Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

RFD for War on Drugs Debate

Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2016 11:40:00 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
So before I actually go into my RFD, there's a few things that I want to point out that I really did not like seeing happen.

First, I don't think it's entirely fair to have continued the speech after Hayd had disconnected, missing half of the 1AC. And no, tej, he did miss a lot, as you so plainly pointed out to him in the following speeches. Granted what I think should've happened is when Hayd reconnected he just say "Hey, I dc'd before you started your speech can you restart the speech so I can hear everything?" and just restart the 1AC. That way tej isn't really punished for Hayd dc'ing (if anything he gets to re-emphasize his early points which should help him), and Hayd isn't punished for dc'ing because he gets to hear all the arguments and actually be able to respond to everything that gets brought up.

But you guys just went with it, so I'll just go with it.

Secondly, I think the entire concept of Points of Information is the most brain-dead, inconsiderate, and unfair thing to exist. For starters, it's just f*cking rude to interrupt someone during the middle of a speech. Secondly, it negatively affects the speaker by de-railing their train of thought (you can see this by Hayd's two attempts to stop himself and realize that someone interrupted him with the "What?"'s he made during his 1NC and his last speech). This a) wastes their speech time because they not only have to answer the question that gets raised, but then b) re-find their place in their speech and keep going, which really isn't that easy of a thing to do for people who aren't used to public speaking (and even for people who are used to it it's still not the simplest thing ever). Third, it's not like this is the only kind of system where one person gets to ask questions to the other person. Cross Examination periods are a much better fit because not only can you ask questions without interrupting another person's speech, but you can ask multiple questions instead of just one which means you can a) better understand more of their case if you need clarification on points, b) get them to put their foot in their mouth more times than just once, and c) is a better medium for leading questions where you want them to concede to a link or something.

But, you guys just seem to go with it, so I'll just go with it.

Onto the actual RFD

-----

I end up affirming off of conceded impacts off the plan without any real offense being extended cleanly on the NC.

The biggest problem in this debate is that the Neg just doesn't ever really respond to much, and, at least from what I hear them say and how they're talking, doesn't seem to really have much in the way of a plan as to how they want to approach each speech and with a plan for what they need to do to win the debate. This becomes even more obvious when you have entire contentional arguments being dropped (mainly economic benefits to legalizing/taxing drugs), and entire chunks of responses placed on the NC that never get any response to them (especially when they're making a "plan solves for harms to family and employment opportunities" response that makes a good chunk of the NC offense non-unique)

I also think that Neg let Aff get away with waaaay too much stuff that he really should've been called out on. For one, the blippy argument under the four parts of the plan that talks about how the Neg shouldn't attack the plan but negate the res is hella abusive. The entire reason that plans can garner offense towards the ballot is by providing solvency for the harms that they are claiming to solve for. If the plan can't actually solve for the harms, then the plan can't actually access any of the offense from solving those harms. It also takes away counter-plan ground, disad ground, PIC ground (which isn't the worst thing in the world from a personal standpoint but from an objective one it's not that cool) and makes it really, really hard to tailor responses and evidence to the specificity of the plan. Not to mention there was zero warrants as for why this is in any way true or good.

Second, it's hard to really understand how the Aff's plan actually fixes a lot of the problems he's saying the plan fixes, especially when it comes to stuff like the black markets impacts and stopping illegal drug trade. There's a ton of warrants as for why illegal drug trading is bad, and why black markets are really bad, but not really much warrants in the way of how affirming fixes them other than really short analytics. Neg makes a good response when he says that they're just going to go over to trading something else, but then never responds to the argument that drug trading is where they get the majority of their profits from so either way it sucks.

And it's not like that argument can't be responded to. First, if the plan were true and it would solve for the harms he's listing wouldn't the profit from the drug trade go down to the point where they'd be making more money if they swapped? Second, it's not like cartels exclusively do drug trading and nothing else, they just put more effort into a different trade and there's still drug trafficking going on meaning they still make enough money to live and drug trade still happens if on a lesser scale, and third (which is something that would've worked hella well with your "mental states against suffering" rhetoric) is argue that they'll switch to human trafficking if they can't trade drugs and argue the whole litany of harms from human trafficking (and you're going to win that weighing debate 10 times out of 10).

