The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
21 Points

WODC Round 3 - Economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/10/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,546 times Debate No: 77528
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (51)
Votes (3)




Full resolution is "This House believes a more globalized economy would net benefit indigenous cultures."

First round is acceptance. Minimum 2.5k Elo to vote.


Hello Zaradi, voters, and readers to the 3rd round of the World Online Debate Cup 2015. In this debate I will have the pleasure of not only debating one of the brightest debaters on the website, but also the newly crowned Vice President as well, a status which I congratulate him on working so hard to attain. I would like to thank Larz and Whiteflame for playing such instrumental roles in this tournament and persisting in their efforts to keep it going on time and on track, and would like to congratulate Whiteflame as well, for his promotion to vote moderator. Ok, let's get started.


I'll simply start out by giving my general analysis of the scope of the topic. The debate resolution is that of a parliamentary style debate, within such a debate style, the resolution would be a simple true or false question. The resolution does not specify a couple of things, the first of which is what economy we are talking about. We could be talking about the economy of the United States, or Germany, and any other individual nation; or we could actually be talking about the world economy as a whole. I believe that since the answer is not specified we should be simply using an ‘on balance’ type debate, where we reference the general and typical effects of economic globalization, whether it occurs within an individual country or the global market as a whole; in the end it represents about the same thing anyways. To add onto this, pro should not be offering any plans to achieve economic globalization to advance the cultures of indigenous peoples, instead we should be talking about the likely effects of economic globalization, on balance. The second part of the resolution that is not defined is what ‘more globalized’ means. In this way we are talking about change from the status quo towards an increase in globalization, but this could mean anything from .001% change to infinity. Thus in this regard we should focus on the trends in a calculus type of way, and whether or not an increase in globalization would result in net negatives or positives for indigenous peoples as we approach infinite economic globalization. Pro is of course making a proposition and my only job is to show that an increase in economic globalization would result in either a neutral or negative benefit for indigenous peoples. Pro must show that it results strictly in positive impacts for them, thus Zaradi takes the full BOP.

Some definitions which may be important

Culture: the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

Globalize and globalization:

a.) the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets –merriam

b.) a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology.

Indigenous peoples:

There is no universally accepted definition for “Indigenous,” though there are characteristics that tend to be common among Indigenous Peoples:

  • They tend to have small populations relative to the dominant culture of their country. However, in Bolivia and Guatemala Indigenous people make up more than half the population.
  • They usually have (or had) their own language. Today, Indigenous people speak some 4,000 languages.
  • They have distinctive cultural traditions that are still practiced.
  • They have (or had) their own land and territory, to which they are tied in myriad ways.
  • They self-identify as Indigenous.
  • Examples of Indigenous Peoples include the Inuit of the Arctic, Native Americans, hunter-gatherers in the Amazon, traditional pastoralists like the Maasai in East Africa, and tribal peoples in the Philippines.

This House believes a more globalized economy would net benefit indigenous cultures.

Debate Round No. 1


Observation One - Because of the words "more globalized" in the resolution, there's nothing within the resolution that mandates I advocate for complete globalization. Harms coming out of 100% or infinite globalization don't link to the affirmative.

Observation Two - Plans. Debaters ought to advance policy options derived from the resolution to determine the winner. This is because:

a) Plans require both sides to weigh impacts, whereas truth testing encourages semantic tautology. Also, truth-testing eliminates impact turns because debaters don't have to defend their side as good or bad. This is not educational since debaters must engage the substance of each other's positions.

b) Plans keep me from shifting ground and expanding my advocacy to coopt negative harms - my specificity leaves no room for vagueness.

c) Plans explode negative counterplan ground since they have literally everything that isn't the plan, whereas the resolution will always be more broad.

d) Plans inherently mean going more in-depth on topic issues which allow for more nuanced argumnents and thus more educational experience.

e) Textuality:
    • 1. The resolution asks whether or not a "more globalized" economy is better rather than a "globalized" economy, meaning that if I can show one instance where globalization is desireable then you affirm.
    • 2. Tools are only used to achieve a particular purpose, rather than be useful categorically. For example, I don't use a hammer to brush my teeth. I only use a hammer when I need to hit nails. So the aff can specify in which instance globalization should be beneficial.
Framework - Epistemology

Moral uncertainty should lead us to default towards preserving humanity as a meta-constraint on all ethical theories. Bostrom[1]:
  • "there is a great option value in preserving ... our ability to recognize value and to steer the future accordingly. Ensuring that there will be a future version of humanity ... is ... the best way ... to increase the probability that the future will contain a lot of value ..."
And epistemology requires us to act in a way that minimizes negative existential risks. Bostrom continues[1]:
  • "if something is not known to be objectively safe, then it is risky ... we may be uncertain about whether or not X would really be bad. But we can say that if we are not sure whether or not X would really be bad (but we are sure that X would not be good), then X is bad in ... the subjective sense relevant to decision making ... we have reason to prefer that X not occur ..."
Moral considerations must be based in physical facts about our mental states because the universe is causally closed. Papineau[2]:
  • "the conservation of energy does imply that ... if mental or vital forces arose spontaneousrly, then there would be nothing to ensure that they never led to energy increases ... Detailed physiological research ... gave no indication of any physical effects that cannot be explained in terms of basic physical forces that also occur outside living bodies ... since the only laws governing behavior are those connecting behavior with physical antecedents, mental events can only be causes of behavior if they are identical with those physical antecedents."
This means utilitarianism because there are no side-constraints to nature -- suffering is a mental state which we have a reason to avoid. Even respect for the rationality of persons mandates util. Cummiskey[3]:
  • "If I sacrifice some for the sake of others ... I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings. Persons may have ... unconditional ... worth ... but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others ... The concept of the end-in-itself thus ... dictates that one may sacrifice some to save many."
Thus, the method that ought to be followed to achieve a moral moral society is the minimization of suffering.

Thus, the plan text: The global community will provided economic aid to the CCPY in aiding the Yanomami tribe in South America. I reserve the right to clarify. I only defend globalization in this one instance. Thus, the negative needs to run arguments with harms specific to the Yanomami tribe. Any negative harms stemming out of generalized globalization or globalization in cases that are not related to the Yanomami tribe do not apply to the plan.

