Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

RFD For ThinkBig vs. Death23

warren42
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 1:30:56 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
This is my RFD for the resolution "This house would abolish the Electoral College" debated between ThinkBig and Death23, which can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

I have broken the debate up into specific arguments addressed and who won each, as well as whether or not I deemed them significant weight in terms of my decision for an overall victor.

Cost/Time: Pro
I completely agree with Con's argument that legislative time should be valued (unfortunately it is too often wasted, but I digress). Pro simply responds that abolishing the electoral college is an issue worth the time that would be spent on it. Con's only responses from here on out are marginal time saved by using the Con plan. Either way, it seems both participants agree that time spent working toward abolishing the EC is well spent, it's just a matter of if it could be even more efficient. Decent weight to this argument.

Federalism: Pro
Con takes an interesting approach to this issue by arguing Federalism. I am ultimately in agreement with Pro, however, that the abolition of EC would not harm federalism, as the only impact it has is potentially helping/harming certain states. However, I do think that Con is right that it would harm small states. They'd lose their overpowered status in the EC, and would still not likely be visited by candidates often unless they have significant impacts on the election outside of EC vote count (i.e. NH, Iowa). That being said, I think this decrease in power of small states is warranted. Pro provides the argument of one person, one vote, and the loss of power for small states would be a means justified by the ends of reaching a legitimate one person, one vote. Small weight to this argument, since it was tangentially related to the resolution to begin with.

Note: I think Con could've potentially argued that though people in small states essentially have a more powerful vote, they aren't given as much attention in election campaigning, so this is a way of attempting to rectify such unequal attention. Not sure if that would have turned out to be an effective argument, but just a thought I had while reading the debate that I think may have been interesting to see become a developed argument.

Risks: Con
Saying "We don't even know many of the consequences." and framing it as a legitimate argument is a very weak attempt to negate a resolution. I think it's a nice thing to add as an afterthought, as it sort of lends the readers of the debate to do some thinking and realize there may be even more consequences than are brought up within the debate. However, it should just be used as a sentence in the conclusion or within another argument. Pro points out how weak this argument is. Pro is right, but the argument still stands, because there are always unforeseen consequences when enacting a new policy. Con wins this argument, but like Pro, I think it's by far the weakest "argument" of the round.

Essentially, at this point in the round, I have been convinced that the electoral college is flawed and should be replaced by some form of popular vote deciding the election. From here it becomes an issue of whether this objective is best achieved via amendment or NPVIC. This is where I found the debate most interesting.

Whether Con ran a Kritik: Con
The debate really took a turn when Con brought up the NPVIC. This, in my opinion is a counterplan. I went back and forth for awhile as to whether I believed counterplans to be a subcategory of kritiks, and ultimately decided I did not believe that it was. Additionally, Con's definition of kritiks seems to indicate kritiks challenge assumptions about the world shared by much of the population which the debate pertains to, for example valuing democracy, belief in capitalism, belief that murder is inherently wrong, etc. which does not appear in the resolution. Instead, he offers an alternative means to the same end Pro advocates. I don't think the NPVIC idea is a kritik, but rather a counterplan.

To protect from this in the future, I'd urge ThinkBig to include prohibition of both kritiks and counterplans, as this would eliminate the subjectivity of voters such as myself.

Trust of Delegates: Con
On balance, this goes Con. As Con said, history has proven that on almost every occasion, delegates vote for the victor of their state. However, it is still a very real possibility delegates would cast their votes against the candidate that won the popular vote. Con wins this one. Substantial weight on my overall decision, but not huge.

Constitutionality of NPVIC: Pro
This goes Pro. Pro successfully proved that the NPVIC would most likely be deemed to violate the Interstate Clause and Compact Clause. Con's only defenses were essentially "experts are undecided" and "everything is subject to judicial review" which are both very weak defenses. Con seems to agree the EC should be replaced, and argues that it should be done in the easiest way possible (why wouldn't you?) but if the NPVIC would most likely be ruled unconstitutional, then it would be an ineffective means of replacing the EC. Therefore, regardless of how long an amendment process may take, it is superior to a coalition that would quickly be eliminated by the courts.

Final Decision: ThinkBig

Good debate, I like the unique approaches taken by Con, but in the end they weren't enough. Thank you guys, if either of you have questions or issues with regard to my vote please let me know via PM.
-warren42

"Give me liberty. That's it. I can handle the rest."
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 2:05:40 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 1:30:56 AM, warren42 wrote:
This is my RFD for the resolution "This house would abolish the Electoral College" debated between ThinkBig and Death23, which can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

I have broken the debate up into specific arguments addressed and who won each, as well as whether or not I deemed them significant weight in terms of my decision for an overall victor.

