Recent Changes

Monday, July 16

  1. page home edited DDI 2012 Templates {Dartmouth Template 2009.dot} {Debate.dotm} Resolved: The United States…

    DDI 2012 Templates
    {Dartmouth Template 2009.dot}
    {Debate.dotm}

    Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth's mesosphere.
    {072711_Dart_Debate_0#156B2C.jpg}
    (view changes)
    6:33 am
  2. file Debate.dotm uploaded
    6:32 am

Saturday, August 13

  1. page Noah Cramer ddi11 edited ... I voted for a small risk of the aff’s hegemony / space arms race advantage, largely because I …
    ...
    I voted for a small risk of the aff’s hegemony / space arms race advantage, largely because I thought the neg won no risk that spending may be reigned in enough to prevent a Moody’s downgrade. The CP probably didn’t solve debris, but the 2ar didn’t answer the case defense against that advantage. The CP probably solved potential rivals reasons for developing ASATs, but I had a small bit of doubt about China’s potential eagerness to take advantage of a structural US weakness. The other source of potential aff offense – the Russia turn to ground-based BMD – was answered by the 2NR’s conceded assessment that such a capability exists now and the CP doesn’t change it. The neg didn’t have any cards that fiscal discipline would be restored now (in fact, all their evidence suggested a ‘negative outlook’) and the aff ‘spending inevitable’ argument was good.
    2ar: Pick the arguments you think you’re going to win on and explain them in more depth. The 2ar was a bit all over the place – like the 1ar, a bit too reactive (how can I prevent them from winning the debate) and not proactive enough (how can I win the debate). Also, you should really give your partner more autonomy in writing her 1ar – do a quick check-up about important positions before the 1ar, but don’t talk to her throughout the speech / prep time – that’s distracting.
    ...
    of debate: 8/13
    Debating on: quarters
    Instructor/commentator: Eli
    Comments:
    I voted neg. The neg’s indicts of the way the aff’s authors produced their knowledge about the world served as unanswered terminal impact defense to the aff’s whole case, and the neg’s value to life argument was a point of offense unanswered in the 1ar.
    I didn’t consider these arguments too much in my decision, but I think the neg was also ahead on the ability of the alternative to solve most of the advantages (analytical soft power argument), a number of other impact defense arguments (reject ‘greatest magnitude’ framing and specific scenarios are logically flawed since they’re less likely than more abstract scenarios), and a link argument about inevitability justifying violent systems. I was a little more unsure about whether the neg won their argument about the aff representations creating the 1ac harms, but that wasn’t super important given the unanswered epistemology indicts.
    2ar: I thought your 2ac was really good, determining that they wanted to go for case turns in the 2nr and making that strategy almost impossible after the 2ac. There was basically no way they could overcome that onslaught, and they were forced to go for a fairly generic K. In the 2ar, take advantage of the fact that you’re so far ahead of them on the specificity of the case. Focus less on the specific scenarios of the case and more on assessing the relationship between the case and the K. I think that would help put into action Charles’s suggestion of focusing on smart arguments instead of cards.

    EXAMPLE
    Date of debate: June 23
    (view changes)
    12:16 pm
  2. page Daniel Kreus ddi11 edited ... I voted aff on the argument that China’s cut off of rare earth metals would cause the US to in…
    ...
    I voted aff on the argument that China’s cut off of rare earth metals would cause the US to initiate a conflict with China. The neg was persuasive on the argument that responding to the lack of rare earth metals with a new, offshore balancing grand strategy would be more peaceful (because current primacy causes hostile balancing and there’d be no negative international ramifications to the decline of US hegemony), but I thought the neg didn’t have a scenario for this happening given the fact that the US wouldn’t accept its decline.
    I think any 2nr defense against the resource wars / lashout scenario and you’d win this debate. Be honest with yourself about the world you’re defending – by the 2nr, the total collapse of the US military wasn’t looking nearly as bad as one might assume it to be. Time on the CP was wasted – they conceded that it solved asteroids and had the heg turns as net benefits. Say that and move on. The permutation theory was a waste of time, and will probably be for most judges.
    ...
    of debate: 8/13
    Debating on: quarters
    Instructor/commentator: Eli
    Comments:
    I voted neg. The neg’s indicts of the way the aff’s authors produced their knowledge about the world served as unanswered terminal impact defense to the aff’s whole case, and the neg’s value to life argument was a point of offense unanswered in the 1ar.
    I didn’t consider these arguments too much in my decision, but I think the neg was also ahead on the ability of the alternative to solve most of the advantages (analytical soft power argument), a number of other impact defense arguments (reject ‘greatest magnitude’ framing and specific scenarios are logically flawed since they’re less likely than more abstract scenarios), and a link argument about inevitability justifying violent systems. I was a little more unsure about whether the neg won their argument about the aff representations creating the 1ac harms, but that wasn’t super important given the unanswered epistemology indicts.
    2nr: A very good speech. I wish your link / impact arguments had been a bit more specific and connected to each other. Also, a briefer overview that highlighted important positions that weren’t answered (the 2 main things I voted on, for instance, were both very slow in the 2nr – putting them at the top would have streamlined the decision process, I think) and a better line-by-line approach would have been helpful.