And, the plan fits his definition of globalization. A "process of interaction among people and governments" is entirely relevant to the topic of the Yanomami, and it's entirely driven by investment and information technology as without it the CCPY would be unable to do anything. Don't let him say that the plan isn't resolutional or topical, I meet his own definitions.

The Yanomami tribe is estimated to be the largest relatively isolated tribe, numbering roughly 32,000 total people, in South America, occupying the rainforests and mountains of northern Brazil and southern Venezuela[4]. In 1987-1990, 15% of the population of Yanomami died from violence, malnutrition brought on by poisoned rivers the tribe rely on to fish, and epidemics of malaria and other illnesses brought on by garimpeiros, or small time gold miners[4][5]. Actions were taken to protect the tribe in 1992, including the demarcation of their territory and bombing of illegal airstrips used to supply the miners. The project was eventually halted due to a lack of funding, however, and miners quickly reoccupied their territory[5].

The miners have a catastrophic effect on Yanomami life. Their mining operations pollute local rivers with deadly levels of mercury, which kill off fish that the tribe relies on to feed their people and contaminates water supplies. Research conducted in 2013 showed that 92% of indigenous women in the region had levels of mercury contamination that exceeded the internationally accepted limit[6].

Moreover, there exists within Yanomami society a sect of uncontacted Yanomami, referred to as the Moxateteu[4]. The Moxateteu are believed to reside in an area of Yanomami territory that is most densely populated with miners, with mining camps being as close to fifteen kilometers from Moxateteu villages[7]. Contact from the miners with the Moxateteu, who have absolutely zero immunities to diseases that the miners would carry, would be catastrophic.

Miners also presesnt a violent and unique threat to the very infrastructure of the Yanomami tribe. In 1993, miners entered the village of Haximu and left only aftere 16 Yanomami had died[4]. A brazillian court sentenced them to genocide, however only 2 of the five miners sentenced are serving jail time. As Davi Kopenawa, a Yanomami shaman and spokesperson for the tribe, explained it, "the same gold prospectors who killed the Haximu ... came back."[8]. The Yanomami tribe have been exposed to attacks from miners for years now and the Brazillian and Venezuelan governments do nothing to prevent it[4].

Moreover, the miners have escalated from attacks on villages to plan assassinations. Davi Kopenawa, who is referred to as the "Dalai Lama of the Rainforest" by the international community, has received death threats from the groups of miners, and armed bikers have raided ISA offices looking for Davi[9]. This is not the first time these threats have been made and executed, either. Stephen Corry explained that "These are not empty threats - indigenous activists are frequently assassinated for resisting the destruction of their land. Davi Yanomami's life is in danger."[9]. CIMI, a Brazillian CMO, reported that over 600 indigenous people have been assassinated in Brazil over the past 11 years, and nearly half of those assassinations were targeted at environmental defenders[9].

Three reasons to believe that globalized action will benefit the Yanomami tribe.

First, there's already been success stories. Illegal cattle ranching was a massive problem for the Yanomami tribe as ranchers would clear away forests for grazing pastures, which destroys the land they use for farming, since farming gives the tribe 80% of their food supply[4]. But as of last month, the tribe celebrated the removal of the last illegal rancher from Yanomami territory[10].

Second, international law recognizes Yanomami sovereignty. Brazil signed the International Labour ORganization Convention 169 [11]. which guarantees the rights for tribal people to own the land they live on and make decisions about projects that affect the land. All it takes is global support and enforcement to end the problem permanently.

Third, don't buy any responses that say that the international community wouldn't bother doing anything for the Yanomami people because the international community has already condemned the actions of the miners. The UN expressed it's concern over the actions of the miners and demanded that the governments punish those who have commited crimes against the Yanomami people[12].


[1] - Nick Bostrom (Faculty of Philosophy & Oxford Martin School University of Oxford). “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority.” Global Policy 2012.
[2] - David Papineau, “Naturalism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007.
[3] - Cummiskey, David. Kantian Consequentialism. Published by Oxford University Press. 1996. (p.142)
[4] -
[5] -
[6] -
[7] -;
[8] -
[9] -
[10 -
[11] -
[12] -



BOP rounds…ect

Under the round proposal I suggest, the burden of proof would be shared, we would both show the likely outcome of globalization. Under Zaradi’s plan text the burden of proof should be on him, because he has to prove his plan is sufficient, I only have to proof it would have a neutral or negative effect. It was mandated that in the last round no new arguments can be made, however I would also insist that R3 not have new arguments and only be for rebuttal, in this way we preserve fairness because we can’t make arguments the other side can’t respond to in R3……..I similarly accept utilitarianism however I do not concede to his arguments.

Pro can’t advocate a plan

Look at any debate on either DDO or ED8(including WODC), you will not see a match where the resolution is reinterpreted into a sub-resolution and if it is, it will have been stated in the rules. Zaradi has effectively turned this into a policy/parliamentary debate, but I never agreed to participate in either of those during this tournament. I thought this would be like any other debate on this website, which means we debate the res given at the top of the screen. So Zaradi has argued an entirely different resolution than the one I agreed to debate. Don’t let him say this is unfair, because he knew full and well this was my position since R1. The plan should be rejected, meaning BOP goes unfulfilled. Zaradi shouldn’t be able to make new arguments next round but I will agree to it if he wishes to remove his plan.

If he can, plan still Non-Topical

Giving aid is in no way economic globalization or globalization in general. Pro fails to meet the ‘a’ definition entirely, because it doesn’t develop the economy or increase free trade or tap cheaper foreign labor markets. Pro’s ‘b’ interpretation is ridiculous, almost anything could be defined as ‘an interaction between people and the government’, that is only one characteristic of the definition, it has to meet all characteristics of the definition (b and a, but pro doesn’t even fit b). Pro doesn’t include companies or investment, at all. Topicality is a priori, we have to decide the plan is even allowed before we evaluate it.

If Topical, K: Global/Local Kritik On World Ordering

K quotes are from [1]


Pro uses globalization which is a world ordering process. By their very nature world orderings are a perpetuation of modern colonialism and imperialism.