And it's really hard for me to give the Neg offense coming off of the NC because the coverage there isn't much better than what the Neg's doing on the Aff side of the flow. Most of his arguments against the NC are either a) plan solves for x harm, or b) some other defensive argument, so the gameplan to winning on the Neg side of things isn't that hard - make the plan look like an awful idea, extend out your impacts and say the squo is preferable to the plan because the plan makes things worse so negating minimizes negative impacts.

None of that happens, though. So I affirm.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 12:16:49 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/27/2016 11:40:00 PM, Zaradi wrote:
So before I actually go into my RFD, there's a few things that I want to point out that I really did not like seeing happen.

First, I don't think it's entirely fair to have continued the speech after Hayd had disconnected, missing half of the 1AC. And no, tej, he did miss a lot, as you so plainly pointed out to him in the following speeches. Granted what I think should've happened is when Hayd reconnected he just say "Hey, I dc'd before you started your speech can you restart the speech so I can hear everything?" and just restart the 1AC. That way tej isn't really punished for Hayd dc'ing (if anything he gets to re-emphasize his early points which should help him), and Hayd isn't punished for dc'ing because he gets to hear all the arguments and actually be able to respond to everything that gets brought up.

But you guys just went with it, so I'll just go with it.

Secondly, I think the entire concept of Points of Information is the most brain-dead, inconsiderate, and unfair thing to exist. For starters, it's just f*cking rude to interrupt someone during the middle of a speech. Secondly, it negatively affects the speaker by de-railing their train of thought (you can see this by Hayd's two attempts to stop himself and realize that someone interrupted him with the "What?"'s he made during his 1NC and his last speech). This a) wastes their speech time because they not only have to answer the question that gets raised, but then b) re-find their place in their speech and keep going, which really isn't that easy of a thing to do for people who aren't used to public speaking (and even for people who are used to it it's still not the simplest thing ever). Third, it's not like this is the only kind of system where one person gets to ask questions to the other person. Cross Examination periods are a much better fit because not only can you ask questions without interrupting another person's speech, but you can ask multiple questions instead of just one which means you can a) better understand more of their case if you need clarification on points, b) get them to put their foot in their mouth more times than just once, and c) is a better medium for leading questions where you want them to concede to a link or something.

But, you guys just seem to go with it, so I'll just go with it.

Onto the actual RFD

-----

I end up affirming off of conceded impacts off the plan without any real offense being extended cleanly on the NC.

The biggest problem in this debate is that the Neg just doesn't ever really respond to much, and, at least from what I hear them say and how they're talking, doesn't seem to really have much in the way of a plan as to how they want to approach each speech and with a plan for what they need to do to win the debate. This becomes even more obvious when you have entire contentional arguments being dropped (mainly economic benefits to legalizing/taxing drugs), and entire chunks of responses placed on the NC that never get any response to them (especially when they're making a "plan solves for harms to family and employment opportunities" response that makes a good chunk of the NC offense non-unique)

I also think that Neg let Aff get away with waaaay too much stuff that he really should've been called out on. For one, the blippy argument under the four parts of the plan that talks about how the Neg shouldn't attack the plan but negate the res is hella abusive. The entire reason that plans can garner offense towards the ballot is by providing solvency for the harms that they are claiming to solve for. If the plan can't actually solve for the harms, then the plan can't actually access any of the offense from solving those harms. It also takes away counter-plan ground, disad ground, PIC ground (which isn't the worst thing in the world from a personal standpoint but from an objective one it's not that cool) and makes it really, really hard to tailor responses and evidence to the specificity of the plan. Not to mention there was zero warrants as for why this is in any way true or good.