    Date of debate:
    Debating on:
    (view changes)
    12:15 pm
  3. page Hannah Nesser ddi11 edited ... I voted for a small risk of the aff’s hegemony / space arms race advantage, largely because I …
    ...
    I voted for a small risk of the aff’s hegemony / space arms race advantage, largely because I thought the neg won no risk that spending may be reigned in enough to prevent a Moody’s downgrade. The CP probably didn’t solve debris, but the 2ar didn’t answer the case defense against that advantage. The CP probably solved potential rivals reasons for developing ASATs, but I had a small bit of doubt about China’s potential eagerness to take advantage of a structural US weakness. The other source of potential aff offense – the Russia turn to ground-based BMD – was answered by the 2NR’s conceded assessment that such a capability exists now and the CP doesn’t change it. The neg didn’t have any cards that fiscal discipline would be restored now (in fact, all their evidence suggested a ‘negative outlook’) and the aff ‘spending inevitable’ argument was good.
    1ar: You should think of the 1ar more as extending the 2ac and less as answering the block – there’s not enough time to do that. That approach would make you more efficient and help shore up tactical holes.
    ...
    of debate: 8/13
    Debating on: quarters
    Instructor/commentator: Eli
    Comments:
    I voted neg. The neg’s indicts of the way the aff’s authors produced their knowledge about the world served as unanswered terminal impact defense to the aff’s whole case, and the neg’s value to life argument was a point of offense unanswered in the 1ar.
    I didn’t consider these arguments too much in my decision, but I think the neg was also ahead on the ability of the alternative to solve most of the advantages (analytical soft power argument), a number of other impact defense arguments (reject ‘greatest magnitude’ framing and specific scenarios are logically flawed since they’re less likely than more abstract scenarios), and a link argument about inevitability justifying violent systems. I was a little more unsure about whether the neg won their argument about the aff representations creating the 1ac harms, but that wasn’t super important given the unanswered epistemology indicts.
    1ar: I thought your time allocation could have been significantly improved. I didn’t think the CP / weapons DA was a viable strategy at all; you were way ahead of them on China evil / revisionist, which is an argument that beats that strategy by itself. You should take advantage of that big lead on the case on the K. Make framing arguments like realism good and inevitable, our authors are qualified, threats are real, etc. to defend the case scenarios against the fairly generic indict / link work in the block.

