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, donâ€™t just say 2ac #1 tell me what the argument is. This solves confusion about numbering and would have made judging so much easier.
It would be nice if the affirmative wouldnâ€™t just make random shit a voter, which probably shouldnâ€™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 didnâ€™t do it for me.
a. Perms check condo- abusive perms mean that counterplans shouldnâ€™t be an issue
b. Breadth leads to depth- â€œbreadth 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 donâ€™t force them to go for one world, but at the point where youâ€™re counter interpretation is dispo that probably isnâ€™t true.
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, itâ€™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 arenâ€™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 wonâ€™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 doesnâ€™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.