Jump to content

thepier

Member
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About thepier

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 06/13/1995
  1. 1. I feel like that is the right way to do it. 2. Totally, spending more time on it in the block forces the 1ar to spend more time on it and often not go for it. It also makes the 2nr a lot easier if they decide to include it. 3. Yeah, I think that you could spend less time on the Framework debate, because the only voter is that you don't have a counter interpretation, probably not the strongest arguments, and thats new. 4. I think that it was definitely legit, it was new in the 1ar. When the 1ar impact turns something often times you are forced to read new cards. Its def not a good thing to do normally, because the 2nr is a pretty hard speech already and reading cards just makes it harder, but sometimes you have to. 5. If you use the link debate as an overview I feel like your overview is missing a pretty large part of your kritik. It makes sense to do the link analysis on the perm because that means all the specific links you are hopefully bringing up act as reasons that the perm can't solve.
  2. Yeah, a little bit of both. You reference some piece of evidence, but I was unable to find it or even a similar argument made earlier in the debate. Even if you had won a long timeframe I still probably would have looked to Magnitude X Probability first. If a reason for putting timeframe first had been articulated earlier the debate might have been different, but you still have to deal with the econ democracy deal.
  3. RFD: THEORY GOES NEG, MEANS I LOOK TO SUBSTANSIVE DEBATE. WARMING OUTWEIGHS DUE TO CONCEDED MARTIN EVIDENCE. Think I overlooked something? Disagree? Please tell me, I would love to answer questions/argue. An overall note for both teams, particularly on the theory debate, but also on other flows, don’t just say 2ac #1 tell me what the argument is. This solves confusion about numbering and would have made judging so much easier. THEORY DEBATE It would be nice if the affirmative wouldn’t just make random shit a voter, which probably shouldn’t be, but I understand that there can be a strategic value to it. 1. F/W Unclear Counter Interpretation- he has a counter interpretation and its not extended. 2. K They test the plan twice- New and still probably not a voter 3. Severance Condo contradiction- main problem with this is that if I was going to vote him down on condo being bad I would also have to vote you down on severance being bad. Also, the reason he gives in the 2nr for severance being bad is that it makes it impossible to generate offense. You can still do that with condo. Also, probably not enough work to make it a voter 4. Condo- This really becomes the only theoretical question that really seems like it might become a problem. A couple conceded arguments make it pretty hard for the aff to win. If you really are planning on going for condo, then it probably makes sense to spend more than 580 words on it. I end up deciding that neg wins enough arguments to make it not a voter. I thought that condo was definitely winnable, but your 2ar didn’t do it for me. a. Perms check condo- abusive perms mean that counterplans shouldn’t be an issue b. Breadth leads to depth- “breadth leads to depth through subject overlapâ€. That means that all the reasons why depth is important are solved by condo and the negative gets a net benefit of more subjects. c. Neg Flex- although not conceded, I think the neg is probably winning it. There are two main arguments. First, reciprocity, which is responded pretty well to in the 2nr. Second, we don’t force them to go for one world, but at the point where you’re counter interpretation is dispo that probably isn’t true. SUBSTANSIVE DEBATE 1. Impact Calc- I think that the neg is doing a much better job of this and is definitely ahead on the warming outweighs debate. He has conceded defense on all of the affirmative impacts and wins that global warming turns nuclear war, so even if nuclear war might cause extinction, it’s inevitable. 2. Korean Conflict- ultimately a pretty strong risk of mitigated nuclear war a. Empirics- I think that the affirmative win that conflict will happen, their evidence is pretty good and I think that they are right that empirics aren’t as valuable when the situation has changed, they are able to explain what is different from the instance the negative is bringing up. b. Bioweapons- The neg wins that bioweapons won’t cause extinction, but the aff wins that the attack will cause retaliation. However, conceded Martin evidence means that it has a relatively small impaxct. 2ar says that the cross application was new, but, it was pretty predictable and a question of impact calc, I might be willing to allow new answers, but that doesn’t become an issue. 3. Regionalism- Strong risk of a mitigated nuclear war impact a. Impact extension- he gave an extension at the bottom of the counterplan, although shady, I probably give it to him. But, I still look at it through the lense of the Martin 98 evidence. 4. Relations DA- I think that the best debating by the neg can be seen here. The impact calculus here was pretty good and made the substantive debate a lot easier to decide. a. Perm solves- this argument is new in the 2ar and I still think that the 2nr link debate makes it clear that any possible disruption in the alliance triggers the impact b. Link Debate- really all of the link arguments extended into the 2ar are answered by the 2nr link extension, I read the evidence and I think that they are winning that troop withdrawal leads to a and creates a perception of a weakening alliance. 5. Counterplan debate- could have been a lot better for the negative if they had made the argument that perms are just a test of competition. I end up granting aff the perm and not giving the neg the counterplan. This means that aff gets a risk of mitigated econ impact, due to the Martin 98 evidence. However, this means that the aff has to take a mitigated democracy bad impact. I have been deterred from doing a VDebate due to the fear of an extremely large skill gap, but I would love to have a VDebate with either side. PM if you are interested. I would prefer to go neg, as I do not have an up to date aff, and am normally a 2a think it would be fun to give a 2nr. Thanks for letting me judge you guys.
  4. I would be willing to judge, not sure you want me though. I'm going into my third year of debate. I don't want to type out a paradigm, but I'm tab and enjoy theory more than most judges. Tell me if you want me
  5. thepier

    Braces

    Any experiences on spreading after braces?
  6. I like Ke$ha, anyone heard of her?
  7. thepier

    Braces

    I am getting my braces off soon and was wondering what other peoples experiences before/after braces have been. I found one other thread, but it wasn't too helpful Thanks
  8. bump, does anyone know more about this?
  9. I'd like to post an RFD; I dont really care if counts as an "official ballot". I'm a second year debater with moderate success on the national circuit. I will try to be as tab as possible, but I do have some slight bias's as I think everyone does. Kritiks- enjoy them, not very versed in the literature. Do lots of explanation even if a specific part of the K isnt explicitly challenged. Disads- enjoy them? CP- I'm probably easier than most to get to vote on theory, however copy and pasting blocks will not do. I want specific analysis to the round and good line by line. Topicality- I really like topicality. I don't necessarily think the neg has to win in round abuse as long as they win their interpretation is best and the aff doesn't meet it, however I will be persuaded either way on this.
  10. not sure if this counts, but http://www.mcchris.com/playground.php
  11. Is this happening? I would enjoy any of these videos, but would especially enjoy any with the 2nr as T
×
×
  • Create New...