ENDGAME Litterbox #4 -- Stanford v tinytall


#21

Case overview:

[list]First note that with the exception of adv. 2-A, Andrea has provided no direct refutation on-case. She provides indirect refutation under the disads (which I?ll discuss below), but doesn?t respond to the merits of case. I?ll cover the dropped advantages first, and put adv. 2-A at the bottom.[/list]
Advantage 1:
[list]Extend the stress and economics links and the two nuclear war impacts. These impacts completely outweigh all her disadvantages; I save the freaking world.[/list]
Advantage 2-B:
[list]Extend the analysis on violation of the social contract, thus delegitimizing the government. This is a priori since you?re taking on the role of the USFG. Because I?ve proven that recognition of marriage is outside your jurisdiction, you must reject on face.

Next, extend the analysis that it?s dehumanizing to discriminate on sexuality, and that dehumanization is the worst impact ever, as it?s the root of all other impacts. I?ve already shown that this impact alone outweighs any other that can be brought up.[/list]
Advantage 2-A:
[list]First, she tries to argue that this is slippery slope, but:
[list=1]
[*]It isn?t. I?ve absolutely shown how non-heterosexuals are denied rights.

[*]She never explains why slippery slope arguments are bad.[/list=1]
Next, she asserts that equating homosexuality with bestiality is wrong, but this is precisely the dehumanizing rhetoric that I?m urging you to reject.

Put a kritik here:

[list=3]Andrea?s claiming that there?s some sort of hierarchy of sexuality, with bestiality at the bottom. But remember my analysis in the PMC: to discriminate based on sexuality is wrong. Her claim that only certain sexualities are privy to rights is similar to the claims that were made when blacks and women were simultaneously aiming for suffrage. Rather than recognizing that all people ought to have rights, Andrea seems insistent on saying that only certain sexualities do. Cross-apply all my dehumanization impacts right here.[/list=3][/list]
10 D/As
[list]At the top, Andrea claims that marriage will not exist post-plan because less than 40% are done in a religious setting. But there?s one fundamental flaw in her logic. Extend the analysis that marriage can still operate in ?whatever ceremony? people wish. This means that marriage wouldn?t be restricted to religious ceremonies, and effectively kills the link to all ten D/As.

Next, group all ten of her D/As. They?re all saying that marriage is beneficial, but:
[list=1]
[*]N/L: I maintain (and she concedes) in my last speech that ?Most of these alleged benefits come simply from being in a relationship, and are not intrinsic to marriage.? Relationships still exist, so you see all the benefits Andrea claims.

[*][strike]Indict: I found the source of Andrea?s 10 D/As. It?s an article entitled ?Making the Case for Marriage?? from Brigham Young University…at their School of Family Life. Nice, unbiased source.[/strike]

[*]Turn: Being in a stable relationship is better than being in an unhappy marriage. Unfortunately, marriage is antithetical to creating a stable home environment. Marriage counselors are finding that the reason why marriages fail is because of the structure of marriage itself. People get bored in the marriage, take their partner for granted, and conflicts arise.

[*]Look to her internal links. With the exception of #7, there is no warrant whatsoever behind her claims. She just asserts them as true. This means that 60% (9 out of 15) of her off-case positions rely on assertions! This is terrible for debate:[/list=1]
[list=3]
A. Encourages shallow debate. When debaters fail to provide warrants behind their claims, the debate quickly becomes tantamount to the infantile reasoning of ?Huh-uh!? and ?Uh-huh!?

B. Shatters debatability. Since I?m given no reason why her arguments are true, how can I possibly refute them?

C. Time skew. It puts me at a disadvantage because I?m taking the time to actually respond with warrants, whereas she just spits out assertions at rapid rates.

D. Moving target. At any point, she can claim that my arguments don?t apply because the hidden warrant is different from what I?m refuting.[/list=3][/list]
Backlash D/A:
[list=1]
[*]Empirically denied: The government?s done contentious things in the past, and it?s never resulted in the complete shut down of government. Most recently, the USA PATRIOT Act upset ?conservatives, liberals, republicans, democrats? and numerous NGOs, but this didn?t shut down the government.