The reason we strive for a single Word Order is because it appeals to what seems like the natural path of human evolution, a common destiny which is inherently good. This perception of world order applies to what is called ‘evolutionary’ or ‘natural’ order, wherein the achievement of a world order happens through the ‘neutral’ and ‘mechanical’ process of mixing diversity into a single unitary structure. However the flip side of order as structure is order as command, or coercive order. (In this light, order is presented in opposition to the undesired condition of disorder.) What we find is that the ideal of an ordered world is justified on the process and results of natural ordering, however attempts to create the ideal/single world function as coercive ordering, order as command. Yet any elements of coercive ordering nullify the vision of a world-order through natural ordering. Surely “the ‘world’ of ‘world-order’ has not come to be without the necessary ordering of many worlds. The ordering and the ordered, the world of order and the ordered world”

“The very idea of ‘one world’ contains the necessary impetus for the absorption, assimilation, if not destruction, of existing worlds and the genocide of existing socialities.” What people are blind to is that our world order narratives and ideologies, carried out through globalization, are the exact same as what resulted in colonialism. And from these underlying ideals “an important feature of ordering prevails. The world of those who "order" is the destruction of the ‘worlds’ of those ordered.”


a.) “ ‘Freed’ from the brutalities of the order of historical colonialism, the ‘ordered’ now are subjected to the colonizing force of the ‘post-colonial,’ and globalization-inspired ideologies of development and security. Visible, still, is the legitimization of ‘order’ as coercive command through the rhetoric of "order" as evolutionary structure.”

b.) The primary link here is simply the case/resolution itself. Any position that says the process of globalization will help anybody except the ‘globalizer’ (as pro must) is wrong because globalization inherently suppresses and dehumanizes those being globalized and intentionally or unintentionally operates using the ideologies of neocolonialism. It inherently destroys diversity and thus cultures (which clearly is not a net benefit to them).


a.) The propagation of ecocide, world hunger, and the destruction of social diversity. Other impacts include humanitarian crimes, such as the gold mining pro cites, and other violations of rights. For instance the World Bank alone has relocated some 3.4 million poor people, most without compensation, some being killed, raped, and brutalized along their way.

b.) The loss of “indigenous conceptions of human dignity, of subsistence, production, consumption, wealth and poverty”, and the inception “of the human ‘self’ as an objective ‘economic’ agent and, with it, the universals of commodification as the basis for human relations”

Voters Issue and a priori

a.) Questions of methodology and epistemology must be evaluated before consequentialist impacts. Since pro is operating under the assumption that globalization is good, deciding whether or not it is a good assumption to have in the first place is necessary. This is true in both interpretations of the resolution.

b.) The k is the only thing in the round that is actually real. Fiat is imaginary and will not impact our real lives, however a change in the perspective of the voter will/may result in an actual change in the world. Another way this is the only real thing in the debate is because pro is actually endorsing globalization, it is a real thing that is actually happening. “We should talk about what really happened before we talk about what might happen in an imaginary world where some made up plan might get implemented.”[2]


a.) Don’t globalize.

b.) Power exists only in relationships, for instance, a government exist solely because the people in it recognize their subservience to it and place within it; without those relationships it would cease to exist. Coercive order attempts to forcefully change relationships of others to achieve ‘our’ vision of the one world order, and in doing so does just the opposite. In truth we have little or no control over what happens to the people ‘out there’, and the global ‘place’ of ‘out there’ is not really a place at all, it’s an abstraction, an idea. The only place that you can truly exist in, is the world of here and now, your ‘I-world’. Thus the only relationships we can truly change are our own personal relationships, if everyone changed the relationships they know, the world as a whole would have to change, and it would do so, then, through neutral rather than coercive ordering, it would happen Naturally. The Natural world order we want can never be ‘achieved’ but discovered. We must think local, as opposed to global.

If not K, Direct arguments

Disallow International fiat

a.) Language barriers prevent adequate discussion—the most in-depth education literature on the plan isn’t in English. At best, the literature represents a biased view of the policy, written from the viewpoint of the west.

b.) False judicial dichotomy—no actor faces deciding whether one nation or another should do a policy. The plan sets up a false role for the judge

c.) You can solve almost any problem if you literally control the entire world, meaning con is put into a severely unfair position, instead of debating facts on a fair terrain, pro can use his plan to fiat his solvency. Furthermore this is unrealistic, when has every country contributed to such a relatively minor cause.

d.) Voters issue, international fiat should be disallowed and thus the plan shouldn’t be allowed, and the plan damages fairness.


The ironic part of Pro’s plan is that the harms he is trying to solve for are a direct result of economic globalization, fixing globalization problems through (what he thinks is) globalization? “This project began in the late 1970s….Brazil received money from the World Bank to build a road through their territory….Road workers brought malaria and many Yanomami died because they had no resistance…The road provided access for miners and loggers to reach Yanomami territory for the first time, bringing pollution and damaging the delicate ecosystem that fed the Yanomami and provided them with medicines. For many Yanomami women, prostitution became a way to avoid starvation but often left them sick and abused.”[3]

Other Issues

- The plan is vague: we aren't told how much money we are giving or to what ends it will be used. Pro shouldn't be able to dictate what its used for since it goes to another actor. We aren't even told what the 'CCPY' is. You shouldn't vote for a vague plan.
-Pro hasn't given solvency evidence that states the international community would or could do the plan, he has BOP.
-There are already other groups who support the Yanomami cause financially and through training, the plan is superflous.[4]
-Pro doesn't solve for mining or illnesses, or river polution.

If not direct arguments, Counterplan

CP text: Brazil will make Yanomami territory a nationally protected area, restrict mining that might damage or pollute their envoronment, and prosecuate violators. We give Companies time to leave, then implement.


[1] SYMPOSIUM: RE-FRAMING INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: Orders of Inhumanity, 1999, by Jayan Nayar, Professor of Law, Warwik University


Debate Round No. 2


Overview of the debate:

The way con structures his neg case is that he places the BoP on me and effectively all-ins on disproving/disallowing the plan. The only kinds of offensive arguments he runs are the K and the CP. The rest of his arguments are defensive arguments (they aim to make me not win rather than make him win). And if we abide by his observation about no new offensive case arguments this round then he doesn't have a way to generate any more offense than what he could have right now (I.e. The K and the CP). This means that if the debate is close you should presume aff because I'm the one making 100% offensive arguments, thus doing the most work toward fulfilling the BOP.