Second, it's hard to really understand how the Aff's plan actually fixes a lot of the problems he's saying the plan fixes, especially when it comes to stuff like the black markets impacts and stopping illegal drug trade. There's a ton of warrants as for why illegal drug trading is bad, and why black markets are really bad, but not really much warrants in the way of how affirming fixes them other than really short analytics. Neg makes a good response when he says that they're just going to go over to trading something else, but then never responds to the argument that drug trading is where they get the majority of their profits from so either way it sucks.

And it's not like that argument can't be responded to. First, if the plan were true and it would solve for the harms he's listing wouldn't the profit from the drug trade go down to the point where they'd be making more money if they swapped? Second, it's not like cartels exclusively do drug trading and nothing else, they just put more effort into a different trade and there's still drug trafficking going on meaning they still make enough money to live and drug trade still happens if on a lesser scale, and third (which is something that would've worked hella well with your "mental states against suffering" rhetoric) is argue that they'll switch to human trafficking if they can't trade drugs and argue the whole litany of harms from human trafficking (and you're going to win that weighing debate 10 times out of 10).

And it's really hard for me to give the Neg offense coming off of the NC because the coverage there isn't much better than what the Neg's doing on the Aff side of the flow. Most of his arguments against the NC are either a) plan solves for x harm, or b) some other defensive argument, so the gameplan to winning on the Neg side of things isn't that hard - make the plan look like an awful idea, extend out your impacts and say the squo is preferable to the plan because the plan makes things worse so negating minimizes negative impacts.

None of that happens, though. So I affirm.

Link?
Tsar of DDO
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 12:17:43 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 12:16:49 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/27/2016 11:40:00 PM, Zaradi wrote:
So before I actually go into my RFD, there's a few things that I want to point out that I really did not like seeing happen.

First, I don't think it's entirely fair to have continued the speech after Hayd had disconnected, missing half of the 1AC. And no, tej, he did miss a lot, as you so plainly pointed out to him in the following speeches. Granted what I think should've happened is when Hayd reconnected he just say "Hey, I dc'd before you started your speech can you restart the speech so I can hear everything?" and just restart the 1AC. That way tej isn't really punished for Hayd dc'ing (if anything he gets to re-emphasize his early points which should help him), and Hayd isn't punished for dc'ing because he gets to hear all the arguments and actually be able to respond to everything that gets brought up.

But you guys just went with it, so I'll just go with it.

Secondly, I think the entire concept of Points of Information is the most brain-dead, inconsiderate, and unfair thing to exist. For starters, it's just f*cking rude to interrupt someone during the middle of a speech. Secondly, it negatively affects the speaker by de-railing their train of thought (you can see this by Hayd's two attempts to stop himself and realize that someone interrupted him with the "What?"'s he made during his 1NC and his last speech). This a) wastes their speech time because they not only have to answer the question that gets raised, but then b) re-find their place in their speech and keep going, which really isn't that easy of a thing to do for people who aren't used to public speaking (and even for people who are used to it it's still not the simplest thing ever). Third, it's not like this is the only kind of system where one person gets to ask questions to the other person. Cross Examination periods are a much better fit because not only can you ask questions without interrupting another person's speech, but you can ask multiple questions instead of just one which means you can a) better understand more of their case if you need clarification on points, b) get them to put their foot in their mouth more times than just once, and c) is a better medium for leading questions where you want them to concede to a link or something.

But, you guys just seem to go with it, so I'll just go with it.

Onto the actual RFD

-----

I end up affirming off of conceded impacts off the plan without any real offense being extended cleanly on the NC.

The biggest problem in this debate is that the Neg just doesn't ever really respond to much, and, at least from what I hear them say and how they're talking, doesn't seem to really have much in the way of a plan as to how they want to approach each speech and with a plan for what they need to do to win the debate. This becomes even more obvious when you have entire contentional arguments being dropped (mainly economic benefits to legalizing/taxing drugs), and entire chunks of responses placed on the NC that never get any response to them (especially when they're making a "plan solves for harms to family and employment opportunities" response that makes a good chunk of the NC offense non-unique)

I also think that Neg let Aff get away with waaaay too much stuff that he really should've been called out on. For one, the blippy argument under the four parts of the plan that talks about how the Neg shouldn't attack the plan but negate the res is hella abusive. The entire reason that plans can garner offense towards the ballot is by providing solvency for the harms that they are claiming to solve for. If the plan can't actually solve for the harms, then the plan can't actually access any of the offense from solving those harms. It also takes away counter-plan ground, disad ground, PIC ground (which isn't the worst thing in the world from a personal standpoint but from an objective one it's not that cool) and makes it really, really hard to tailor responses and evidence to the specificity of the plan. Not to mention there was zero warrants as for why this is in any way true or good.

