mnballots

MN Ballots

View project on GitHub

Round 3

John Marshall CM vs Eagan AK

The Round

AC

Overall the case is really straight forward and makes complete sense. I would be super careful anytime you are asked “if I prove X, does that mean I win” kind of questions. The neg is trying to set you up for some sort of harm in the round. Never give a yes/no answer to that type of question. You are better to turn the question back to the negative.

NC

Please slow down. There is no reason to go this fast. Also please watch the pre-written blocks as they don’t really respond to the AC arguments. Also on the bio weapons if nukes deter us from killing each other, if bio-weapons are just as bad as nukes, why won’t they have the same deter effect. Seems like a logical leap of the NC to me. You first answer was to say bio-weapons are a deterrent and then you said people will switch to them and kill each other in CX. Which one is it? You seem to be a moving target in CX.

1AR

You are missing a critical argument. She said that your framework says death is much worse than the fear based argument. So as you continue to make arguments about the fear of nuke war, these aren’t going to matter in the end of the debate because we will be looking a purely a numbers game of how many lives are saved (or lost). Also, be careful not to contradict yourself. You tell me in Cont III that we should switch to nuke energy but your answer to “no accidents” is look at my Chamberline example of just nuke energy, we destroyed the environment and it was just energy. This turns your own case, lets see if the negative picks up on that.

2NR

I am so confused about this bio-weapons arguments. The aff is right, why won’t these have the same deter effect. And not only that, don’t we have international treaties to not have/use bio and chemical weapons. Why would affirming cause us to remove those treaties. There are a lot of holes here (but the aff didn’t make any of these arguments so you are safe).

2AR

Don’t bother with a line-by-line analysis in the 2AR. You should be doing a crystallization of the round into 2-3 main voter. The answer to the rearm is a logical question to ask but this very new in the 2AR. Also, the terrorism access to bio/chemical weapons is also new in the 2AR. One last issue is that you allow the negative to frame this as an extinction debate but you keep going back to a fear impact. I would reframe the AC to not be a saving lives but rather maybe a qualify of life argument because that is what you are actually making.

RFD

Framework

We all agree we are looking to the consequences and specifically only looking at the extinction of the world as the first impact.

Offense

The neg reads a turn that countries will rearm at some point in time during a conflict, this rearm will be worse than what we have today and therefore kill everyone. This turn most likely won’t happen, the resolution I would think disallow people to rearm but the affirmative never gives me that argument so I have to believe that a rearm is possible and with it the death of humankind.

So this is alone enough to negate. I vote negative.

27.0 - 27.5