated...did u buy it was the same perm etc.

2. What did u guys think f the whiteness turn leading up to the 1AR

On the first question, I granted the perm but I don’t think there was much of a net benefit. The 2AR tells me to weigh limits vs exclusion, but the aff doesn’t really impact out exclusion. I’m not sure why race-first framing necessitates prioritizing the exclusion impact, because I don’t see that argument contextualized to race anywhere. In terms of whether the perm changed, I’m with Ben that I saw a general idea of what the world of perm was meant to look like, but for me, the details were unclear throughout. I’m not sure how an advocacy about what the aff should do is able to ensure that negs will never run framework. In my mind, the perm is essentially the status quo in debate, which does include a variety of aff styles, but that doesn’t mean people stop running T. So for the 1AR to characterize the world of the perm as such is sort of confusing. So to answer your question of whether it changed- maybe? Probably? I’m not sure. I’m sorry that’s not super helpful.

 

I also did not flow the whiteness turn, but I’ll go read through those sections and edit this post with feedback later today.

  • Upvote 1

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...