Second, it's hard to really understand how the Aff's plan actually fixes a lot of the problems he's saying the plan fixes, especially when it comes to stuff like the black markets impacts and stopping illegal drug trade. There's a ton of warrants as for why illegal drug trading is bad, and why black markets are really bad, but not really much warrants in the way of how affirming fixes them other than really short analytics. Neg makes a good response when he says that they're just going to go over to trading something else, but then never responds to the argument that drug trading is where they get the majority of their profits from so either way it sucks.

And it's not like that argument can't be responded to. First, if the plan were true and it would solve for the harms he's listing wouldn't the profit from the drug trade go down to the point where they'd be making more money if they swapped? Second, it's not like cartels exclusively do drug trading and nothing else, they just put more effort into a different trade and there's still drug trafficking going on meaning they still make enough money to live and drug trade still happens if on a lesser scale, and third (which is something that would've worked hella well with your "mental states against suffering" rhetoric) is argue that they'll switch to human trafficking if they can't trade drugs and argue the whole litany of harms from human trafficking (and you're going to win that weighing debate 10 times out of 10).

And it's really hard for me to give the Neg offense coming off of the NC because the coverage there isn't much better than what the Neg's doing on the Aff side of the flow. Most of his arguments against the NC are either a) plan solves for x harm, or b) some other defensive argument, so the gameplan to winning on the Neg side of things isn't that hard - make the plan look like an awful idea, extend out your impacts and say the squo is preferable to the plan because the plan makes things worse so negating minimizes negative impacts.

None of that happens, though. So I affirm.

Link?

http://www.debate.org...

They did a live debate via google hangouts.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 12:19:40 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 12:17:43 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/28/2016 12:16:49 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/27/2016 11:40:00 PM, Zaradi wrote:
So before I actually go into my RFD, there's a few things that I want to point out that I really did not like seeing happen.

First, I don't think it's entirely fair to have continued the speech after Hayd had disconnected, missing half of the 1AC. And no, tej, he did miss a lot, as you so plainly pointed out to him in the following speeches. Granted what I think should've happened is when Hayd reconnected he just say "Hey, I dc'd before you started your speech can you restart the speech so I can hear everything?" and just restart the 1AC. That way tej isn't really punished for Hayd dc'ing (if anything he gets to re-emphasize his early points which should help him), and Hayd isn't punished for dc'ing because he gets to hear all the arguments and actually be able to respond to everything that gets brought up.

But you guys just went with it, so I'll just go with it.

Secondly, I think the entire concept of Points of Information is the most brain-dead, inconsiderate, and unfair thing to exist. For starters, it's just f*cking rude to interrupt someone during the middle of a speech. Secondly, it negatively affects the speaker by de-railing their train of thought (you can see this by Hayd's two attempts to stop himself and realize that someone interrupted him with the "What?"'s he made during his 1NC and his last speech). This a) wastes their speech time because they not only have to answer the question that gets raised, but then b) re-find their place in their speech and keep going, which really isn't that easy of a thing to do for people who aren't used to public speaking (and even for people who are used to it it's still not the simplest thing ever). Third, it's not like this is the only kind of system where one person gets to ask questions to the other person. Cross Examination periods are a much better fit because not only can you ask questions without interrupting another person's speech, but you can ask multiple questions instead of just one which means you can a) better understand more of their case if you need clarification on points, b) get them to put their foot in their mouth more times than just once, and c) is a better medium for leading questions where you want them to concede to a link or something.

But, you guys just seem to go with it, so I'll just go with it.