    Date of debate:
    Debating on:
    (view changes)
    12:15 pm
  4. page Arthur Harris ddi11 edited ... I voted aff on the argument that China’s cut off of rare earth metals would cause the US to in…
    ...
    I voted aff on the argument that China’s cut off of rare earth metals would cause the US to initiate a conflict with China. The neg was persuasive on the argument that responding to the lack of rare earth metals with a new, offshore balancing grand strategy would be more peaceful (because current primacy causes hostile balancing and there’d be no negative international ramifications to the decline of US hegemony), but I thought the neg didn’t have a scenario for this happening given the fact that the US wouldn’t accept its decline.
    Try to make your K arguments more tailored to the debate. Some of the arguments you made against impact calculus and framework were pretty compelling, but seemed a little cookie-cutter. When it came time to make link analysis, I thought you came up a little short in responding to the aff argument that the aff predicted a US lashout against China after China made an economics-based decision (and thus didn’t link to the Pan K) and I didn’t think the asteroids link argument was very well explained.
    ...
    of debate: 8/13
    Debating on: quarters
    Instructor/commentator: Eli
    Comments:
    I voted neg. The neg’s indicts of the way the aff’s authors produced their knowledge about the world served as unanswered terminal impact defense to the aff’s whole case, and the neg’s value to life argument was a point of offense unanswered in the 1ar.
    I didn’t consider these arguments too much in my decision, but I think the neg was also ahead on the ability of the alternative to solve most of the advantages (analytical soft power argument), a number of other impact defense arguments (reject ‘greatest magnitude’ framing and specific scenarios are logically flawed since they’re less likely than more abstract scenarios), and a link argument about inevitability justifying violent systems. I was a little more unsure about whether the neg won their argument about the aff representations creating the 1ac harms, but that wasn’t super important given the unanswered epistemology indicts.
    1nr: You need to be more efficient, not just in terms of speaking more fluidly, but also in terms of deciding which cards to read. Three permutation cards on the CP was a bit of overkill given the time pressure of your speech, and I thought you could have used several more cards about China not being evil / their motive for building space weapons. Also, I think some terminal impact defense to hegemony should have been explicitly extended in the block to set up the 2nr.
    Your speech wasn’t bad by any means, but I think the 2ac was so deep on the case that your positions weren’t really a credible 2nr strategy. If the 2nc needs to extend the K for all 8 minutes, I’d recommend you go primarily for case defense. Ideally, the 2nc could extend a few case arguments and maybe the CP after spending 6 minutes or so on the K.

    Date of debate:
    Debating on:
    (view changes)
    12:15 pm
  5. page Maggie Solice ddi11 edited ... Politics – I think that the 2NR concedes the winners win debate – which is in both the 1AR and…
    ...
    Politics – I think that the 2NR concedes the winners win debate – which is in both the 1AR and the 2AR, which grants the aff a substantial amount of defense for the politics disad. The 2AR’s explanation of their winners win claim as being necessary to reclaim Obama political capital, as proven by the health care debate and as a reason why he gets more clout with Congress responds to the 2NR’s link claims about big new space programs being unpopular with Congress.
    Deterrence – The aff wins a risk of their deterrence advantage. There’s no 2NR defense on the question, and I don’t think that the 2NR solvency takeouts to the technology (launches, UV turns, cost effective) respond to the 1AR and 2AR claim that government innovation and starting of the project is uniquely key. The 2AR’s impacting of their hegemony/deterrence advantage isn’t great, but explains why it’s necessary to containing conflict and promoting cooperation in the international sphere are enough of a reason to vote aff (given that the negative doesn’t win much of their disad at all).
    ...
    of debate: 8/12
    Debating on: octos
    Instructor/commentator: Eli
    Comments:
    I voted aff because the environment impact to capitalism outweighed the wars impact to the KORUS DA. The aff didn’t win on theory. Everyone won the link to their offense: the neg won their DA and the aff won that going to space was necessary to solve resource shortages that would result in the collapse of capitalism (and hurt the environment). Given these 2 impacts, I decided to vote for the environment impact, which in the waning seconds of the 2ar was labeled as the biggest impact because it resulted in extinction.
    2ar: The 2ar was pretty good. I thought that your DA answers were well-articulated, but didn’t really match your evidence, which makes me a bit wary of accepting the way they were developed in the 2ar (like, I don’t think that particular development was very predictable for the neg). You need to make a call about going for theory or not – this 2ar was very in-between (not, like, you need to spend all your time on it, but you saying ‘all their arguments don’t assume abuse’ is a bit of a hail mary). I think in this debate it was probably wiser not to, given various 1ar concessions.
    Also, I need to comment about the 2ac strategy. It was bold, to say the least, and I respect that, but I think you put yourself in a pretty bad position, for a number of reasons. 1) The politics DA pretty clearly had a faster time frame than the cap good turns, and lack of coverage elsewhere allowed the block to read a bunch of new imapcs.. 2) The CP was not permuted, which meant they could claim advantages to the CP as comparative reasons to vote neg – something very dangerous when you give them the block to read new impacts. Also, the CP clearly solved the main 2ac / 1nc CX link about doing nothing in the face of crisis. 3) You conceded that the plan didn’t involve technology that could be feasibly deployed in space, then went for a capitalism good link that presumed we got off the rock. 4) The K alternative was conditional. 5) The 1nc was big, but honestly shouldn’t have been that tough to answer. This 2ac seemed to be a bit desperate. It paid off for you, to be sure, but I wouldn’t council this 2ac strategy in future debates. Generally speaking, those sorts of huge strategic shifts are best saved for the 1ar (since they don't have the block left any more to read a ton of evidence).

