mnballots

MN Ballots

View project on GitHub

Round 6

Lakeville North KV vs Eagan AK

The Round

AC

Heard this AC prior in this tournament. He is what I wrote about it the first time.

“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.”

Be ready for the methodology question especially when you have an impact of 500 million deaths. That is a big number.

NC

SPEED!!! This is literally just card, card, card, card, card, card, card, card, card. I’m going to just copy/paste from my paradigm.

“Overall: Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If you goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments ever to exclude people then this isn’t a winning strategy for you.”

  • agree, your arguments aren’t super obscure but this is just speed for speeds sake.

So just nukes? The internet, globalization, nothing else impacts how the world interacts with each other. Only nukes? This is absolutely crazy claim.

You might as well call it a counter plan because that is what it is.

1AR

You do a good job of covering all of the ink on the flow but you need to do more extensions and tell me what exactly are the impacts coming out of the aff. There are no turns against the NC so the only offense must be from the AC but you don’t extend any impacts specifically in the 1AR. So you are going to leave a lot of weighing analysis to the judge which can be a problematic strategy.

2NR

Your asteroids analysis is completely non-responsive to the 2019 study that the affirmative reads.

Oh, there you go, you call it a counter plan now.

Again, you don’t need to go so fast in the round. You could just read at a normal pace and not have to deal with the crazy pace. It would allow you to explain the arguments in more depth as well.

2AR

This is not a good strategy for the 2AR. Review the framework, tell me what it is and what you need to do to win the round. Then go through the three reasons you are winning and weigh those winning arguments against any impacts coming from the neg. Doing this line-by-line is causing you to under-weigh the debate and you are going to force me to make decisions on the flow.

RFD

Framework

Both agree its Util and the neg throws on a card that it should be all about extinction. So that is our framework, lets look at the arguments.

Bio-Weapons

This is where the neg is getting the majority of it’s offense and the aff needs to spend more time here. The cards in the NC are specific that getting rid of nukes will result in countries seeking bio/chemical weapons. The response that big countries don’t have to worry about this isn’t responsive to the arguments that are made in the round.

Asteroids

The aff wins this cold, the card read in 1AR is never responded too, nukes are not the solution. No offense for either side.

Conventional War

This is an absolute mess of an argument. At the end I don’t know what either side is really trying to tell me here. So I prefer nothing.

Counter Plan: Triggers

The neg is winning this hands down. The aff response that it’s hard to change trigger vs removing them can’t be true and is just claimed. Neg tells me that, this offense goes neg.

Re-arm

Aff ground is to eliminate and remove. I find this argument abusive and essentially makes it impossible to ever affirm. Ignoring it.

Error

Yep, errors will happen. The problem is, we have no clue what the harm is from that error. Aff wants me to believe that accident is we will nuke each other, but counter-plan solves for this.

Armstrong Race

I see no extensions of arguments in the 1AR. No offense.

Hackers

Kicked out of.

Testing

Neg concedes that aff can have the potential for underground harms which from the AC is 200 deaths.

So neither side does this weighing, thankfully its super easy for me to do myself in this one case. Bio-weapons could kill A LOT more than the 200 deaths on the AC in tunnels, I negate.

This is a low point win. Speed is completely not necessary and used to disadvantage the affirm. I use my speaker points to try to reverse the disadvantage.

27.5 - 25.0