On Why I can’t run a plan:

Extend the five reasons, including the two sub-reasons coming from the texts of the resolution, for why I ought to be allowed to run a plan. Con never responds to a single one of them. His reason is that he didn’t agree to debate about the Yanomami and he thought he was debating the resolution, but a) refer to the two sub-reasons I give coming from the specific text of the resolution for why I ought to be allowed to run a Plan, and b) this argument relies on him winning the plan is non-topical anyway, which he hasn’t done yet.

On Topicality of the Plan:

Extend the reasons for why I meet his definition of globalization (i.e. the B definition). He says that I have to meet both definitions a and b but a) he’s defining two different words here (globalize and globalization, as his own set-up shows), and b) he never makes this warrant. So long as I meet one definition, I meet the definition.

He also says that how I meet the definition is ridiculous and that anything could be defined as globalization in that sense, but that’s his own damn fault for using that definition LOL. There’s plenty of interaction between people (Yanomami), companies (miners and Pro-Yanomami groups), and governments (Brazil, Venezuela, the international community) that’s driven by trade (the mining as well as Yanomami’s efforts to reach the rest of the world and the book written by Davi that’s being sold[13]) that’s aided by information technology. I meet.

So the plan’s topical, you have no reason to a priori reject it.

On the K:

First, I don’t link to the K. Extend observation one where I say that the harms from extreme amounts of globalizing don’t link to the affirmative. I’m not talking about setting up a NWO here. He never warrants why just one instance of globalization merits neocolonialism, and until he does I don’t link.

Second, I don’t link again. The entire point of the plan is to help secure the Yanomami their own life and strengthen them as their own unique, individual people by giving them their own borders and land that they themselves own. I’m not doing anything that the K says I’m doing.

Third, I don’t link again. I’m not using globalization as a “world ordering process” or whatever the f*ck that is. Con doesn’t even explain what a world ordering process is. All I’m trying to do is help out the Yanomami.

Fourth, perm - Affirm, then do the K. I’m “thinking locally” as his alternative puts it by focusing only on the Yanomami. Everything else can be as un-globalized as Con wants it to be. So long as we do the plan and affirm every other situation can follow the K and be un-globalized.

On International Fiat:

First, language barriers aren't a thing: the Yanomami speak Portuguese, and translators exist in the status quo. Moreover, there's no "western bias" coming from the lit I cited. If anything it has a "pro-yanomami" bias, but that's not con's issue.

Second is non-sensual. If this were true the concept behind the UN or any kind of international summit or conglomeration wouldn't exist. There are international actors who can act on the plan.

Third, no where in the plan do I call for every single nation on the face of the earth to do the plan. Con's being over-dramatic.

There's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to look internationally. My plan doesn't harm fairness.

On Irony:

I don't see the irony. The road was built without the consent of the Yanomami, meaning it was the exact opposite of what the plan advocates. And even if he's trying to say that this is what globalization would entail, a) he's not warranting that that's what Globalization has to be, and b) even if he is warranting it, it's the is/ought fallacy - just because people are globalizing that way it doesn't mean they ought to do it that way.

On Other Issues:

First, it's unfair of my opponent to say that I'm being too vague by not saying how much we should give and what it goes to then say that I'm actually not allowed to say that. Moreover, a specific figure isn't necessary: all we need is enough to solve the problems and convince Brazil and Venezuela to actually abide by the laws they signed. Any more than necessary is, well, unnecessary. If con wants to try and argue that the amount we would have to give wouldn't be reasonable he's welcome to try and come up with a figure himself, but that's not what he's doing here.

The CCPY is the Pro-Yanomami Commision, which you can learn from almost any one of the sources I cited.

And there's nothing vague about the plan. What the plan's trying to solve is pretty clearly stated through the negative impacts of the illegal mining (river contamination, disease, violence, death threats/assassinations, etc.).

I do provide solvency. Extend the second reason why the plan benefits. Because Brazil signed ILO 169 they've already recognized Yanomami land as the property of the Yanomami. They're not enforcing the international law, though, so the international community *can* step in and make them take action.

And extend the third reason. The UN has already condemned the miners and vocalized support for the Yanomami. There's no reason to believe that they wouldn't do the plan.

And the plan isn't superfluous. All the harms happening in the status quo are happening while that's running. It's clearly not doing enough. Only through international action can the plan be achieved and Brazil be forced to actually abide by the law.

And there's no warrant for how I don't solve for the harms, it's literally him just saying I don't and crossing his fingers hoping it sticks. Forcing Brazil to adhere to ILO 169 means that the Yanomami have the final say in whatever happens on their territory, meaning that the mining and diseases and river contamination stops. My plan solves for 100% of the harms.

On the Counterplan:

The Counterplan is literally my plan except Brazil is the actor instead of the international community.

The problem with the Counterplan is that it doesn't solve because Brazil has shown they have no intention of doing anything about it. Look to the unenforced international laws they agreed to abide by and the miners who slaughtered 16 Yanomami villagers and only five of the entire group were tried, and of those five only three were ever given prison time. The rest got off and went back to doing the exact same thing. Brazil is incompetent at best, unwilling at worst. Only the international community can solve, which means the Counterplan fails.

So so far the round breaks down really simply:
      • My plan stands, is topical, and I’m allowed to run it.

      • The K doesn’t link, and even if it does we should do the K in every other situation that isn’t the plan I’m running. We can excuse this one instance for the benefit of the Yanomami.

      • The counterplan is literally the same thing as my plan, except it’s being implimented by Brazil rather than the international community, which means the counterplan is never going to happen.




PROverview: Response

This argument is simply a way to generically say that any time a negative team presents defensive arguments they should be discredited, the round should be decided on merit alone, not percentages of defense or offense. Zaradi has accepted the burden of proof.

Pro can’t advocate a plan

I concede this argument. An instance where economic globalization increases would represent a ‘more globalized economy’. Notwithstanding, he is completely non-topical.

Plan Non-Topical

The definition header clearly says ‘globalize AND globalization’, I would have made separate headers if they were different definitions or would have said ‘g & g respectively’. Both definitions must be met; but even if the reader disagrees with me zaradi doesn’t even fit ‘b’.

