Jump to content
ronniesportman

Bayernuard vs ronniesportman / Nonegfiat, sfrpeterm, outlier

Recommended Posts

1AR will be up sometime tomorrow if that’s okay — I have a practice debate today and the team I’m debating just changed the aff on me so I need to prep. l:<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and judges are ya'll ok with judge Kick?

My default is to stick you with the K. You’re free to make arguments as to why I should kick the K for you, and I’ll do it if you can justify it, but I tend to think that’s pretty abusive by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1AR will be up sometime tomorrow if that’s okay — I have a practice debate today and the team I’m debating just changed the aff on me so I need to prep. l:<

 

alll good :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the 1AR.

 

Advantage, K, T.

 

1531 words.

 

EDIT: There’s a typo. It’s supposed to be “The 2AC’s claims that charity cannibalism don’t lead to semiocap…”

1AR v. Raunak.docx

Edited by Bayernuard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the 1AR.

 

Advantage, K, T.

 

1531 words.

 

EDIT: There’s a typo. It’s supposed to be “The 2AC’s claims that charity cannibalism don’t lead to semiocap…”

 

Ah, makes more sense, I was looking at that for a while lol, it should be up by tomorrow because today is family dinner night.....

Edited by ronniesportman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, makes more sense, I was looking at that for a while lol, it should be up by tomorrow because today is family dinner night.....

 

I essentially finished, I just gotta cut it down, should be done tomorrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not leaving a full RFD but 2 comments for the negative regarding how your strategic choices would've made it hard to win my ballot:

 

1. 1nc strategy: I'm not sure why this is a quality test of the aff. I don't think that the kritik is a good test of the aff for a few reasons: 1) the aff is clearly anti-capitalist and anti-neoliberal- I don't see why bifo would disagree with the aff or why the alternative of "endorsing programming as a new means of cultivating political subjectivity" disagrees with the aff. At best, I think you have a suffering reps link and a state/university bad link. Those could've been 2 separate offs- a full suffering reps/disaster porn k and a full university/state bad k. The T shell I think is also a poor choice. I'm very hard pressed to find a violation when the 1AC fiats USFG action and the interp is must defend USFG action. I would 100% buy the we meet and I can't think of an argument you could make to beat it back. If you wanted to read T you should've read an interp saying puerto rico is not part of the US. You try to add this on in the block as extra-T but that should've been the interp/violation in the first place. Another T interp you could've read could've been something like "must defend an action that occurs in all 50 states and territories"- there's a decent abuse story there since affs for example that only benefit 1 state or territory are hard to research and prepare or argue against.

 

2. 2NR: I'm not sure why you thought it was a good decision to go for both arguments. You should've picked one and gone way more in-depth on it than you did with either 2NR argument. The point of the 2NR is to pick something and sell it to a judge. You need to explain the argument in-depth in broad terms, give a vision of what voting negative does, sort out all of the line by line, and then seal off the best possible outs the 2AR could take. In the end I'm left with a poorly extended T shell and some weak spots on the K where you didn't shut the door. Never do this again unless something is 100% dropped or they made 2 arguments or something in the 1AR. For me, you should've spent the entire 2NR on the K and kicked T.

 

I hope this helps.

Edited by vmanAA738
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not leaving a full RFD but 2 comments for the negative regarding how your strategic choices would've made it hard to win my ballot:

 

1. 1nc strategy: I'm not sure why this is a quality test of the aff. I don't think that the kritik is a good test of the aff for a few reasons: 1) the aff is clearly anti-capitalist and anti-neoliberal- I don't see why bifo would disagree with the aff or why the alternative of "endorsing programming as a new means of cultivating political subjectivity" disagrees with the aff. At best, I think you have a suffering reps link and a state/university bad link. Those could've been 2 separate offs- a full suffering reps/disaster porn k and a full university/state bad k. The T shell I think is also a poor choice. I'm very hard pressed to find a violation when the 1AC fiats USFG action and the interp is must defend USFG action. I would 100% buy the we meet and I can't think of an argument you could make to beat it back. If you wanted to read T you should've read an interp saying puerto rico is not part of the US. You try to add this on in the block as extra-T but that should've been the interp/violation in the first place. Another T interp you could've read could've been something like "must defend an action that occurs in all 50 states and territories"- there's a decent abuse story there since affs for example that only benefit 1 state or territory are hard to research and prepare or argue against.