[*]N/U: People are already growing more disillusioned by government. If there is any backlash, it?ll occur independent of plan.

[]Turn: Andrea argues that 1,050 governmental programs rely on marriage. When we dissolve these useless programs, the government will become more efficient and will more effectively resolve the problems Andrea outlined.[/list=1]
Negative Rights D/A:
[list=1]
[
]N/L: The Bill of Rights protects negative rights (i.e., things the government and other citizens cannot do, in order to protect people?s freedoms).

[*]N/L: I?m not restricting any rights. If you want to get married, fine. But the government has no business defining which marriages it?ll choose to recognize and which ones it won?t.

[*]Turn: Andrea claims that protecting negative rights is a violation of the social contract, but?au contraire?the government?s key obligation under the social contract is protection of negative rights. (E.g., the freedom to kill is taken away in order to protect everybody?s right to life.)

[]Turn: Rights restrictions exist in the constitution in order to protect others? rights. E.g., one person?s right to hold slaves is eliminated in order to protect another person?s right to liberty. Andrea concedes that the government?s definition of marriage will always create discrimination; thus, the government mustn?t define which marriages are legitimate and which ones aren?t?in order to protect everybody?s rights.[/list=1]
Legality D/A:
[list=1]
[
]N/I: She gives us no conceivable harms.

[*]N/L: People can still enter contracts in order to achieve all the benefits of marriage outlined.

[*]Turn: Having 1,050 rights and benefits to look after is no easy task! I make the courts more efficient by removing the useless laws. Cross-apply my analysis on how Andrea needs to show one benefit from these laws. She?s failed. There?s no reason for them, and having them only impedes efficiency.[/list=1]

edited by Catbert after POO


#22

Worry about your own fortunes gentlemen. The deepest circle of hell is reserved for betrayers and mutineers.

Point Of Order:

Rule violated:
Citations, if and when they are used, should be for the purpose of attributing the source of information and should not be used as an appeal to authority.

Violating Argument:
Indict: I found the source of Andrea?s 10 D/As. It?s an article entitled ?Making the Case for Marriage?? from Brigham Young University…at their School of Family Life. Nice, unbiased source

Violation:
This argument is being used as a reverse appeal to authority. (beyond the fact that that was not actually my source)

Requested Redress:
This argument, and all arguments stemming off of it, be “stricken from the record” so to speak.

I would like this POO to be adjudicated before I post my next speech.

Thank you :slight_smile:

Or you could surrender.


#23

The point is well taken – argument #2 in the list of 4 responses to the “10 D/As” should be ignored by the judges. All other arguments remain and may be considered as appropriate.

The debaters are supposed to focus on the arguments made, not on who may have made them. The qualifications and biases of others who may have made arguments are not relevant to this debate.

Imagine that, POO in The Litterbox…


#24

Speech will be posted as soon as possible


#25

Haul on the main brace, make ready the guns!.. and run out the sweeps.
Welcome back to the ship, Gents and Ladies In this, my last speech of the round, I will be taking the Government?s arguments in order, and making them walk the plank.
So, let?s take a drink of the famous Sparrow Rum and get started:

[I]Overview[/I]
Not only were all advantages addressed, they were turned to the opposition side. Government simply failed to address this by grouping 10 of the DA?s.
Of the two of us I am the only one who hasn’t committed mutiny, therefore my word is the one we’ll be trusting.

[I]Advantage 1[/I]
The stress links were addressed and turned in DA?s 1, 3, and 5. In addition, they were indirectly addressed in 7 and 9 (less sex = more stress :wink: ). This means that the nuclear war impacts, as well as all other impacts on the gov side flow over to the opposition. The government never addressed the issue that governmental recognition of a relationship, and the benefits thereof, reduce the stress a couple must go through.
They done what’s right by them. Can’t expect more than that.

In addition, the arguments about the effects of marriage on children, mental illness, right to life, and economics have been dropped. ALL of these arguments must now be flowed over to the opposition side. If you were waiting for the opportune moment, that was it

[I] Advantage 2[/I]
The arguments about governmental deligitimization went basically unaddressed. Under both DA 12 and 13, we see that the fact this is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT and not simply a law is what deligitimizes the entire process.
You can keep doing that forever, the dog is never going to move.

On dehumanization, recognize that the argument that no social recognition of relationships is dehumanizing was DROPPED. This means that the argument, and all impacts, once again flow to the opposition. (and, as the government said, are the largest impacts that could be argued.)

Lastly, on the [I]kritik[/I] and Advantage 2-A
I am not going to get into the argument of beastiality versus homosexuality. (Partially because my girlfriend was meowing in bed last night? it was a little disconcerting) Clearly you’ve never been to Singapore. I openly admit, at the beginning of this round, that marriage as it currently stands can be discriminatory, however, the government fails to address the fact that it is much better to leave the current system and it?s potential for good then to throw it away because of one flaw. …and then they made me their chief.

Also, to quote the government,

the recognition of marriage is out of your jurisdiction
proving that even if you wanted to vote for case, you don?t have the jurisdiction to do so! Don’t do anything stupid.

[I] Disadvantages [/I]
First of all, the links (and argument 1). When the government does not recognize marriages, and the benefits no longer exist, the lack of those benefits and the lack of social recognition of these unions lead to the impacts and effects listed. Simply being in a relationship is very different from the government recognizing that relationship, and this is never argued by the government.

Argument 3- Yes, sometimes marriages suck. Will you be saving her then? However, the fact that at least 50% of marriages DO NOT end in divorce is ignored by the government. Study after study has shown that having a social glue such as marriage and economics (which only the government can provide) keeps relationships more stable. Problems can arise no matter what the relationship?marriage legally and socially protects both the couple and the children. Distant cousin of my Aunt’s nephew twice removed. Lovely singing voice. Eunuch.

Argument 4- The warrant was provided on top?it the governmental benefits and social recognition that lead to these benefits of marriage that would be lost. There?ll be no living with her after this A-D subpoints do not apply, because, to put simply, it leads to a more in-depth, and better debate. If anything, hold the government responsible for these because the grouping of 10 legitimate DA?s and not truly addressing the issues. How could it be that two upstanding gentlemen, such as yourselves, did not merit an invitation?

[I] Backlash DA[/I]
1-The Patriot act had obvious supporters. This amendment does not (unless you count nomarriage.com) have any apparent political support. And I’ll buy you a hat. A really BIG one…
2-This backlash is still unique to plan. This is not argued by the gov.
3-The creation of these benefits were done to help streamline the government?the recognition of marriage is better, economically, and for laws of the land, to have those benefits. Losing all those benefits will certainly cause already married couples to throw a bit of a fit.

[I]Negative Rights[/I] To what point and purpose, young missy?
1-The bill of Rights covers only negative rights for the government.
2-The amendment is restricting rights avaible to those couples
3-The government claimed above that a government?s social contract responsibilities lay in preventing dehumanization. Refer to above.
4-Protecting rights and protecting people means protecting the benefits and RESPONSIBILITES of marriage. Turn once again.

[I] Legality [/I] [/b] It’s a fine goal, to be sure.[/b]
1-The harms of this were covered in my first speech. Impacts of the courts being clogged, as well as CURRENT COUPLES being ignored were not covered by the government.
2-As decades of homosexual couples show us, this is not possible. Marriage is a unique governmental institution. Because no way to cover this was offered by the government in the first speech, it can not be considered here.
3-Again, the current married couples were the focus of this DA, and were ignored. Court clog will happen post-plan, and everyone trying to (badly) re-create legal marriage with contracts will continue this clog.

[I] Voting Issues [/I]
There has been a lot to cover in this round, so what are the few basic things you need to look to?
1-Impacts
The impact of all 13 DA?s and turns on case all flow over to the opposition. This includes:
A-Nuke war
B-More mental illness
C-More stress
D-Falling economy
E-Court Clog
F-More crime
G-Children suffering
H-Suicide
I-Reduction of good sex!
J-Negative rights

2-Dropped arguments
Government dropped practically 10 full DA?s, as well as arguments about the good that marriage does, children being protected, almost all impacts stated above, CURRENT COUPLES That would be the French being in a legal limbo, as well as deligitimization of government. Count the number of times you see ?dropped argument? and turn that for the opposition.

3-Potential for good
Government never addressed the fact that marriage as it currently stands holds much more potential for good then simply eliminating marriage would cause. The impacts of this potential far outweigh the harms given as reason to eliminate it.

In the end, I ask you only to look at the fact that post-plan, there are over 13 DA?s and absolutely no benefits. In a net-benefits world, I have taken this round. In the Jack Sparrow Quotes world, I believe I also have done so.

Now… bring me that horizon


#26

Originally posted by Catbert
The point is well taken

Okay. I can easily win without that point anyway. We’ll give her a little wiggle room. :wink:


#27

Overview:

[list]Once again proving his mad skills as a drunken debater (?[i]Why is the rum gone?[/i]?), you can chalk this one up as another Vassar victory. Before you can even evaluate the post-fiat world?before you evaluate either of the criteria?you must evaluate the pre-fiat world. First, I win on the assertions bad procedural, as she?s never justified her warrantless claims. Second, I win on the kritik, as Andrea only serves to further the discrimination against minority sexualities. Even if you buy her claims on the post-fiat world (they?re not compelling, but I?m not even going to argue them due to time constraints), I still win because you must first evaluate the pre-fiat world.[/list]
Assertions Bad:
[list]Overview:

[list=1]Before you can evaluate any arguments at all, you must first determine whether or not the debaters played fair. Before a judge can evaluate an Olympians performance, the Olympian must be screened for drugs. At the point where you realize that Andrea has not played fair, you will drop her on face.[/list=1]
Proper:
[list=1]She tries to tell you that the warrant is provided at the top of the disads. One word, though: baloney. Yes, she tells you at the top that the benefits of the institutionalized marriage will be lost. [i]But she never tells you why these benefits exist to begin with[/i].

Again, I urge you to look at the nine internal link stories, and ask yourself why they are true. The fact of the matter is that we don?t know why they?re true [i]because Andrea never provides a reason[/i].

Let?s look at some together: ?more responsible to their communities and the nation.? [i]Why?[/i] ?tend to handle stress and anxiety better than their unmarried counterparts.? [i]Why?[/i] I could do this for all nine of the internal link stories, but I?ll spare you. The fact of the matter is that she provides no warrants for these claims. Don?t fill it in for her.

Finally, she tries to tell you that I bite the voters because I grouped her arguments, but:

1. Just because I grouped the arguments doesn?t mean that I?m making assertions.

2. Look to my warrants and prefer them over Andrea?s assertions.

3. What else could I do? She provided me with no warrants to refute, so I was forced to respond as I did.

4. She?s being even more abusive now. First she skews time dramatically in her favor, then she tries to pin me for doing the best I could with the situation. ?[i]That’s not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?[/i]?

At this point, you can extend the voters: shallow debate, debatability, time skew, and moving target. Each of these is an independent reason why Andrea is abusive and should be dropped.[/list=1][/list]
Kritik:
[list]This is woefully undercovered. Big mistake. All Andrea tells you is that she?s ?not going to get into the argument of beastiality versus homosexuality.? In other words, she drops the entire kritik and it is conceded as true. ?[i]If you were waiting for the opportune moment[/i]? to make responses to the kritik, that last speech was it.

I tell you that discrimination based on sexuality is wrong. It doesn?t matter if you?re heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or an animal-lover. But Andrea uses rhetoric to demean a person?s sexuality. [i]This is dehumanizing[/i]. At this point, you can see that Andrea?s rhetoric leads to what is accepted as the worst impact in the round?far worse than genocide, nuclear war, and famine combined.

Use your ballot right now to tell her and the debate community that this is not okay.[/list]
Good round, everyone. Thank you!


#28

I just rented Pirates of the Carribean, and am watching it in a state of non-matrimonial bliss, with a bottle of Captain Morgan’s rum.

