Round 5

Lakeville North JT vs Lakeville South LS

The Round

AC

How is the hacking/cyber impacts unique to the aff. Wouldn’t some military equipment also still have problems as the nuke equipment. Also, the arms race doesn’t seem specific to the nuke arsenals so it doesn’t make a ton of sense. Lastly, my biggest issue with this aff (and most affs on this topic so far) is the harms are all “maybe, something, might happen” in the future but nothing measurable. So this will make weighing very difficult at the end of the round.

NC

Speed round? No prep…here we go.

I don’t understand the turn about the communications being cut off between those who are operating the nukes and those who say to launch them. You say the words but I have no clue what the impact is or why it should matter in this round at all.

Hold on, so we can race to re-arm in the event of a war but we can’t race to re-arm if an asteroids is about to hit?

1AR

All of your arguments on bio-weapons are just feeding into the NC argument. You say if there are any positive reasons of bio-weapons we should affirm but the neg already said they are worse than nukes and you don’t respond to that argument. An extension of this is game over for the aff then. Make sure to attack the warrant of the argument and not just the tagline.

The biggest problem out of the 1AR is that you are not extending any evidence directly and telling what the offense is. So at the end of the speech, I don’t know what the offense of the aff is, why I should be voting for the position you laid out, etc.

Your strategy at the end of the 1AR should be to have three or four arguments you are ready to blow up in the 2AR by extension and direct offense to the framework.

2NR

I guess my only critique of this speech would be to remind the judge what the framework is. Since you both collapsed into util, just tell me you win through it.

Oh, I get the turn now. That was a MUCH better explanation in the 2N.

2AR

I would recommend a different strategy for the 2AR. Avoid the line-by-line analysis. Instead, you should start at the framework (even in this round - remind we are looking at util) and then go to the three arguments of offense of why you are winning. When you are going through each of these arguments you would weigh those impacts against any potential impacts of the negative.

By waiting till the end of the speech for any actual weighing, it runs the risk of not having enough time to give me a proper detailed weighing analysis.

RFD

Framework

We have decided that the round will be decided on util. So here goes:

Offense

There is simply too much neg offense to not vote for the position in this round. I could pick from several different places but I’ll defer to the bio-weapons. I see bio-weapons are even worse than what we have today so we prefer to keep the nukes.

26.5 - 29.5