 

2. 2NR: I'm not sure why you thought it was a good decision to go for both arguments. You should've picked one and gone way more in-depth on it than you did with either 2NR argument. The point of the 2NR is to pick something and sell it to a judge. You need to explain the argument in-depth in broad terms, give a vision of what voting negative does, sort out all of the line by line, and then seal off the best possible outs the 2AR could take. In the end I'm left with a poorly extended T shell and some weak spots on the K where you didn't shut the door. Never do this again unless something is 100% dropped or they made 2 arguments or something in the 1AR. For me, you should've spent the entire 2NR on the K and kicked T.

 

I hope this helps.

 

*Edited out until RFD*

Edited by ronniesportman
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure i'll do this:

 

I vote aff, can't quite figure out the upload function but here

RFD general

I vote aff

 

Bernie: 28.5

Raunak: 27.5

 

 

Nix Stevenson

 

Functionally conceded: the only response to this argument is on the Activism flow, and here all I get is that "Activism gets absorbed by semiocapitalism" but the 2nr lacks a decent extrapolation as to why this is true. "Bifo proves this with empirical revolutionary movements causing our psychic energy weakening-as the thesis cards explained fuels semiocap" this is okay but you need to extend an actual empiric instead of insisting they exist, the 2nc was also lackluster on this issue. The 2nr's jargon filled analysis is not enough to get me to disregard this argument. I actually think 2nc cx is the only time an actual explanation comes out, but this explanation is never extended into an actual speech.

 

NL Charity Cannibalism: the 2ar only spends a second cross-applying it to Charity Cannibalism but it’s enough, when they win that the affirmative spills up an actually helps people you lose. I think there actually could’ve been a half-decent debate here, the nix-stevenson evidence claims to challenge normative neoliberal forms of education and a better contextualization of the Baudrillard evidence might’ve argued that the 1AC’s disaster reps don’t challenge neoliberalism but are rather part and parcel with neoliberalism. I think you’re getting there in the 2nr with “they dropped-trading a ballot for suffering is a currency allowing Semiocapitalism to sustain themselves” but the 2nr doesn’t flesh this out enough for it to be a serious voting issue. I think the neg is missing out on a lot of the argument that the Baudrillard argument makes, Baudrillard argues that neoliberals desire suffering because it helps convince themselves that they are good people and allows for the maintenance of the status quo. We go in and relieve suffering but we never actually attempt to prevent these problems, which is a much stronger error-replication argument than the neg ends up going for. This argument would’ve allowed you to turn the Nix-Stevenson evidence and probably would’ve gotten you my ballot.

 

What you could’ve done: Nix Stevenson is in the context of the classroom education, distinguish debate from the classroom and I think you’re home free. Question exactly how exactly this is going to spill up, when are people going to march for Puerto rico. I think an argument that would’ve meshed pretty well with your fungability argument is that debate is a forum that doesn’t encourage awareness but rather encourages preparation, when people see the aff they don’t think “ohhh cool aff” they think “uhhh another block to write”.The neg would've been benefitted by arguing that competition distinguishes debate from a classroom setting.

 

Identity

 

Identity: I have no idea why the debate went the way it did. I’ve read the woodward card like 10 times and I don’t think the content matches the tag, nor do I think contextualizing the link the way you did was in anyway strategic. I agree with Bernard that the way you characterized it was probably racist, this is the reason for the 27.5. That said, I like the tag to the 1nc card and I’ve successfully gone for this argument before, I just wish there was a better card behind it. The card never mentions "libraries", Baudrillard's 1976 book "symbolic exchange and death" has a similar passage that is a lot more powerful than Woodward's explanation. 

 

Activism

 

No link: I think I explained my reasoning on the Nix Stevenson ev, and that means they actually spill up and no links the Baudrillard evidence. 

 

Impacts Nonsense: Bernie sums it up pretty well in the 2AR, none of this stuff makes any sense going into the 2NR, you gotta learn to do away with the buzzwords by the 2nr if you want someone to understand the K goop. You make it clear that impacts are happening now but the internal link between semiocapitalism and WW3 is never fleshed out.

 

T

 

I agree with Bernie: the 2nr fails to answer some key questions that Bernie has been extending throughout the debate, I would’ve preferred it if the 2nr focused more time on answering the framing arguments or fleshing out the k goop in the impact and the activism debate. 

 

Edit: made my thoughts a little more clear

Edited by 24234152451452
  • 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...