Cost/Time: Pro
I completely agree with Con's argument that legislative time should be valued (unfortunately it is too often wasted, but I digress). Pro simply responds that abolishing the electoral college is an issue worth the time that would be spent on it. Con's only responses from here on out are marginal time saved by using the Con plan. Either way, it seems both participants agree that time spent working toward abolishing the EC is well spent, it's just a matter of if it could be even more efficient. Decent weight to this argument.

Federalism: Pro
Con takes an interesting approach to this issue by arguing Federalism. I am ultimately in agreement with Pro, however, that the abolition of EC would not harm federalism, as the only impact it has is potentially helping/harming certain states. However, I do think that Con is right that it would harm small states. They'd lose their overpowered status in the EC, and would still not likely be visited by candidates often unless they have significant impacts on the election outside of EC vote count (i.e. NH, Iowa). That being said, I think this decrease in power of small states is warranted. Pro provides the argument of one person, one vote, and the loss of power for small states would be a means justified by the ends of reaching a legitimate one person, one vote. Small weight to this argument, since it was tangentially related to the resolution to begin with.

Note: I think Con could've potentially argued that though people in small states essentially have a more powerful vote, they aren't given as much attention in election campaigning, so this is a way of attempting to rectify such unequal attention. Not sure if that would have turned out to be an effective argument, but just a thought I had while reading the debate that I think may have been interesting to see become a developed argument.

Risks: Con
Saying "We don't even know many of the consequences." and framing it as a legitimate argument is a very weak attempt to negate a resolution. I think it's a nice thing to add as an afterthought, as it sort of lends the readers of the debate to do some thinking and realize there may be even more consequences than are brought up within the debate. However, it should just be used as a sentence in the conclusion or within another argument. Pro points out how weak this argument is. Pro is right, but the argument still stands, because there are always unforeseen consequences when enacting a new policy. Con wins this argument, but like Pro, I think it's by far the weakest "argument" of the round.

Essentially, at this point in the round, I have been convinced that the electoral college is flawed and should be replaced by some form of popular vote deciding the election. From here it becomes an issue of whether this objective is best achieved via amendment or NPVIC. This is where I found the debate most interesting.

Whether Con ran a Kritik: Con
The debate really took a turn when Con brought up the NPVIC. This, in my opinion is a counterplan. I went back and forth for awhile as to whether I believed counterplans to be a subcategory of kritiks, and ultimately decided I did not believe that it was. Additionally, Con's definition of kritiks seems to indicate kritiks challenge assumptions about the world shared by much of the population which the debate pertains to, for example valuing democracy, belief in capitalism, belief that murder is inherently wrong, etc. which does not appear in the resolution. Instead, he offers an alternative means to the same end Pro advocates. I don't think the NPVIC idea is a kritik, but rather a counterplan.

To protect from this in the future, I'd urge ThinkBig to include prohibition of both kritiks and counterplans, as this would eliminate the subjectivity of voters such as myself.

Trust of Delegates: Con
On balance, this goes Con. As Con said, history has proven that on almost every occasion, delegates vote for the victor of their state. However, it is still a very real possibility delegates would cast their votes against the candidate that won the popular vote. Con wins this one. Substantial weight on my overall decision, but not huge.

Constitutionality of NPVIC: Pro
This goes Pro. Pro successfully proved that the NPVIC would most likely be deemed to violate the Interstate Clause and Compact Clause. Con's only defenses were essentially "experts are undecided" and "everything is subject to judicial review" which are both very weak defenses. Con seems to agree the EC should be replaced, and argues that it should be done in the easiest way possible (why wouldn't you?) but if the NPVIC would most likely be ruled unconstitutional, then it would be an ineffective means of replacing the EC. Therefore, regardless of how long an amendment process may take, it is superior to a coalition that would quickly be eliminated by the courts.

Final Decision: ThinkBig

Good debate, I like the unique approaches taken by Con, but in the end they weren't enough. Thank you guys, if either of you have questions or issues with regard to my vote please let me know via PM.

