Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Good

About debatesquad06

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 12/23/1989

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  1. word... i would be willing to answer the survey... so just post the questions or a link
  2. debatesquad06


    hey murray although I agree with your criticism of UIL judges, I wouldn't judge too harshly against us all just because we were raised UIL. I was raised UIL but I can go either TFA or UIL. I was raised that slow was the right and proper way and that speed was the devil but I being a debater asked why and they could never properly explain. So even though some of our backgrounds show strictly UIL we are all not bad.
  3. since its taking john so long to post why don't you go ahead and ask us your questions... or you can just pm us... whatever you want to do
  4. Atlanta does have a school... they came to a few tournaments in our area rory... i guess you might have already have moved on by then though but yeah they are a very small program and i believe have just gotten it started really... sorry man that sucks
  5. well john is going to take a bit until Wake Forest is done... and i don't know about Shree... has anybody even contacted him?
  6. since the other judges are busy they can just post their rfd's as they see fit but we do have a decision. It is a 3-0 for the affirmative Max: This was a fun/difficult round to judge. I only wish the CP debate had been better developed; I think this is an excellent CP in general against nuclear affs. Decision First thing I evaluate is theory. I think TheHutt is right, but I don’t think it warrants a loss, so I just ignore the oil scenario. The major issue in the round is at the link level. I think Aldjzair is crushing on the leadership flow, that not only is the econ key to leadership but the impacts happen a lot faster, but TheHutt is winning on probability. Thus, the round comes down to the link level of the DA. I’m never given a threshold, so I’m left guessing how much spending is going to trigger economic collapse. I wish the issue of co-op agreements and loan guarantees had been cleared up earlier in the round, and I’m a little afraid of intervention here, but I’ll go with what I take to be true; a cooperative agreement is essentially a grant with the giver of the co-op (USFG) expecting to be involved in the development of the new tech whereas with a grant, the giver isn’t very involved. Case in point; the co-ops do spend money, while loan guarantees don’t. I give TheHutt the link turn on the Yucca scenario- the new ev in the 2NR is pretty shaky- which is only being weighed against the co-op/grant spending. I’m never given a clear zero-point for the collapse of the economy, but I don’t think the plan spends enough money (and if it did, that’s made up for by the Yucca scenario). RFD: The link level for the DA is too sketchy. I vote aff. FPS: Sorry I don't have time for a more in depth ballot but I'm prepping for Wake Forest. Anyway I vote aff The negative doesn't do any analysis as to how Nuclear Energy is an alternative to oil. Electricity has only 2% coming from oil whereas 68% is from coal/natural gas. I don't see why it would displace oil. Without a solid link to the disad I vote for prolif. debatesquad06: Nice round guys but I know your both wanting to hear the decision so: RFD: I ultimately vote aff on this round. The CP was shit and shouldn't have been run and should have been kicked way before the 2NR. I voted on the Prolif and Econ issues, look below for details. Prolif: I vote aff on this issue. If i read the 2NR and the 2AR in a vacuum its clearly seen that the aff easily wins this. NEG: you could have done more work on the lack of an increase in leadership means that rogue states won't go for it. You could have also asked how does the aff ever overcome the inherent barrier of the US doesn't deal or trade with states they have label as rogue. You should have gone for this because this could have lead to a snowballing of things. Econ: I'm going to break it up so I make sure I discuss every issue but it goes aff as well 1. Leadership: I vote aff here. Why? because the 2NR completely misses the evidence that says the thing it says but also discusses the technological stuff it needed to at the very end. So... in essence the leadership is won by the aff Especially looking to the negs argument on the disad wins the case. Since he wins the turns coming out of the 2AC he proves that he helps the economy and that just bolsters the affs position here 2. Oil Prices: This also goes aff. He answers the scenario coming out of the 2AC. You also never really give me any reason to vote for the oil prices because you never show me a significant decrease in the demand for oil. you never show that going to nuclear power is going to significantly lower the demand enough. I mean what about vehicle usage? there is still enough oil demand out there from the American driver . Plus I buy the cheating shit... damn dude... thats not just new evidence in the rebuttals which i'm ok with thats a whole new angle on the argument made in your last speech and thats just not cool. 3. Line-by-line: Lake: NEG: i don't believe your claim here on what the evidence says and he does answer this in the 2AC. "also extend Lake 06 that the electricity market is currently very favorable to inexpensive nuclear power" thats his stance from the 1AC and you miss it you had some shaky uniqueness from the beginning along with an almost non-existent link story which he throughly beat Again guys, good round. Any questions just ask... send in a pm or post on here
  7. it does it to me after midnight central time
  8. i actually had a day off and i'm done with my ballot... so i can collect or we can have someone else do it... I don't care.
  9. its cool i understand man.. was just wondering if we needed to extend your delay... take your time
  • Create New...