Within the ‘b’ definition they key here is not to try and pick and choose what to fit. It is important to notice the use of ‘and’, in the definition: “a process of interaction and integration, companies and governments, “driven by international trade and investment. The definition of ‘and’ is “also, at the same time”[5] / ”along or together with; as well as”[5]. Therefore it does not mean ‘either’, but ‘both’...Analogy: my neighbor is having bad luck, he got a divorce and the bank is coming for his house, so I have a plan to gather the neighborhood to give him money…aka global aid. In this analogy we don’t expect anything of equal to or greater monetary value in return, therefore it is not investment or trade, this is zaradi’s plan. His plan doesn’t involve integration, or trade, or companies in the slightest. Furthermore it in no way increases the world economy size. I truly beg the readers to analyze the claims that just because the government is interacting with a people that globalization is happening. Again con doesn’t even touch the ‘a’ definition.

Kritik on World Ordering

Zaradi concedes the merits and substance of the kritik (aka the violation), that it is a voter’s issue, and all of its impacts. The only part he disagrees with is the link and thus he promotes the perm. I will cover both of those but let me just mention that Zaradi has conceded my a, and b link arguments however made his own reasons for why I don’t link which I will address; being that silence is compliance in debates such as this, has he not already conceded the link by not responding to my link arguments?


If you have the feeling that Zaradi’s plan doesn’t link into the Kritik that’s because it doesn’t, his plan isn’t even close to globalization-topical so intuitively it shouldn’t seem just right, however, to be clear, any instance of globalization, no matter how small, links to the kritik and its harms. The reason this is the case? The Kritik talks about how coercive ordering, or trying to change non-local relationships, is a result of world ordering ideologies, which ultimately result in our impacts. This response is already warranted within the merits of the kritik, which Zaradi has conceded to. Thus zaradi has already conceded that globalization in any instance links, so if the judge for some reason comes to the conclusion that the Yanomami global initiative is topical then it must link. Once again I extend reason A and B under the R2-header “link” which also prove linkage.

His reasons:

a.) ‘extreme globalization harms don’t link’…observation one simply asserts this, it is unwarranted and thus means nothing in terms of the debate or the link. The K is concerned with the ideas necessarily underpinning globalization, the impacts of the K are only part of it, the K is about the ideology at hand.

b.) ‘I’m not doing anything the K would have me doing’, true, this is because the plan is nontopical. However the K isnt’ about what you are doing, its not about consequentialist impacts, its about the ideas behind globalization, otherwise known as ordering, that should be rejected. As far as what you perceive your motives are in doing the plan? As Jayan Nayar has said, his critique is not one of genuine intentions.

c.) In this ‘argument’ pro essentially states that he has no idea what a world ordering process is, to which I am not responsible. I’ve spent hours working on this K, if he doesn’t understand what is clearly presented I can’t be held accountable. Just as a side note, if he doesn’t know what “the f*ck” a world ordering process is, then how does he know he is not using one?


a.) Conceded

b.) Conceded


a.) Conceded

b.) Conceded

Voters Issue and A priori

a.) Conceded

b.) Conceded


a.) Conceded

b.) Conceded


In our case, a permutation is to say that we can think locally as opposed to globally and still do Pro’s Yanomami Global Initiative. This perm is interesting because its success depends on the judge. If the judge of this debate lives in, or has close ties to, the area of Brazil near the Yanomami people, then one could validly argue that they would be thinking locally by trying to change relationships they know, with those people, for their betterment. But even for those people, the permutation is a tough sell because by endorsing the plan you are also endorsing the international action needed to complete the plan, and are at that point endorsing that other people not thinking locally and instead think globally in trying to change the social, and thus interpersonal, power structures in Brazil concerning the yanomami. In my opinion not many people will have close ties to the yanomami and thus, trying to use global initiatives goes against local thinking in a two-fold manner, once for the judge (most likely), and another time for the actors who will be fiated, such as japan, the US, and other developed nations into ‘global-think’. If doing the plan is Not thinking locally, then the perm fails. What’s more, If the perm fails this proves that the kritik does in fact link to my opponent’s case, the link being his only grievance with the Kritik.

Here are more reasons the perm fails:

a.) The perm is impossible because the first speech endorses a mindset that I problematize. The only way for the perm to be legit is if Pro severs out of the parts of the plan that link or adds something to synthesize the two positions; either way pro becomes a moving target.

b.) Even if pro can perm the kritik its logic still applies—in the real world where fiat is illusory, all they learn from being allowed to perm a kritik for any reason is that they can do so to avoid learning about the flaws in their worldview, which go uncorrected and means the kritik still applies at the end of the round.

c.) Destroys initial solvency claims and warrants—pro's authors don’t assume the permutation, thus pro's solvency goes away.

Keep in mind

Keep in mind that the kritik is not about whether or not the plan results in bad actions. Although there are huge consequentialist impacts to the kritik, the K is ultimately about the ideas that underpin an assumption, in this case that globalization is good and can benefit anyone besides the globalizer. Think of it this way, If it were the 1700’s and to affirm this res someone proposed “let’s economically globalize by creating a slave trade to America” I would run a K which said the slave trade propagates racism which is bad, we should reject the plan because it accepts racism as acceptable. However, like zaradi is doing, a slaver might say “well even if its bad, affirm, because the plan wont hurt the blacks, we will give them a comfortable ride, with plenty of food and shelter, and when they get there they will receive the best owners possible who won’t hurt them”, I tell them, as Zaradi, that the consequentialist impacts are irrelevant to whether or not the K means they lose. If zaradi globalizes, he loses, if he doesn’t he isn’t topical and loses.

Direct Arguments

International fiat

a.) I extend the argument that international fiat sets up a false judicial dichotomy for the judge. The judge in debate is meant to act on behalf of a single country and not the entire global community.

b.) “Global community” sounds pretty large. Allowing fiat of *most* of the worlds countries allows fiated solvency. Zaradi only refutes by saying he isn’t controlling *every* country but clearly he is fiating the most powerful.

c.) Voters issue, international fiat should be disallowed and thus the plan shouldn’t be allowed, and the plan damages fairness.


A.) Response, the k warrants this

B.) Response, the K warrants that globalization *must* be that way

Again, Zaradi is trying to solve globalization harms through more globalization.

Other Issues

- Vagueness(1): Zaradi has left his plan as vague as it was in the last round. We still don’t know how much money the plan spends which is unfair to con. We also have literally no idea what it will be used for. Furthermore, even though pro gives the English translation of the CCPY we don’t don’t know what it does or what power it has. You shouldn’t vote for a vague plan.

- Vaugeness(2): I never argued that pro couldn’t tell us what the CCPY would do with the money, just that you yourself shouldn’t be able to fiat the CCPY in their expenditure of it.

- Pro doesn’t solve because his plan text never explains this, his entire plan is literally one large mystery, ‘throw X amount of money at some organization which has an unknown function and hope that they can solve the problem’

- Pro concedes that he should have to prove the international community can do this but hasn’t presented the evidence.


Pro’s only objection is that brazil wouldn’t be willing to do the plan; this is what fiat is for. Pro concedes that my CP would at least result in the same impacts as his plan, however my plan does much more because it literally forces the companies to leave, madates that people leave the tribe alone and those who damage their ecosystem get prosecuted. Basically it give the Yanomami what they want. To be left alone from the outside world. Another adv is that it doesn’t use international fiat, it isn’t vague, or superfluous.



Debate Round No. 3


So one thing is important to know about the debate to understand that makes evaluating this debate super simple:

The links to the K, as he repeated multiple times in his rejection of my "No Link" arguments, are reliant on the topicality argument in that his K doesn't link to the plan rather it links to the resolution. The problem with this is that my plan doesn't encompass the entirety of the resolution: as I stated before and he never responded to (read his silence is compliance saying), his refutations need to be specific to the plan in order to be responsive to the affirmative. This means that if I'm winning topicality, the K goes away before you even evaluate the K because it's not specific to the plan, rather it's a generic response to the resolution as a broad concept.

On My Last Overview:

Bzzt. That's not actually what I said. His response to the overview makes a fundamental mistake in how defensive and offensive arguments interract with a "burden of proof" and in terms of affirming and negating the resolution, and while I don't have the time (6 hours to round deadline) nor the character space nor the patience to fix it right now, but I'll spend a little bit of character space clarifying myself.

My argument was that the vast majority of his arguments (aside from the K and the CP) are defensive in nature, meaning that they don't function as reasons for why we ought to negate the resolution, but rather they function as reasons we ought not affirm the resolution, which doesn't look like a very big difference but in terms of the flow of arguments in a debate round that's a big f*cking deal. 100% of my impacts and arguments are coming out of my plan, which is straight affirmative offense. So if the round is in anyway close in the minds of the voters and you're not entirely sold for voting for either side, err on the side of the affirmative because I'm the one giving you reasons why I ought to win the round, whereas he's giving you reasons why he ought not lose the round rather than giving you pro-active reasons as to why he ought to win the round.

On Running A Plan:

He concedes I can run a plan. This in and of itself is a link to topicality within the plan (he can still argue that my plan is sh*t, but that's an entirely separate question).

On "Topicality" of the Plan:

His only warrant for why I have to meet the a and b definitions is that, effectively, he said so and if he didn't mean it that way then he would've formatted it differently. The problem with this response is that I don't have telepathy. I can't read Con's mind to understand that that's what he meant. All I see is that you list two words (Globalize & Globalization), and you provide two definitions. That in my mind means that you're defining both words. Don't blame me for your lack in clear formatting. I meet the B definition so that should be sufficient.

And I definitely meet the B definition. Look closely at his response and then look back at my previous reply. I list out all the parts in the definition explaining that I meet and *how* I meet. His response this round? He just says that I don't and then gives a bad analogy to what the plan is and how it doesn't meet his conception of what globalization ought to look like. I've already explained how I have all of the things that he says I don't have. He doesn't make a reasonse for why I meet those things are wrong, rather just says that I don't meet them. Don't think more needs to be said here. I meet his definition, which means that the plan is topical by his definition.

On the Kritik:

So because I'm winning topicality, you're already disregarding the K because he already conceded that it's not specific to the plan rather it's a generic kritik of the resolution. The problem with this is that my argument as to his responses needing to be specific to the plan to be responsive to the affirmative goes unresponded to. This means that the K is already irrelevant to the debate from the get-go. But let's go to the other arguments.

The problem with the K is that it's just not really very well fleshed out and explained. The impacts are there yeah, but he's not doing enough work to explain how I link to them. Extend out the three reasons I argued for why the K doesn't link to the plan. His responses just aren't sufficient.

The first reason linking back to my first observation is just too late on his part. He already dropped the observation for two rounds previously, trying to respond with "there's no warrant" after dropping it for two rounds is just too late. Moreover, even if it isn't too late, I clearly explained the warrant coming out of it: all I have to do is advocate for "more globalized", which isn't what the K is saying I am doing.

The second reason his only response is where he blatantly and outright concedes the K doesn't link to the plan. This is pretty much where discussion about the K's relevancy just stops.

The third reason is where Con shows his lack of understanding of the lit that he's trying to use. I can only show that I don't use a "world ordering process" if you've shown how I use one in the first place. There's not even a clear explanation of what a "world ordering process" is coming out of the K. For someone who's supposedly spent hours reading and understanding the literature behind the K, there's not that clear of an explanation of what it is coming from him.

And wanna hear the best logic in the world being used by Con? Con says I'm using a world ordering process. I ask what it is before saying I don't use that. His response is "how do you really know then????". It's kinda your job to show how I use one rather than just say I use it and stick your fingers in your ears...

This is important because if he's not even explaining what a "world ordering process" is, then there's no reason to believe that affirming leads to this thing, meaning the K doesn't even lead to the resolution.

On The Perm:

I'm kicking the perm. He's not turning any kind of offense off of it, so there's no reason to continue evaluating it.

On The CP:

I love how he criticizes me for fiating international nations and then responds to my "Brazil wouldn't do this" by fiating Brazil...Unless my opponent is about to say that he lives in Brazil, I'm pretty sure he just fiated an international nation...

But even just pressing the magic "fiat" button isn't enough. He doesn't respond to the fact that Brazil has made everything as difficult as possible for the Yanomami. He doesn't respond to the fact that Brazil has had numerous opportunities to punish and shut down the illegal mining and has not done so. He doesn't respond that Brazil has international legal obligations that tell them that they *have* to do this are they aren't in the status quo. Just saying "Yeah, we can fiat all that" isn't anywhere near sufficient. And the literal only difference between the CP and the Plan is who's implimenting it: I'm arguing from the UN working with the CCPY and he's arguing Brazil. Literally everything else is the same. This means that the plan and the CP have the same benefits and harms to it, therefore there's no "unique advantages" to the Counterplan: They are exactly the same.

If he's asking for less vagueness (not that there was really any in the first place), I'm setting the record straight (again) right here: The plan I'm arguing and the counterplan he's proposing literally are the exact same, with the sole difference between the plans being the actor.

This means that the entire debate between the plan and counterplan literally comes down to who's plan is more likely to be implimented by the actor of choice: me with the UN/CCPY or him with Brazil. So let's talk about the plan real fast.

On The Plan:

The plan is literally the only piece of offense left up on the board. And the plan is the only thing with even a slight possibility of success. Extend out the three reasons at the bottom of my plan as the reasons why you're preferring the plan over the CP. We're already finding success eliminating illegal ranching from Yanomami territory, so there's no reason to think that we can't solve for the mining harms and fix the problem entirely. The UN has already voiced there support for the Yanomami, meaning I don't even need to press the fiat button: they already want to help the Yanomami. And then Brazil is actually internationally obligated to follow the plan. The fact that they aren't means that the UN is within their right to step in and impliment the plan themselves. None of these receive any kind of response, and all of them function as reasons why the plan is far more feasable than the CP.


At the end of the day, this debate is really easy to evaluate, despite the length. Let's review:

1. I can run a plan, he conceded this.
2. The plan meets his definition of globalization, so it's topical.
3. The K doesn't link to the plan, and doesn't even really link to the resolution all that well. In terms of actually impacting the debate, the K is irrelevant.
4. The exact details of the plan and the counterplan are exactly the same. The only difference between the plan and the counterplan is who impliments the plan. And my plan is far more likely to be implimented, meaning the plan is far more likely to solve for the harms than the counterplan.



Zaradi has quite literally conceded the kritik, he agrees that silence is compliance and nowithstanding has conceded: theViolation, My Links, Voters, Alternatives, the Impact, and even the permutation at this point. As the individual with full burden of proof, it is Pro’s job to answer every single ‘round-determining’ argument proposed by con. This means that even if every single one of his link arguments are truly correct, he still loses because he has conceded my two link arguments that prove he actually does link. He hasn’t put up an even microscopic effort to refute them. It is Zaradi’s prerogative, it would seem, to simply blow off the entire kritik, and get by it with much less than minimal effort, its lazy debating, as simple as that...even one correct link argument of mine means I link because pro


Zaradi’s first reason for No link:

His logic:

1.) Harms coming from 100% globalization don’t link

2.) The K argues that “just one instance of globalization merits neocolonialism”

3.) The plan only increases globalization a little bit

4.) Thus the harms coming from globalization in the kritik do not link to the plan.

I extend my argument that his logic is missing a warrant; Jayan Nayar’s kritik never argues that just one instance of globalization merits neocolonialism, nor a NWO. Furthermore this argument doesn’t determine whether the K links, at most this is an impact-linkage argument, but don’t consider this argument either, I have already argued, in the “Keep in Mind” section of R3, that the impacts of globalization are irrelevant to whether or not we reject the plan. We reject the plan if the plan globalizes because any instance of globalization, just like any instance of racism, is bad.

If, by chance, Zaradi meant; that the Kritik never argues every instance of globalization must use the ideology of neocolonialism then this has effectively been conceded in my link argument ‘b’ where it states: “Any position that says the process of globalization will help anybody except the ‘globalizer’ (as pro must) is wrong because globalization inherently suppresses and dehumanizes those being globalized and intentionally or unintentionally operates using the ideologies of neocolonialism.” …That’s the entire point of the K…It wouldn’t be a K if it didn’t apply in every instance.

Zaradi’s second No-Link:

Yes, I ‘conceded’ the K doesn’t link by pointing out that Zaradi isn’t topical, so then I guess Zaradi has just conceded his Non-topicality….Even if the plan is topical, he still links because he has conceded the substance of the K, and the ‘b’ link argument, both of which argue that any instance of globalization is bad, and should thusly be rejected. If he globalizes he has effectively been K-ed and loses, if he doesn’t globalize he isn’t topical and loses.

Zaradi’s third No-Link:

The K got the thumbs up from both tejretics and Raisor so I’m sure it can’t be that bad. In all reality, Zaradi is the one who hasn’t taken the time to understand the kritik, not me. And he has conceded the entire thing. This isn’t a link argument, this is an attempt to discredit the K for pro’s lack of effort. The point remains, he can’t know that he isn’t using one if he doesn’t even know what it is.

It’s clear what a WOP is though, from context and things I have directly said…. I have said that a World Order is “a single unitary structure” of the world, it has been described as an “ideal/single world”. Thus it should be pretty clear that a world ordering process is just any process which attempts to create/design this single and so called ‘better’ unitary structure/order of the world. The reasons this is bad are warranted extensively through the Kritik, but the key point is that any process which unifies the world into a single structure, and does so in order to try and benefit those being included in this structure is bad, pro literally must do this if he presents a plan because he must use globalization and he must benefit people outside of it by bringing them into it.


Topicality‘b’ definition

-On the ‘b’ definition, even if you buy his ridiculous interpretation of the resolution, Zaradi ignores my R2 demands to justify the words “interaction” and “investment”, yet he doesn’t even attempt to say his plan uses them and ignores my arguments that he does neither; as I have argued, the definition doesn’t include the word ‘or’, thus the entire definition must be met, which includes those words. Not justifying these words, in spite of argumentation to the contrary, should be considered as a concession of the words which means he doesn’t meet.

-Furthermore, his ‘b’ interpretation, on the other words doesn’t take into account that we are talking about “economic globalization”, not globalization in general. Thus I requested for him to prove his plan increases the economy size, and this was also never responded to in any form or fashion…aka conceded, meaning he doesn’t meet.

‘a’ definition

Zaradi doesn’t even try to meet this definition. Being that both definitions must be met, he clearly isn’t topical; extend my arguments that he doesn’t develop the economy or increase free trade or tap cheaper foreign labor markets.

Both definitions must be met

Pro has responded to this by simply not responding to this. His Only reason that he shouldn’t have to be responsible for the first definition is that ‘he didn’t know’…however, a reasonable person would clearly know, and objectivity is on my side. The format proves this to be true. The definitions take the exact same format for every word: bolded word, semicolon, definition of that bolded word.

