TheTrashDebater

cap there's links to fem on analysis about how Baudrillard is sexist as heck There's links to race K's because of analysis about how Baudrillard is racist

Don’t exactly quote me because I’m not the most qualified person on this. But it’s a matter of 1. How could your cap good evidence is and how you’ve debated that, if you’ve straight just won that put some minor defensive args on the link sheet and just weigh that the risk of cap being good outweighs the risk of a link, and 2. How could of your link args are, if you have bad link args, you aren’t gonna get very far in the debate imo, read a bunch of reasons cap is good and put some defense on each of the links, then weigh that the if there’s a risk of a link then that’s a good thing because it triggers your cap good stuff but be careful not to make so like there’s too much work on the link sheet, because then they could drop the K, use your answers as a way as to how you access cap good offense and say that voting neg is key to preserving it (probably a dumb arg but it could happen)

I wish you the best of luck, from what I've heard is that the panhandle and west texas house the majority of what constitutes as lay debate

Take a moment and look over the question you just asked, and then re-ask yourself that question jk, its Uber trad

Um just clarifying couple of things I said- 1. You don’t have to ask pronouns but you should definitely check the way you phrased your response to the question because it sounds like you didn’t care about them whatsoever 2. Don’t make immigrants portrayed as terrorist, it’s not good and is 1. Exclusionary to those groups and 2. Probably racist

Ok, so I have a couple of issues with both sides of this debate- 1AC: You could probs deal without the opening statement, doesn’t really add anything to the 1AC Not really sure how ending chain migration is topical since the res wants the US to reduce its restrictions? Not really sure how illegal immigration is an impact as well? Your card on terror has like 0 warrants Also, this is probs me being a somewhat progressive debater but like, don’t portray immigrants as terrorists. That’s probs demoralizing, if I were you I would not use that impact or I would shift the language of the case to avoid that (the first of the two is better). I also don’t know who the heck any of these authors are. Like, please put in their qualifications, the title of the article, the date you accessed it, the date it was published. You could resolve a bunch of your planks with one simple phrase: ”I reserve the right to clarify any of the specific mandates of the plan in cross-examination” 1AC CX- Ktyler, I think you were being a bit rude, I understand the passive aggressive approach but like if you debate on a traditional circuit then you should know that pulling stuff like that could get you voted down very easily I think that the neg’s questions could have been more offensive for example ”why do we care about illegal immigration?” or ”what is the proven link between chain migration and terrorism” you really should've pushed the aff on the impact level questioning Also this may be me once again coming as somewhat progressive debater but Ktyler I would advise you to not say- “My pronouns shouldn't be a concern, we're here to debate” I respect all political views and your right to hold and express them but pronouns are an extremely important topic to some people, I may be misinterpreting this and I’m sorry if I am doing so but you came off as if you were trivializing the subject, so I would advise you to reword that if you say it in the future. 1NC- The DA the DA also needs only one link, choose the one that gets you the best impact scenario you don’t need to label the individual parts of a DA, it wastes time Other than that it was ok The K You don’t need to explain what Set Col is in the 1NC, save that for the 2NC in the overview i think you need a better alt, refusal is ok but when you go up against a good K team refusal alts are really weak. The white scholarship link wasn’t necessary nor does it really link? You don’t need the last bit of impact framing at the bottom, make that in the 1NR probs You also don’t need to tell me how it’s mutually exclusive in the 1NC What you do need is some care args 1NC CX- Never say “so called genocide” of indigenous people please Neg, don’t use caps lol it sounds like you’re shouting Aff you were really aggressive in this, especially with this statement- 6: I can characterize the round however I see fit based on what you say. I only need confirmation on your claims to a racist aff case and team. Also dont say anything is a pointless arg plez that’s disrespectful Don’t ask them if they’re gonna be running a CP in the 2NC, that just wastes time 2AC- On the K I think that the 2AC really undercovers the K, it doesn’t so much as question that the material action of the aff itself is colonialist, but so much as the ideological underpinnings of the aff perpetuate settler colonialism which you have to engage in the link level debate, discuss the warrants of the link and extrapolate reasons why that isn’t the aff, you start this but you don’t give warranted reason why the aff doesn’t link That means the K doesn’t have to be a unique description of the status quo You also concede the framing question, the impact debate, as well as the alternative MAKE A PERM PLEASE, sorry just like that’s one of the most important parts of an any advocacy versus advocacy debate Brain drain- i mean it was ok coverage, you should’ve pushed more on the link level debate and it would have been better because it’s risk of a link at this point case was ok rehash was unnecessary and that time could’ve been used for you to make more offensive arguments 2AC CX- questions were meh, make them more offensive Some of the answers came off as rude and could have been worded better (I.e. “I will abuse that point until I win) Also the cards thing was actually realllllly unnecessary And then one final thing about the CX of the 2AC was this answer that the aff gave, that was unnecessary, i don’t care if you think the negs links are bad, that’s for the judge to decide and vote on 2NC- K i mean, nothing really pops out on it, you probably could have extrapolated more impact explanation and you should probably have an overview of the K, you should have more analysis on the link level debate, try to formulate analytical links Give me more analysis on the question of framing because you barely covered it in the 2NC 2NC CX- Make more questions on the actual thesis of the argument and not just clarifying factors that aren’t that important to the content of the K Both sides flared up and were rude here, I get that debate can be frustrating but taking it out on your opponents has no excuses Also no cursing lol, debates a competitive forum Also to the aff, don’t try to make an arg in CX (questikn 12) Tbh I would’ve voted neg, not because of the way the round went down but because the aff really mishandled the K in the 2AC and I don’t think that with the job the 2NC did on it that the aff could have won but to both debaters, just keep level headed in debate please in the future.

Alright y’all I’m back ready, ready to throw down on neg on the immigration topic

Do y'all mind if I add some comments as well?

I’ll flow the round and drop an RFD if y’all are ok with it

Thanks, what DID you think of my response to the solvency arg that the neg was making, did you think I was handling it well?

Bump once again for RFD’s. I need to be able to finish the next debate by the end of next week because UTNIF begins on Saturday for me

Probably true, I mean at least the website looks a bit better aesthetically

RT

RFD plez? anyone?

I’m calling it now, queer migration aff EDIT: Gonna be pretty big because the UMICH file that came out has basically all the materials you need, you would just need to redo the tags, maybe find some better evidence a solvency mechanism you have yourself an aff