Onto the actual RFD

-----

I end up affirming off of conceded impacts off the plan without any real offense being extended cleanly on the NC.

The biggest problem in this debate is that the Neg just doesn't ever really respond to much, and, at least from what I hear them say and how they're talking, doesn't seem to really have much in the way of a plan as to how they want to approach each speech and with a plan for what they need to do to win the debate. This becomes even more obvious when you have entire contentional arguments being dropped (mainly economic benefits to legalizing/taxing drugs), and entire chunks of responses placed on the NC that never get any response to them (especially when they're making a "plan solves for harms to family and employment opportunities" response that makes a good chunk of the NC offense non-unique)

I also think that Neg let Aff get away with waaaay too much stuff that he really should've been called out on. For one, the blippy argument under the four parts of the plan that talks about how the Neg shouldn't attack the plan but negate the res is hella abusive. The entire reason that plans can garner offense towards the ballot is by providing solvency for the harms that they are claiming to solve for. If the plan can't actually solve for the harms, then the plan can't actually access any of the offense from solving those harms. It also takes away counter-plan ground, disad ground, PIC ground (which isn't the worst thing in the world from a personal standpoint but from an objective one it's not that cool) and makes it really, really hard to tailor responses and evidence to the specificity of the plan. Not to mention there was zero warrants as for why this is in any way true or good.

Second, it's hard to really understand how the Aff's plan actually fixes a lot of the problems he's saying the plan fixes, especially when it comes to stuff like the black markets impacts and stopping illegal drug trade. There's a ton of warrants as for why illegal drug trading is bad, and why black markets are really bad, but not really much warrants in the way of how affirming fixes them other than really short analytics. Neg makes a good response when he says that they're just going to go over to trading something else, but then never responds to the argument that drug trading is where they get the majority of their profits from so either way it sucks.

And it's not like that argument can't be responded to. First, if the plan were true and it would solve for the harms he's listing wouldn't the profit from the drug trade go down to the point where they'd be making more money if they swapped? Second, it's not like cartels exclusively do drug trading and nothing else, they just put more effort into a different trade and there's still drug trafficking going on meaning they still make enough money to live and drug trade still happens if on a lesser scale, and third (which is something that would've worked hella well with your "mental states against suffering" rhetoric) is argue that they'll switch to human trafficking if they can't trade drugs and argue the whole litany of harms from human trafficking (and you're going to win that weighing debate 10 times out of 10).

And it's really hard for me to give the Neg offense coming off of the NC because the coverage there isn't much better than what the Neg's doing on the Aff side of the flow. Most of his arguments against the NC are either a) plan solves for x harm, or b) some other defensive argument, so the gameplan to winning on the Neg side of things isn't that hard - make the plan look like an awful idea, extend out your impacts and say the squo is preferable to the plan because the plan makes things worse so negating minimizes negative impacts.

None of that happens, though. So I affirm.

Link?

http://www.debate.org...

They did a live debate via google hangouts.

ah cool
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 12:29:18 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/27/2016 11:40:00 PM, Zaradi wrote:
So before I actually go into my RFD, there's a few things that I want to point out that I really did not like seeing happen.

First, I don't think it's entirely fair to have continued the speech after Hayd had disconnected, missing half of the 1AC. And no, tej, he did miss a lot, as you so plainly pointed out to him in the following speeches. Granted what I think should've happened is when Hayd reconnected he just say "Hey, I dc'd before you started your speech can you restart the speech so I can hear everything?" and just restart the 1AC. That way tej isn't really punished for Hayd dc'ing (if anything he gets to re-emphasize his early points which should help him), and Hayd isn't punished for dc'ing because he gets to hear all the arguments and actually be able to respond to everything that gets brought up.

But you guys just went with it, so I'll just go with it.