-It says “Globalize AND Globalization”, look back to the definition of “and”: “also, at the same time”[5] / ”along or together with; as well as”[5]…..I could have put 1 definition for ‘g & g’ or I could have put 3 definitions for ‘g & g’, the number of definitions is irrelevant. Ultimately, the header objectively means we are defining both words, and definitions ‘a’ and ‘b’ are simply definitionsfor both of those words. Again, if they were separate words they would have different headers.

-Just think about it, I would have said ‘g&g’ ‘respectively’, or ‘inversely’, which would indicate which definition coincides with which. If the judges aren’t believing what I have already said, then they still can’t go Zaradi’s way because they have no way to tell which word (g or g) coincides with which definition (a or b). It could easily be that globalize was ‘b’ and globalization was ‘a’, there is no way to know which one, meaning you prefer both.

-Finally, just take a look at the origin of my sources, ‘a’ comes from the merriam webster dictionary, defining “globalization”. ‘b’ comes from comes from “” and defines globalization. No matter what, they both define globalization, these are the objective facts here. How can anyone justify saying that the first definition of globalization really meant globalize.

So one last time, giving aid is in no way economic globalization, this is common sense.

The Plan

Pro has added something new to his plan, in the last round. It has now been ‘clarified’, that pro’s plan forces the UN to infringe on Brazilian sovereignty and enforce his plan because of ‘international law’. This was never in the first speech, in round 3 he said that it was possible to do this but he never said that he *was* doing this, as a part of his plan. The voters should disregard anything said outside of the initial, round 2, speech introducing the plan. Pro is changing his plan from giving economic aid to literally forcing Brazil to cooperate with international law. This was never argued. Pro’s plan is nothing but a moving target at this point, changing his plan late in the round in order counteract my counterplan and make his seem better in general.

We know almost nothing about how his plan works, what it does, nor how effectively it will do it. Pro is spending an unknown amount of money and giving it to an organization who’s function and power is also unknown. We don’t know where the money will go, we don’t even know where it *might* go. Pro is just giving us his thumbs up that it will work. I have requested solvency evidence that the global community would or could do the plan and have received none. It is not my job to prove that pro cannot do the plan. It is pro’s job to prove that he can. We should assume that the CCYP is an ineffectual organization, with a limited reach. We should assume that the costs will be gargantuan and that the international community cannot do the plan. These have been specifically requested and in every instance blown off. Literally, the only thing we know that will happen for sure, is that an amount of money will be transferred from the pockets of the global community to this organization called the CCPY, that’s it.


International fiat doesn’t mean you fiat a foreign country, it means you fiat more than one country. It isn’t called ‘foreign fiat’, its fiat between nations, Inter-nation-al. Judges, all of his responses to international-fiat are against a different argument than the one I posed.

Prefer the CP because it doesn't use international fiat, doesn't globalize, and more effectively solves by fixing the root of the problem, Brazilian gov.

-The K links because my two link arguments are flatly conceded, zaradi must win every single link argument because of his burden of proof. And, Pro concedes that globalization is inherently bad in the violation and link sections of the K.

-Zaradi has never argued about benefiting culture, just people. BOP thus unfulfilled

-Foreign aid isn't economic globalization. The sources are for globalization. The format implies 'a' AND 'b'. Even if you disagree with me, there is no way for a judge to know which definition would corespond to which. Pro doesn't meet words in 'b' anyways.

-international fiat not argued against

-The plan is an obscurity. The CP solves the root problem, is explicit and no international fiat.

Debate Round No. 4
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
thanks for your vote and time Whiteflame
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
clear net benefits to the Counterplan*
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
you are correct. I don't mean to perhaps inflame zaradi, however this is literally the definition of fiat. "Let it be done"

If tied, you presume pro because the CP must have a net benefit to the plan, though I believe there are some clear net benefits to the plan.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
I have an RFD prepared up, but I'm not sure how the mechanism of my RFD with regards to CP v plan should function ... very unclear.

Is the fiat in the CP justified? "He doesn't respond that Brazil has international legal obligations that tell them that they *have* to do this are they aren't in the status quo. Just saying "Yeah, we can fiat all that" isn't anywhere near sufficient. And the literal only difference between the CP and the Plan is who's implimenting it: I'm arguing from the UN working with the CCPY and he's arguing Brazil. Literally everything else is the same. This means that the plan and the CP have the same benefits and harms to it, therefore there's no "unique advantages" to the Counterplan: They are exactly the same. " -- I really don't get this; as a non-policy debater, I assumed that fiat can do anything in a normative resolution regardless of practicality . . .

Another question: how should I vote on this if the CP and the plan are tied? If the CP solves anything the plan does but has no advantages different from the plan (note - "if," this is not really the situation), then what should I do? Should I vote Con due to BoP, or vote Pro due to impracticality of the fiating?
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
Question with regards to the plan. Plan text: "The global community will provided economic aid to the CCPY in aiding the Yanomami tribe in South America." It uses the word "will," so it's a fact claim, not a plan, but both debaters treat it as a plan. Did you mean "should"?
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
Will have the RFD up later today, hopefully.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
Working on this.
Posted by Mikal 1 year ago
I don't see how zaradi could lose this with the res. Reading over it soon
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
Funny how that works :P
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
I was just going to say "I will get to this guys, #2 on my list," but apparently whiteflame beat me to it verbatim, rofl...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given here:
Vote Placed by larztheloser 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Both an economy and a net benefit are broad in scope, and therefore while I did not see pro as squirreling, they did limit themselves pretty bad unnecessarily. This was a clear judgment debate, not a model. In general, things rarely look great in a debate when you have to defend your right to run a case. Nobody in this round argued nearly enough about net economic development impacts. More narrative would have been good too. No semantic argument was ultimately very convincing. Biggest issue was con's hegemony, which seems to presuppose pro's principle. Pro didn't link because he felt his narrow topic was an exception. First, con did link surprisingly specifically, for example the argument that . Second, I didn't feel he had to, since the point undermined pro's framework. Most of the non-semantic focus on the debate was ultimately on this issue, and I accepted that it could be harmful. Minor point, non-definition of plan, was hardly problematic for illustrating pro's model. Narrow con.