Jump to content
TheTrashDebater

Education vDebate: TheTrashDebater (Aff) versus DylanCaldwell208 (Neg)

Recommended Posts

aight here it is

 

1. status of the CP?

 

2. How does one small bill such as the aff shift national perspective to education?

 

3. What stops Opioid from being passed post aff?

 

4. What's the warrant to warming causing ableism?
 

5. Economic decline for the US happened a decade ago and literally nothing happened, hwo is decline leading to war empirically proven?

 

6. Explain the implication of the impact comparison shell at the bottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aight here it is

 

1. status of the CP?

Condo

 

2. How does one small bill such as the aff shift national perspective to education?

Well, if there is such a big problem in our education system like you suspect, it will make people realize these issues, and they will demand more changes most likely. The disability issue probably isn't the only problem; it will shine light onto other issues as well. Also, the plan probably isn't perfect and it will need to be worked on before it actually does anything.

 

3. What stops Opioid from being passed post aff?

As my uniqueness states, our country is being ravaged by the epidemic, we only have a small time frame before our economy will start to see the negative results (we're already seeing some of it in the squo). The aff will shine light on issues in education, which takes our attention away from opioids, any time that we lose is just another hit our economy takes.

 

4. What's the warrant to warming causing ableism?

Sure so even if the impact doesn't contain all of yours, warming as a whole is still a pretty big impact on its own so its still applicable.

 

5. Economic decline for the US happened a decade ago and literally nothing happened, hwo is decline leading to war empirically proven?

Well, the 1931 collapse of the British sterling led to the 1939 war. Also, many wars that have happened have been associated with some sort of financial crisis, both the world wars, the American Revolution, the cold war, are just a few examples. (I do have evidence, and I will read it if I need to). Even if you don't buy that though, it pretty much comes down to probability.

 

6. Explain the implication of the impact comparison shell at the bottom

Can you rephrase this?

Edited by dylancaldwell208

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool so here's the CX

 

1. If I addressed the evidence you stated already (contention 1 analytics), does that count as a complete concession?

 

2. The Jackson 12 evidence is basically just another card talking about probability correct?

 

3. What violence are you talking about in your El-Lahib 15 evidence?

 

4. What is the point of the UTIL bad argument?

 

5. What's the warrant to the weizman 11 evidence?

 

6. Is UDL a state or federal bill?

 

7. On the Fed DA did you turn the link or the impact?

 

8. I will probably ask more questions depending on your answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool so here's the CX

 

1. If I addressed the evidence you stated already (contention 1 analytics), does that count as a complete concession?

 

You only talked about the framing with the scenarios even then you conceded most of it so its a concession of the aff's impacts

 

2. The Jackson 12 evidence is basically just another card talking about probability correct?

 

Sure Jackson talks about probable impact calculus but Jackson also addresses that tons of people die from inequalities everyday so we get access to high magnitude impacts

 

3. What violence are you talking about in your El-Lahib 15 evidence?

 

El-Lahib addresses broader risk analysis having to do with war and such, and goes on to make the arg that utilitarian impact calc ignores disabled bodies and makes ableist violence inevitable

 

4. What is the point of the UTIL bad argument?

 

It's saying utilitarian calculus like you're promoting is probably bad for risk analysis because it excludes marginalized voices and allows for genocide

 

5. What's the warrant to the weizman 11 evidence?

 

Weizman addresses the idea that ethical utilitarian calculus and how situational ethics surrounding that always justifies attrocities, a historical example to kind of support the warrant of the card is that the Nazi regime used the logic of util to justify the Holocaust

 

6. Is UDL a state or federal bill?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that

 

7. On the Fed DA did you turn the link or the impact?

 

We said there was no link and we impact turned it

 

8. I will probably ask more questions depending on your answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cool so here's the CX

 

1. If I addressed the evidence you stated already (contention 1 analytics), does that count as a complete concession?

 

You only talked about the framing with the scenarios even then you conceded most of it so its a concession of the aff's impacts

 

2. The Jackson 12 evidence is basically just another card talking about probability correct?

 

Sure Jackson talks about probable impact calculus but Jackson also addresses that tons of people die from inequalities everyday so we get access to high magnitude impacts

You were talking about how high magnitude impacts are bad, so which are you going for, probability or high magnitude?

 

3. What violence are you talking about in your El-Lahib 15 evidence?

 

El-Lahib addresses broader risk analysis having to do with war and such, and goes on to make the arg that utilitarian impact calc ignores disabled bodies and makes ableist violence inevitable

 

4. What is the point of the UTIL bad argument?

 

It's saying utilitarian calculus like you're promoting is probably bad for risk analysis because it excludes marginalized voices and allows for genocide

What do you mean by utilitarian calculus?

 

5. What's the warrant to the weizman 11 evidence?

 

Weizman addresses the idea that ethical utilitarian calculus and how situational ethics surrounding that always justifies attrocities, a historical example to kind of support the warrant of the card is that the Nazi regime used the logic of util to justify the Holocaust

 

6. Is UDL a state or federal bill?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that

Is the bill a federal bill or a state bill, basically which government(s) is enacting or trying to enact the bill?

 

7. On the Fed DA did you turn the link or the impact?

 

We said there was no link and we impact turned it

What was the first turn then?

 

8. I will probably ask more questions depending on your answers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Cool so here's the CX

 

1. If I addressed the evidence you stated already (contention 1 analytics), does that count as a complete concession?

 

You only talked about the framing with the scenarios even then you conceded most of it so its a concession of the aff's impacts

 

2. The Jackson 12 evidence is basically just another card talking about probability correct?

 

Sure Jackson talks about probable impact calculus but Jackson also addresses that tons of people die from inequalities everyday so we get access to high magnitude impacts

You were talking about how high magnitude impacts are bad, so which are you going for, probability or high magnitude?

 

Probability, but even if we lose the probability debate we access your framing

 

3. What violence are you talking about in your El-Lahib 15 evidence?

 

El-Lahib addresses broader risk analysis having to do with war and such, and goes on to make the arg that utilitarian impact calc ignores disabled bodies and makes ableist violence inevitable

 

4. What is the point of the UTIL bad argument?

 

It's saying utilitarian calculus like you're promoting is probably bad for risk analysis because it excludes marginalized voices and allows for genocide

What do you mean by utilitarian calculus?

 

High magnitude=util

 

5. What's the warrant to the weizman 11 evidence?

 

Weizman addresses the idea that ethical utilitarian calculus and how situational ethics surrounding that always justifies attrocities, a historical example to kind of support the warrant of the card is that the Nazi regime used the logic of util to justify the Holocaust

 

6. Is UDL a state or federal bill?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that

Is the bill a federal bill or a state bill, basically which government(s) is enacting or trying to enact the bill?

 

If you're asking about the perm clarification, the feds enact the bill but permutation acts as a force of wiggle room that gives states the ability to have their own accountability measures which is actually supported in the Nathan evidence in the 1NC

 

7. On the Fed DA did you turn the link or the impact?

 

We said there was no link and we impact turned it

What was the first turn then?

 

It was saying federalism is bad, strassfield explains how ed fed is pretty bad in the context of disability education

 

8. I will probably ask more questions depending on your answers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If Maryland already has UDL why is the CP needed

 

2. In all of the CP solvency dump, point me to a line that says that states are the only effective actors to implement UDL

 

3. Point out the warrant in Brignolf that says federak legislation doesn't solve

 

4. How much of your evidence is contextual to federal regulation

 

5. Point me the warrant in Shyyan that says that states were good at disability reform

 

6. Explain point number 5 under framing

 

probably follow ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If Maryland already has UDL why is the CP needed

We could say the same about the plan.

 

2. In all of the CP solvency dump, point me to a line that says that states are the only effective actors to implement UDL

Syyan et al 15, kahlenburg 17, doesn't necessarily say states are the only effective actors, just proves fed is ineffective.

 

3. Point out the warrant in Brignolf that says federal legislation doesn't solve

"regulations are not welcome because they remove opportunities for creative thought. The needs of people with a disability become just another legal problem."

"Legislation sets design standards at a point in time and is counter-intuitive to the concept of continuously improving designs through an evolutionary process – one of the basic tenets of universal design"

 

4. How much of your evidence is contextual to federal regulation

assuming you're talking about the Bringolf evidence, i suppose it's just regulation in general.

 

5. Point me the warrant in Shyyan that says that states were good at disability reform

"Most states supported teachers by implementing college- and career-ready standards for all students, including students with disabilities"

 

"More than three-quarters of states reported a need for technology-related investments for the majority of districts in their states in order to improve the participation of students with disabilities in instructional activities and assessments"

 

"More than half of the states reported including data for all students with disabilities in their evaluation system for general education teachers"

6. Explain point number 5 under framing

What do you want me to explain?

probably follow ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. All of those are contextual to just regular achievement standards, where does the card talk about disability reforms such as the aff

 

6. What’re you trying to say that people have lived through hell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. All of those are contextual to just regular achievement standards, where does the card talk about disability reforms such as the aff

I think the card is more explaining how disability achievements can be achieved through the states.

6. What’re you trying to say that people have lived through hell

Well it depends on your definition, the holocaust and the american revolution are probably equivalent though. I'm trying to say there have been times in the past that we've had to get through that have probably been bad for a lot of people, but we still get through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word count is 683

 

Order is fed then case

 

Thank you for the round it was a good challenge and a lot of fun.

 

I would also like to thank the judge for your time.

Hey, not judging but a quick piece of advice:

Ableism/structural violence inevitable is a straight up garbage argument. Soft-left affs are never, ever going to resolve structural conditions 100%. The idea of those affs is to make the world more livable for people suffering in the status quo. Not doing something because it doesn't resolve all of ableism is a terrible mindset to take to problem-solving. That pretty much allows the status quo to remain since no one solution will resolve all of our problems.

  • Upvote 2

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...