:wink:


#29

Round complete. Judges may post ballots individually or they may coordinate to post them simultaneously. Please have them posted before 6pm Wed.


#30

I think using Pirates of the Caribbean quotes should have been a requirement for all the debates in LDS.

Ok, fine, maybe you could change it up a bit every round and do other movies that everyone has seen a billion times.

KT


#31

Post-round update I am, as well, watching Pirates-- although without rum. Until at least this weekend.


#32

Did you get to watch the deleted scenes and bloopers? I watched a few before returning the movie. Good stuff. :slight_smile:


#33

Well, I guess I’ve been tapped to go first…

[B][I]You’re forgetting one very important thing, mate…I’m Captain Jack Sparrow![/B][/I]

While Andrea wins on the quotes criterion by a score of 22 to 7, I?m not gonna grant you the round on it. Let?s say that you get 1000 ?rum points.? [B][I]Savvy?[/B][/I]

Okay, PMC. [B][I]How’s your footwork?[/B][/I] Too much on top of case and Advantage One. The time spent on Adv 1 may have been spent as a time skew for the LOC, in that case, [B][I]very good.[/B][/I]

LOC. Disads one through ten are not structurally sound disads!!! Matt’s right when he says there aren’t any warrants for these claims, even though I don’t buy his procedural, [B][I]that was for the smell[/B][/I]. But of course he makes those same types of claims in Adv 1 and double turns himself. So, the whole physical/psychological benefits and impacts of marriage are a wash.

Backlash has no adequate internal link or impact scenario, Negative Rights has no impact scenario. Legality is the only solid offensive argumentation coming out of this. And one solid disad out of 1000 words isn’t good. You drastically undercover Adv 2, when you should know that dehumanization is the bread and butter of the ban marriage case. All I have here is “slippery slope” and “equating homosexuality and bestiality bad,” which leads me to the MG…

On to the K on hierarchy of sexuality?

I think Andrea takes the bait of the pig/man joke and then fails to address it, just saying “I won’t debate this,” [B][I]that’s not good enough![/B][/I] All you needed to do was say “no alternative.” But, you don’t and I’m not gonna put it on the flow for you, so it’s a voting issue.

I think he does the right thing by grouping all ten disads and trying to no link out of them, which I buy a little bit, but since that’s a wash…

The warrants procedural is totally unnecessary. I don’t buy it; there’s no articulated abuse, no ground loss. Just argue no warrants and then go impact Adv 2 some more.

OK, now onto the MO/LOC. Well, I think that most of the speech is non-responsive and poorly impacted. What the hell is the impact to court clog? I sure as hell don?t know, and no one tells me. You should know that I?m not gonna buy nuke war on an abolish marriage. YOU DON?T WEIGH ANY OF THESE IMPACTS!!! You give me a G-pointed voter list, but don?t tell me how to weigh legality, negative rights, health, and dehumanization. [I] To what point and purpose, young missy?![/I]

You remain non-responsive to Advantage Two and especially the K.

[B][I] She’s safe just like I promised, she’s set to marry Norrington just like she promised, and you get to die for her just like you promised. So you see we are all men of our word really… except for Elizabeth, who is, in fact, a woman.[/B][/I]

Then, in the PMC, Matt kicks everything but warrants and the kritik. First of all, you could have easily won the round on the dehumanization impacts off of Adv 2, but instead you make like harder by going for straight pre-fiat. I don?t buy the procedural, so all I can legitimately vote for him on is the kritik, which is, for all intensive purposes, dropped by Andrea. [B][I]Commandeer, we?re going to commandeer that ship, nautical term.[/B][/I]

OK, so, post-fiat, all health argumentation is a wash. Gov tells me marriage is bad for health, Opp tells me marriage is good for health. Both could very well be true. And claiming that married couples have more sex than unmarried couples is simply a stretch.

So, all of Andrea?s offense comes from Legality, whose good impacts get switched in her last speech to court clog, which I don?t know what it is or why its bad. So, I go to dehumanization, which he doesn?t flow through in the PMR. [I] Why aren?t we doing what Mr. Sparrow said? Because it was Mr. Sparrow who said it.[/I]

So, that leaves me with the kritik, which I have to vote on, even though he doesn?t give me an alternative. [B]I vote for the Government…[I]spiritually, ecumenically, grammatically.

