Jump to content
TheTrashDebater

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

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Thanks for the advice! I'll keep that in mind when I go up against structural violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll pick this one up - I vote aff.

 

Fiat solves the solvency deficit since the 2NR doesn't explain why durable fiat doesn't avoid the deficit entirely. I default to assuming the aff fiats implementation and enforcement of the aff, which means that the aff ensures that UDL is implemented properly. The 2NR also doesn't extend an actual response to the fiat question, only asserting that the 1AR dropped all of the 2NC arguments. There isn't enough in the 2NR to warrant a presumption ballot anyway.

 

 

A few notes for the aff:

- 1AC is ridiculously overhighlighted and you need to rethink how you format it. Every card in the 1AC should have a purpose. If you do not have a reason for it being there, you shouldn't have it. Highlight warrants, and don't have too many cards that say the same thing.

- I maybe would've gone for 50 state fiat in the 1AR since you didn't have all that much to cover, just a personal thing though.

- 2AR overview makes me sad. The order should just be "case".

- Your 2AC overview is too long, and a lot of that work can and was done on the line-by-line. I wouldn't have a 2AC overview at all if possible as long as you can make those points clear at other points in the debate.

 

A few notes for the neg:

- On the flip side, every card you read is highlighted to literal death. Please, please cut that down.

- Strategy was kind of sketchy in the 2NR, don't just go for one case argument, especially one that isn't all that strong.

- You spend way too much time saying what the aff's argument is when doing line-by-line. You only need to say "they say X", rather than some long proclamation about the in-depth warrants of the aff's argument. 

 

 

Good debate y'all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DavidGriffith said:

I guess I'll pick this one up - I vote aff.

 

Fiat solves the solvency deficit since the 2NR doesn't explain why durable fiat doesn't avoid the deficit entirely. I default to assuming the aff fiats implementation and enforcement of the aff, which means that the aff ensures that UDL is implemented properly. The 2NR also doesn't extend an actual response to the fiat question, only asserting that the 1AR dropped all of the 2NC arguments. There isn't enough in the 2NR to warrant a presumption ballot anyway.

 

 

A few notes for the aff:

- 1AC is ridiculously overhighlighted and you need to rethink how you format it. Every card in the 1AC should have a purpose. If you do not have a reason for it being there, you shouldn't have it. Highlight warrants, and don't have too many cards that say the same thing.

- I maybe would've gone for 50 state fiat in the 1AR since you didn't have all that much to cover, just a personal thing though.

- 2AR overview makes me sad. The order should just be "case".

- Your 2AC overview is too long, and a lot of that work can and was done on the line-by-line. I wouldn't have a 2AC overview at all if possible as long as you can make those points clear at other points in the debate.

 

A few notes for the neg:

- On the flip side, every card you read is highlighted to literal death. Please, please cut that down.

- Strategy was kind of sketchy in the 2NR, don't just go for one case argument, especially one that isn't all that strong.

- You spend way too much time saying what the aff's argument is when doing line-by-line. You only need to say "they say X", rather than some long proclamation about the in-depth warrants of the aff's argument. 

 

 

Good debate y'all!

Thanks, what DID you think of my response to the solvency arg that the neg was making, did you think I was handling it well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TheTrashDebater said:

Thanks, what DID you think of my response to the solvency arg that the neg was making, did you think I was handling it well?

I think it was sufficient - I don't really think that you needed anything more than durable fiat because the card is 1. old and 2. about sqo legislation.

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...