    Date of debate:
    Debating on:
    (view changes)
    12:31 am
  6. page Sydney Doe ddi11 edited ... Politics – I think that the 2NR concedes the winners win debate – which is in both the 1AR and…
    ...
    Politics – I think that the 2NR concedes the winners win debate – which is in both the 1AR and the 2AR, which grants the aff a substantial amount of defense for the politics disad. The 2AR’s explanation of their winners win claim as being necessary to reclaim Obama political capital, as proven by the health care debate and as a reason why he gets more clout with Congress responds to the 2NR’s link claims about big new space programs being unpopular with Congress.
    Deterrence – The aff wins a risk of their deterrence advantage. There’s no 2NR defense on the question, and I don’t think that the 2NR solvency takeouts to the technology (launches, UV turns, cost effective) respond to the 1AR and 2AR claim that government innovation and starting of the project is uniquely key. The 2AR’s impacting of their hegemony/deterrence advantage isn’t great, but explains why it’s necessary to containing conflict and promoting cooperation in the international sphere are enough of a reason to vote aff (given that the negative doesn’t win much of their disad at all).
    ...
    of debate: 8/12
    Debating on: octos
    Instructor/commentator: Eli
    Comments:
    I voted aff because the environment impact to capitalism outweighed the wars impact to the KORUS DA. The aff didn’t win on theory. Everyone won the link to their offense: the neg won their DA and the aff won that going to space was necessary to solve resource shortages that would result in the collapse of capitalism (and hurt the environment). Given these 2 impacts, I decided to vote for the environment impact, which in the waning seconds of the 2ar was labeled as the biggest impact because it resulted in extinction.
    1ar: I think you missed a strategic opening with the Venezuela oil DA. Obviously it didn’t link to the plan (since the SPS tech isn’t feasible), but it probably did link to the CP. You could have pointed that out, made some impact comparison arguments, and basically forced them to kick the CP, which would have let you access a much better link to your cap good offense: inaction in the face of crisis. Aside from that your speech was pretty good, given what you had to work with. I would have spent more time on one of the theory arguments (you were arguing conditionality by the end of the debate) and less time extending each of the impacts to cap good individually.

    Date of debate:
    Debating on:
    (view changes)
    12:30 am
  7. page Parisa Sadeghi ddi11 edited ... - did too little to engage the other teams responses. If either side had chosen to emphasize …
    ...
    - did too little to engage the other teams responses.
    If either side had chosen to emphasize one part of the debate and explain/impact it, that could have easily swayed the decision.
    Date of debate: 8/12
    Debating on: octos
    Instructor/commentator: Eli
    Comments:
    I voted aff because the environment impact to capitalism outweighed the wars impact to the KORUS DA. The aff didn’t win on theory. Everyone won the link to their offense: the neg won their DA and the aff won that going to space was necessary to solve resource shortages that would result in the collapse of capitalism (and hurt the environment). Given these 2 impacts, I decided to vote for the environment impact, which in the waning seconds of the 2ar was labeled as the biggest impact because it resulted in extinction.
    1nr: You did a nice job on the politics DA, but you should have read some new impacts. You need to judge that if you win there’s no link to their cap good offense, you’re going to win, and try to set yourself up for the politics DA outweighing their turns even if they win the link. This is a rare case where the impacts were perhaps more important than the line-by-line. I think the 2nc probably should have made some of these arguments.

    EXAMPLE
    Date of debate: June 23
    (view changes)
    12:30 am

More