Now, bring me that horizon. [/B][/I]

Kyle


#34

[i]Drink up, me hearties, yo ho![/i]


#35

I vote for Stanford, Tiny’s out.

RFD:

Stanford had 12 notches compared to Tiny’s 8.

I’ll post further analysis later…


#36

Thanks for feedback. :slight_smile:

Good call, re: kritik alternative. The alternative was actually embedded in the kritik in both the MGC and the PMR (rejection of sexuality-based discrimination), but I’ll more explicitly label it next time.

As far as strategy…yes, I did set it up so all I’d need to win was dehum under adv. 2. But my selection of PMR argumentation stemmed from knowing the paradigms of my judges, and knowing that one is a lover of procedurals. :wink: (In other words, the procedural–well, “[i]This shot was not meant for you[/i].”)

Thanks again for your feedback. Well thought-out, and I’ll certainly take it to heart for my next round! :slight_smile:

And thanks to everyone for following our round, and taking part in the fun. :slight_smile:

-M

[size=1]Edit for typo

Second edit to insert another Captain Jack Sparrow quote![/size]


#37

I’d still like to hear the RFD’s and anaylisis of the judges…


#38

Yes. It seems one of our judges went AWOL or something.


#39

In case you wants some deeper commentary on the round, I’ve included a critique of each speech. Not interested? Just scroll to the bottom of this post for the RFD.

PMC:

[list]All in all no major problems.

Some criticism though, while this in no way affected my ballot or flow, it really bothered me.

Okay, here’s the link story Gov would have me believe for superstretched Nuke War scenario:

Marriage => Stress => Stressed Out Soldiers => Nuke War

and

Marriage => Stress => Low Productivity => Bad Economy => Psycho Leader => Nuclear War

My problems with each: the first one, its status quo, so why isn’t happening? This argument boils down to “well there’s a risk, so lets not risk it any longer.” By itself, this argument seems really weak since stress is a very non-unique link in and of itself.

The second one bothers me because its just mad conflations and generalizations. Quick question:

Assuming if every Stanford student was a 4.0 in HS, does that mean every 4.0 HS student went to Stanford?

So, assuming if every nuclear war was the result of a bad economy, does every bad economy lead to nuclear war?

When people shell out these links, I’m thinking to myself, even granting that 1) marriage does lead to stress, 2) some stress leads to low productivity, 3) enough “low productivity” does leads to bad economies, 4) certain bad economies can lead to bad leaders, and 5) specific bad leaders can lead their nations into nuclear war, and I grant all five of 'em, I haven’t seen that the specific form of stress that came from marriage leads to enough low productivity which passes the brink needed to send us into a specific form of bad economy which passes the political brink needed for a fringe faction to rise that results in X,Y,Z that gives the leader the impetus to act and yada yada yada.

Anyway, Opp could have addressed that and hit each of those links, but didn’t.[/list]

LOC:

[list]Okay, why drop all of On-Case? Basically, I’m seeing two ships passing in the night, Opp just decided to shell out 13 D/A’s, not the best strategy when the other team is running Dehum and Nuke-War.

Okay, D/A’s 1 through 10, this really needs more work, for one, this just seems like a laundry list which really makes each D/A seem less important to me, I think its better to go for a couple big D/A’s than shell out a dozen small ones, especially since 1) critics don’t enjoy the calculus that is required for adding up all the impacts from these tiny D/A’s and weighing them against the other teams impacts and 2) can lead to random decisions since how I add things up may be wildly different than how you would. Each of these D/A’s tends to have really small impacts and very little analysis behind it.

The bigger D/A’s:

Backlash:

People don’t support marriage so they will quibble about it and spend less time on other issues. Okay, so thats the internal link, now where are your impacts? I’m waiting for you to take that step to turn this into a full-fledged D/A and instead it just ends right there, which is essentially begging intervention since you’re expecting me to make all these connections, create my own impacts, and calculate their worth on the net-benefits criterion without any in-round discussion on it, which would disadvantage Matt since he can’t read my mind, try as he might.

