Round 4

Apple Valley JS vs Lakeville KN

The Round

AC

So why would you ask me if I want full source cites, my answer is to follow the rules, and then you still don’t read them. So confused. Also, you need to tell me why “destroying the US” is a good thing. Wouldn’t that potentially be a bad thing? You make an assumption that the US military power is bad. Lastly, I would tell you to slow down a bit.

NC

Isn’t the storage problem you specify non-unique for both the aff and neg. If you affirm, you need to store the plutonium somewhere. If you negate, we still have to store it somewhere, right? Just curious how the NC would handle this argument. You spend far too much time on the top of the AC and not on Cont II. If the framework is going to be about reducing structural violence, why not save and spend more time on his Cont II which is about oppression as it directly links to your framework.

1AR

Why does your obs take out the idea that re-arm could happen? You say the neg doesn’t argue the warrant of the obs, but was there a warrant or simply just a claim? Be careful with that language. Good job reminding me there were no turns on case. That said, you made none on the NC either. And collapsing the entire AC into the subpoint B doesn’t make a ton of sense.

2NR

You need to spend WAY more time on the framework. You can win this debate here and yet you just skim over the debate.

2AR

The order should be framework and then your 3 voting issues. That is it. You spend WAY too much time on this line by line debate and never once do any weighing analysis. When you finally start talking about a probability argument (which is new in the 2AR) the timer had been going off for nearly 5 seconds. Framework and voters is the key to winning a 2AR.

RFD

Both debaters need to do a better job of explaining exactly what are and are not the impacts coming out of their cases. The aff seems collapses to a single point for the debate and the neg is 100% on this storage issue (which the aff asks if non-unique which is a great question).

A lot of this debate is going back and forth saying I was right or I said it first so therefore I am right.

Framework

The entire debate at the framework is a chicken/egg scenario where we can’t decide which comes first, violence or util.

The bigger problem in the end is the framework is an after thought to the entire debate and no one ever takes any time to directly link back to the framework.

Offense

This is the real problem. No one has any real offense they are making in this round and just making me decide how important the impact might be.

OBS

I agree with the neg that disarm is happening and I guess a chance of a re-arm could happen. In the end, I don’t think this plays into my decision. The AFF should have cross applied the obs to Cont I which is actually about the mechanics of how we implement the resolution.

Nuke Gambling

So this might happen, I have no clue how often or the likely hood it will. Need weighing or framing here. So I guess it could happen but neg tells me it has never happened.

Waste

The neg is winning this argument. Aff will cause a spike in where we actually have to store this waste (again, I think the obs actually takes this out but the aff never makes this argument in the round) so in the end, I negate because people will be harmed by the sudden increase in waste storage which will be done incorrectly.

26.5 - 27.0