Secondly, I think the entire concept of Points of Information is the most brain-dead, inconsiderate, and unfair thing to exist. For starters, it's just f*cking rude to interrupt someone during the middle of a speech. Secondly, it negatively affects the speaker by de-railing their train of thought (you can see this by Hayd's two attempts to stop himself and realize that someone interrupted him with the "What?"'s he made during his 1NC and his last speech). This a) wastes their speech time because they not only have to answer the question that gets raised, but then b) re-find their place in their speech and keep going, which really isn't that easy of a thing to do for people who aren't used to public speaking (and even for people who are used to it it's still not the simplest thing ever). Third, it's not like this is the only kind of system where one person gets to ask questions to the other person. Cross Examination periods are a much better fit because not only can you ask questions without interrupting another person's speech, but you can ask multiple questions instead of just one which means you can a) better understand more of their case if you need clarification on points, b) get them to put their foot in their mouth more times than just once, and c) is a better medium for leading questions where you want them to concede to a link or something.

But, you guys just seem to go with it, so I'll just go with it.

Onto the actual RFD

-----

I end up affirming off of conceded impacts off the plan without any real offense being extended cleanly on the NC.

The biggest problem in this debate is that the Neg just doesn't ever really respond to much, and, at least from what I hear them say and how they're talking, doesn't seem to really have much in the way of a plan as to how they want to approach each speech and with a plan for what they need to do to win the debate. This becomes even more obvious when you have entire contentional arguments being dropped (mainly economic benefits to legalizing/taxing drugs), and entire chunks of responses placed on the NC that never get any response to them (especially when they're making a "plan solves for harms to family and employment opportunities" response that makes a good chunk of the NC offense non-unique)

I also think that Neg let Aff get away with waaaay too much stuff that he really should've been called out on. For one, the blippy argument under the four parts of the plan that talks about how the Neg shouldn't attack the plan but negate the res is hella abusive. The entire reason that plans can garner offense towards the ballot is by providing solvency for the harms that they are claiming to solve for. If the plan can't actually solve for the harms, then the plan can't actually access any of the offense from solving those harms. It also takes away counter-plan ground, disad ground, PIC ground (which isn't the worst thing in the world from a personal standpoint but from an objective one it's not that cool) and makes it really, really hard to tailor responses and evidence to the specificity of the plan. Not to mention there was zero warrants as for why this is in any way true or good.

Second, it's hard to really understand how the Aff's plan actually fixes a lot of the problems he's saying the plan fixes, especially when it comes to stuff like the black markets impacts and stopping illegal drug trade. There's a ton of warrants as for why illegal drug trading is bad, and why black markets are really bad, but not really much warrants in the way of how affirming fixes them other than really short analytics. Neg makes a good response when he says that they're just going to go over to trading something else, but then never responds to the argument that drug trading is where they get the majority of their profits from so either way it sucks.

And it's not like that argument can't be responded to. First, if the plan were true and it would solve for the harms he's listing wouldn't the profit from the drug trade go down to the point where they'd be making more money if they swapped? Second, it's not like cartels exclusively do drug trading and nothing else, they just put more effort into a different trade and there's still drug trafficking going on meaning they still make enough money to live and drug trade still happens if on a lesser scale, and third (which is something that would've worked hella well with your "mental states against suffering" rhetoric) is argue that they'll switch to human trafficking if they can't trade drugs and argue the whole litany of harms from human trafficking (and you're going to win that weighing debate 10 times out of 10).

And it's really hard for me to give the Neg offense coming off of the NC because the coverage there isn't much better than what the Neg's doing on the Aff side of the flow. Most of his arguments against the NC are either a) plan solves for x harm, or b) some other defensive argument, so the gameplan to winning on the Neg side of things isn't that hard - make the plan look like an awful idea, extend out your impacts and say the squo is preferable to the plan because the plan makes things worse so negating minimizes negative impacts.

None of that happens, though. So I affirm.

Thanks for taking the time to vote. Given the video was an hour long and tej's accent was hard (at least for me) to discern and I was very difficult to discern conclusions from (way to much um and uh), and then going through and writing an extensive RFD takes a lot of time and effort and I really do appreciate it. Especially from someone with experience in live debate, it means a lot since that was one of the only live debates I've done.

Regardless, I agree with your decision. I didn't prepare enough for the debate, and didn't put nearly as much effort into it as I should of