Precedence

First thing that pops in my head, uh… Patriot Act sets precendence? That would N/U your link off the bat, but that argument is never made (well, its made under Backlash, but not here).

Anyway, your telling me that these laws do nothing good, but you don’t say they do bad things, so essentially you’ve given me an impact that expressly does not factor into my net-benefits calculus.

You then tell me it dehumanizes people, but I really need to know how it dehumanizes people, I don’t see much analysis on that end and, even if, I see no impact to dehum. So it dehumanizes people? What then? Why should I weigh your dehum over Matt’s Nuke-War scenario?

Legality

On the 1050 provisions, while that obviously carries impacts, its annoying to try to think of its net-impact as a critic. Like Matt says, you need to give me something specific, something tangible, something that fits in, otherwise Matt can just say, well, Nuke War destroys 10000 provisions, then what? Quantity wins?

Then you got the other portion, legality, courts go to hell in handbasket, this is a pretty good impact, but I would really advise you to take this two or three steps further and tell me how it will specifically affect us. Give me some econ analysis on the matter, tell me how it destroys custody laws and jeapordizes children, tell me… etc. etc. etc..[/list]

MGC:

[list]Okay, most of the stuff seems pretty cool, so if I don’t address it, I had no problems with it.

Abuse Position:

All in all, I kinda like this position, I guess you could’ve just straight turned each of these 10 D/A’s with about as many warrants, but the abuse position is pretty cool too.

When I look at your abuse position, I’m not seeing any voters attached, just an “its bad for debate” (then what?) and so, to me, its not a gateway issue to the net-ben criterion. Essentially, the way I look at the abuse position then is that if you win the abuse position, I can’t look at the 10 D/A’s since they have abused you and I should, therefore, discount them from my flow.

Kritik:

I really would have liked to have seen some delineation between pre-fiat and post-fiat implications, a discussion of why the Kritik comes before the Net-Benefits criterion. Basically, some dispositional analysis is what I would have liked to have seen here, and I don’t really get it until the PMR.[/list]

LOR:

[list]Okay, you’re telling me that you turn most of the links from Gov case under your ten D/A’s.

Two problems:

[list=1][*]You just tell me to cross-apply stuff, its not a magic wand, you need to explain how to cross apply your D/A’s, absent that, I’m kinda skeptical.

[*]You completely drop Matt’s abuse position, I don’t see a single word about it… none. At the point where you have effectively conceded the entire link-story and impact, you’re only defense, that you get the impacts, goes away and so Matt keeps the arguments.

Basically, don’t drop big arguments.[/list=1]
Moving on, on the Kritik I only have one response:

I am not going to get into the argument of beastiality versus homosexuality.

What am I supposed to do with that? Essentially, you have conceded the entire Kritik, big mistake.[/list]

PMR:

[list]Okay, there are some gutsy strategies involved here, and I’m kinda surprised, since, on my flow at least, I’m seeing a Gov win. Anyway, Matt decides to drop all of case, which means that Opp wins the net-benefits criterion. What this debate boils down to now is the pre-fiat goodness we have to offer.

Abuse:

Only now is it really clear that this is a voter, to me it just appeared like a Point of Order, except one that the debaters argued.

Kritik:

Okay, its clearly dropped, and there’s the delineation between pre-fiat and post-fiat.[/list]

[size=3]RFD[/size]:

[list]Essentially, this round all came down to two prefiat issues: abuse and Kritik, both of which were dropped by the opposition team. At the point where the Kritik is never addressed and I am being told to weigh this first, I have to sign my ballot with the government team.[/list]


#40

From the cutting room floor:

I had a turn in my MGC that was cut as I was bringing the speech from 1300+ words to 1000 words. It was under the backlash position, saying something to the extent of “Turn: Politicians are only uptight and threatening backlash now because many of them are married, too! Remove the institution of marriage, and make backlash less likely to occur!”