Jump to content

diantonion

Member
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Good

About diantonion

  • Rank
    Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Noah
  • School
    Harvard
  1. Sorry, ydavid and I talked, they won't be able to finish the round.
  2. Really sorry to hear that. I hope everything goes okay on your end. And with that, the 1NR, clocking in at 1550 words, was uploaded at 8:47 PM. The order is the CP, the case O/V stuff, Leadership, Status Competition, then an underview that you can flow on the DA. 1NR ODT R1.docx
  3. Thanks for CX, here's the 2NC. The order is the DA, then the case in the order of BioD, the Say Yes/No debate on the top of accommodation, and $$$. The word count is about 2670 or so. Posted at 10:50 AM. I'll have the 1NR up tonight probably. 2NC ODT R1.docx
  4. Quick question about calculating word counts: I don't count the unread citation information, right? Also, what are rebuttal word counts?
  5. CX General Any theoretical reasons to reject the neg? BioD Were core MDBs addressing BioD risks in SE Asia before the AIIB came along? If so, what evidence do you have that indicates such a thing to be true? What is the warrant the MDB coordination solving BioD, and which card(s) make that claim? How does the aff resolve human pressures on ecosystems in every part of the world? If your tipping points are invisible, how do YOU know about them? Leadership Draw the line between Wethington and Goh for me. What is the type of leadership specifically that you claim both cards is talking about? $$$ Are you fiating the Trump does the plan or the Trump does the plan and doesn’t do anything else to potentially destabilize the dollar? CP Can you clarify your solvency arguments on plank 2? DA Do any of your authors other than Laurence 16 make the race to the bottom argument?
  6. No problem, take however long you need (within the time constraints, of course). Here's the 1NC. It's 3 off, then case. Word count is a little under 2700. Uploaded at 10:56 PM on 5/16/17. Cool aff, btw. And since I posted this quite late, you can have more than 12 hours for CX if you want. 1NC ODT R1.docx
  7. Cross-X Plan In which Multilateral Development Banks will the plan increase Chinese involvement? How much capital will the US invest? In what Asian infrastructure projects will the US invest post plan?\ What is the process for jointly approving Asian infrastructure projects? Is it the US and China deciding bilaterally, or are the nations in which the projects are built consulted? Environment Your Hughes evidence indicates that timber, cement, palm oil, and dams are all driving biodiversity loss in Southeast Asia. How does the plan specifically solve each of these factors? Is the World Bank strengthening or weakening environmental protections now? The chronology of your evidence seems to indicate weakening in the status quo. Where in your evidence do you think it is indicated that your plan would strengthen AIIB environmental standards? More generally, how does your plan solve this advantage? Accommodation Why is China currently pursuing MDBs outside the “core?” In the context of MDMs, what is the “core?” What are your warrants for China saying yes? Leadership In which nations does the US see increased leadership? Which nations go to war in the SCS? Status Competition If China is using the AIIB to increase its status, why would it be willing to downgrade AIIB influence relative to other MDBs? Can you give me a line in your evidence indicating that Chinese military assertiveness is tied to global finance disputes instead of just caused by the same factors? When will the US and China go to war? $$$ Does China want to promote the RMB? If yes, why will they stop post plan? What are the warrants for why the US will go to war over its currency? Other Will you defend increased Chinese involvement in every MDB in your evidence? How do you know that the theories of international relations posited by your authors are valid descriptions of reality?
  8. If multiple debates don't have the aff show up, what about putting the negative debaters together into new rounds so people can get more debates in?
  9. Yeah. If the importance of limits had been called into question, then Harris would have been strong.
  10. It was fine, if a bit hyperbolic. But I would agree with outlier that it was a unnecessary, in that I already believed you that limits were good. But if you had the extra time, it was fine to make the argument.
  11. A big thing would have been some sort of reasonability claim that you could leverage against NickDB8's competing interpretations arguments when he inevitably makes them in the block. I think a lot of your arguments about your plan itself being okay for the topic could be leveraged much better if T isn't framed in terms of interpretations and you can instead focus the debate on your plan. That would have helped you a lot, especially because I think your plan is a totally justified part of the topic.
  12. If you had said everything you wanted to on T, then your 2NR was certainly a good strategic move. I think it's even better in a live debate, when word economy is not as good, and you can skew the aff even more.
  13. I think you did. CutTheCardThere certainly had a lot more ink on the K than on T in the 1AR, so I think T is certainly an easier path to victory in this debate. That's not to say you couldn't also have had a winning 2NR on the K, but that would require a bit more work, especially on the links. That may be specific to me, however, as Ks are not my area of expertise so I usually require A LOT of link contextualization to get me to understand, let alone to vote on, the K. I think that some people who are better with Ks may have a different perspective here. One thing I will say about the 2NR is that I'm not sure how useful the non-T (other than the theory on the DA) stuff was. Based on the time allocation in the 2NR, I just wouldn't have had enough from you to get to the level of presumption/no solvency. If you had anything more you wanted to say on T, it would have been fine to include than instead of the presumption arguments.
×
×
  • Create New...