Post these in the miscallaneous forum
fire_wings
Posts: 5,563
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 5:01:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 2:05:40 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/1/2016 1:30:56 AM, warren42 wrote:
This is my RFD for the resolution "This house would abolish the Electoral College" debated between ThinkBig and Death23, which can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

I have broken the debate up into specific arguments addressed and who won each, as well as whether or not I deemed them significant weight in terms of my decision for an overall victor.

Cost/Time: Pro
I completely agree with Con's argument that legislative time should be valued (unfortunately it is too often wasted, but I digress). Pro simply responds that abolishing the electoral college is an issue worth the time that would be spent on it. Con's only responses from here on out are marginal time saved by using the Con plan. Either way, it seems both participants agree that time spent working toward abolishing the EC is well spent, it's just a matter of if it could be even more efficient. Decent weight to this argument.

Federalism: Pro
Con takes an interesting approach to this issue by arguing Federalism. I am ultimately in agreement with Pro, however, that the abolition of EC would not harm federalism, as the only impact it has is potentially helping/harming certain states. However, I do think that Con is right that it would harm small states. They'd lose their overpowered status in the EC, and would still not likely be visited by candidates often unless they have significant impacts on the election outside of EC vote count (i.e. NH, Iowa). That being said, I think this decrease in power of small states is warranted. Pro provides the argument of one person, one vote, and the loss of power for small states would be a means justified by the ends of reaching a legitimate one person, one vote. Small weight to this argument, since it was tangentially related to the resolution to begin with.

Note: I think Con could've potentially argued that though people in small states essentially have a more powerful vote, they aren't given as much attention in election campaigning, so this is a way of attempting to rectify such unequal attention. Not sure if that would have turned out to be an effective argument, but just a thought I had while reading the debate that I think may have been interesting to see become a developed argument.

Risks: Con
Saying "We don't even know many of the consequences." and framing it as a legitimate argument is a very weak attempt to negate a resolution. I think it's a nice thing to add as an afterthought, as it sort of lends the readers of the debate to do some thinking and realize there may be even more consequences than are brought up within the debate. However, it should just be used as a sentence in the conclusion or within another argument. Pro points out how weak this argument is. Pro is right, but the argument still stands, because there are always unforeseen consequences when enacting a new policy. Con wins this argument, but like Pro, I think it's by far the weakest "argument" of the round.

Essentially, at this point in the round, I have been convinced that the electoral college is flawed and should be replaced by some form of popular vote deciding the election. From here it becomes an issue of whether this objective is best achieved via amendment or NPVIC. This is where I found the debate most interesting.

Whether Con ran a Kritik: Con
The debate really took a turn when Con brought up the NPVIC. This, in my opinion is a counterplan. I went back and forth for awhile as to whether I believed counterplans to be a subcategory of kritiks, and ultimately decided I did not believe that it was. Additionally, Con's definition of kritiks seems to indicate kritiks challenge assumptions about the world shared by much of the population which the debate pertains to, for example valuing democracy, belief in capitalism, belief that murder is inherently wrong, etc. which does not appear in the resolution. Instead, he offers an alternative means to the same end Pro advocates. I don't think the NPVIC idea is a kritik, but rather a counterplan.

To protect from this in the future, I'd urge ThinkBig to include prohibition of both kritiks and counterplans, as this would eliminate the subjectivity of voters such as myself.

Trust of Delegates: Con
On balance, this goes Con. As Con said, history has proven that on almost every occasion, delegates vote for the victor of their state. However, it is still a very real possibility delegates would cast their votes against the candidate that won the popular vote. Con wins this one. Substantial weight on my overall decision, but not huge.

Constitutionality of NPVIC: Pro
This goes Pro. Pro successfully proved that the NPVIC would most likely be deemed to violate the Interstate Clause and Compact Clause. Con's only defenses were essentially "experts are undecided" and "everything is subject to judicial review" which are both very weak defenses. Con seems to agree the EC should be replaced, and argues that it should be done in the easiest way possible (why wouldn't you?) but if the NPVIC would most likely be ruled unconstitutional, then it would be an ineffective means of replacing the EC. Therefore, regardless of how long an amendment process may take, it is superior to a coalition that would quickly be eliminated by the courts.

Final Decision: ThinkBig

Good debate, I like the unique approaches taken by Con, but in the end they weren't enough. Thank you guys, if either of you have questions or issues with regard to my vote please let me know via PM.

Post these in the miscallaneous forum

Copying what bsh says, lol
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 10:44:12 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 5:01:23 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Copying what bsh says, lol

No, it isn't, it's an ordinary concern... bsh1 was hardly the first to do it.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass