Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Nonegfiat

  1. Patrick fox from jack c hays
  2. I vote aff. I’ll leave a full rfd at a later point, but this is just for the purposes of keeping things moving
  3. Broad Run’s program is all but gone from the national circuit. They might still do local stuff, but I’m not sure since I didn’t go to any WACFL this year. TJ however is making some noise on the circuit. I know there’s at least one good team from woodgrove, and a few other local programs in the area.
  4. 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.
  5. On the first question, I granted the perm but I don’t think there was much of a net benefit. The 2AR tells me to weigh limits vs exclusion, but the aff doesn’t really impact out exclusion. I’m not sure why race-first framing necessitates prioritizing the exclusion impact, because I don’t see that argument contextualized to race anywhere. In terms of whether the perm changed, I’m with Ben that I saw a general idea of what the world of perm was meant to look like, but for me, the details were unclear throughout. I’m not sure how an advocacy about what the aff should do is able to ensure that negs will never run framework. In my mind, the perm is essentially the status quo in debate, which does include a variety of aff styles, but that doesn’t mean people stop running T. So for the 1AR to characterize the world of the perm as such is sort of confusing. So to answer your question of whether it changed- maybe? Probably? I’m not sure. I’m sorry that’s not super helpful. I also did not flow the whiteness turn, but I’ll go read through those sections and edit this post with feedback later today.
  6. Yes, absolutely. Please don’t take my salty comments as an indicator of your worth or skill as debaters. This is just how my RFD’s come off; you can ask Holden aka TheTrashDebater. This round just had a handful of notable mistakes, and as a judge, it’s easy to hone in on those errors because they make giving the RFD simple, not because you’ve committed crimes against debate and you should feel bad about it. In rounds, I have done plenty of worse things than anything that happened in this debate, so again, don’t read this as condemnation. You both are very smart and capable debaters so definitely keep at it.
  7. It’s a little bit hard to answer that when you didn’t even extend those counter standards in the 1AR. You gotta impact it out and explain why it’s offense in the context of this debate, because all I see is a handful of lines ripped from a T shell
  8. I’m on my phone and I don’t know how to make something a spoiler from a phone so I’ll just do the RFD straight up without a spoiler since it seems that I’m the last one. I vote neg; the 2AC did not do what it needed to do. I understand your thought process in piecing together this framework block— you see it’s anti-T and so you recognize that the offense on normal T is gonna be a great way to impact turn this shell. But that does not mean that copying and pasting standards from your T shell is responsive to their standards. And like, it wouldn’t have even been hard to line by line these standards because some of these arguments are super flimsy. Like there’s an infinite scope of topical USFG action but a limited, predictable scope of body politic? What does that even mean? Even if the 2AC answers were responsive, the 1NC had 6 standards and you “answered” 3 of them. You don’t even try with the presumption stuff or the agential fantasy stuff or anything else, which is a whole lot of conceded offense to weigh against your disads on the interp that say things like “Lol you got beat on framework last round so why are you running it?” Unfortunately, it looks like you’re the one getting beat on framework this time around.
  9. So I’ve only started reading the rebuttals, but I’d like to make a request in case I judge either of you again in the future- can we kinda just chill a little bit? I understand you as debaters are deeply invested in the round, but I don’t find the 2AR’s extreme vehemence to be very persuasive. In fact, it makes me feel pretty awkward. Same with the 2NR’s decision to include screenshots of their private message with one of the other judges. Not to be rude, but like, it’s not that serious. It’s like you saw Snowball and nihilistkitten’s round and decided to copy what they did, but you missed the part of that thread where the judge and another respected member of the community point out how uncomfortable the round made them. I’m not gonna dock speaks because it would be unfair to penalize you when the round had already played out before I was added to the panel, but I figure this could be something of a PSA for cross x people. Can wildly angry vdebates not become a trend, please?
  10. Please let me be neg against “America annexes the world”
  11. I think losing two programs and two tournaments for a year should be a non-starter for a topic paper. It’s bad for the community and it’s supremely unfair to them. I cannot imagine how angry I would be if I lost a year of debate just because a bunch of people thought this topic would be good. Not to mention the fact that when you come back the following year, you’ll be rusty as hell and everyone else has a whole year on you. You can’t really compensate for that kind of disparity. Navy I know has a huge novice program too, so for them that’s a whole quarter of their career down the drain, in addition to spending the rest of their years at a disadvantage, even compared to others who started as novices. Being a novice in college is hard enough. It’s kinda fucked up if you think about it. I wish more people in the topic discussion group seemed concerned about this.
  12. Because students at navy and West Point are training to be commissioned officers in the military, they’re legally prohibited from “speaking comtemptuously” of the Commander in Chief. In other words, for them to spend an entire year researching and advocating that their leader be removed would be a form of disloyalty. At best, it’s not something their school would be okay with. At worst, they could get kicked out
  13. Aff ground is the issue for me. All of these affs are just different processes of doing the same thing, and most of them aren’t even good justifications for impeachment. And then what happens when the mueller report gets released? Resignation counterplans are also an issue, and I also have questions about the lit base surrounding this topic. How much serious legal scholarship has been written about impeachment in the last year and a half? Because that’s essentially what they’re trapping themselves in by making this all about trump Edit- Also, navy and West Point won’t be able to host their tournaments if this topic gets chosen. At least navy won’t be able to debate, West Point I’m not sure since they’re K. But the point is, this would screw a lot of people over. And I debate on the east coast so losing both of those tournaments would be a problem
  14. A lot of people in the community are super into this topic. I just don’t get it
  15. What are people feeling about this, now that we’re coming up on the voting deadline? I’m strongly against the impeachment topic, but I have a feeling in my gut that it’s going to win. I prefer the executive authority topic, which not only has actual aff ground, but accesses a lot of the same discussion of curtailing trump.
  16. Alright so I’m on my phone so I’ll give an overview of my thought process on the round, and if anyone would like to post round me or wants my thoughts on a specific part of the debate, feel free. I voted negative, with the counterplan flow largely guiding the rest of the debate. The 2AC biffed by reading the wrong block, and there’s only really one solid argument against the counterplan coming out of the 1AR, which is a reinterpretation of a a piece of 2AC evidence. I think the lack of any evidence from the affirmative against independence is a problem, and the CP solvency evidence, while not incredible, does have some warrants I can hang my hat on. Solvency deficits aside, I didn’t come out of the 2AR with a clear idea of why education funding is uniquely key to solve Puerto Rican debt, colonialism, or disposability. I thought the perm had a pretty big risk of linking to the spending DA, in part because the aff never puts an explicit answer next to the investor confidence link, outside of a new and, frankly, wrong 1AR assertion that the negative’s evidence doesn’t claim that wiping out debt would kill a tax haven. I think it pretty clearly does claim that, and I don’t think your link turn resolves that. I wanted the negative to come down a lot harder on this portion of the debate, because I could potentially have voted on the link even in a world where the block straight concedes the link turn, just because the “education spending increases GDP” argument is making a much much longer term claim about a statistical correlation than the link to the disad which is immediate and largely perception based. This was my strategy every single time I went for the Econ DA this past year on the college topic but I digress. So if the CP solves case and there’s a non-negligible risk of a link to the DA, I’m not feeling a huge reason to vote aff even if the framing portion flows aff. It’s enough to at least absorb a large portion of the framing offense and beg the question on some of these probability cards. But yeah great debate, you’re both really smart debaters, and I think the aff would have been in a much more comfortable position had they read the right answers on the counterplan.
  17. The decision was sent in yesterday. I understand that’s the procedure. I can post an RFD if Nick is okay with it
  18. Kicking T is pretty much never abusive. You can kick it in the 2NR with no problem. Where you start to get into trouble is when it comes to kicking advocacies such as counterplans and K alts. That opens up conditionality debates and stuff like that. But T shells don’t have a status. Sometimes people will run an RVI on T, but that’s not a very common move in policy debate. It’s just considered kinda silly. And it doesn’t necessarily have a connection with whether you kick the T shell—people will argue that even having read the shell is abusive. So yeah, don’t worry about kicking T in the block.
  19. alright so my views on debate have evolved somewhat since posting my paradigm on the signup thread, plus i dont really remember what i said anyway. for everyone's convenience, here are the things to know about me as a judge: -i lean decisively policy on issues of k affs, framework, and kritiks -i am more sympathetic to theoretical objections to counterplans than most other judges, especially on conditionality -i probably lean toward reasonability in topicality debates -for vdebates, im gonna get frustrated if your cross x is obscenely long. You do not get to ask 15 questions and follow up on 7 of them, when the answer to each was like a paragraph long. that is not representative of how cross x actually works in debates and i dont want to read through all of that anyway. so like, try to be mindful of what you're doing in cross x and keep it to a reasonable length Edit- typo
  20. Yeah but like the alt can’t solve the link
  21. link of omission + rejection alt = winning K strat
  22. I freakin love this I have half a mind to think you’re a fellow policy hack just pretending to be a novice just to make a point lol Yes, the 2NR can always be the K, because yes, you can always have a link to the squo. Just be ready to make the link debate sound really good in the 2NC. A couple metaphors here and there, a fancy link of omission, all that good stuff. It will sound really good if you can find quotes from their evidence. So like if you’re running the cap k, find stuff that refers to the economy or markets or money or production. It doesn’t matter what the card is actually saying, it’s all about spin But uh on a more serious note, that’s bad debating so don’t do it if you have other options Edit: no disrespect to you K people. you’re allowed to think policy debate is stupid, and other people are allowed to criticize K debate And yes, not every K link is bullshit. But let’s be real here, many of them are
  23. Im really sorry to go down this rabbit hole but I’m doing it anyway If the alt is about fiat (which I kinda agree it is), why should the neg be allowed to fiat utopian structural changes and/or broad mindset shifts? That doesn’t seem fair at all, or frankly very educational
  24. If the aff does A, B, and C and the CP does A, B, C, and D, then the CP is not competitive, unless D is a process by which we do A, B, and C (which can include epistemology), in which case you're not exactly doing A, B, or C.
  • Create New...