tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839986040166310976.post2079400571189437238..comments2023-11-03T04:50:28.780-07:00Comments on Debate Ballots: Georgetown Debate Seminar Practice Round SixMichael Antonuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131310751971005948noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839986040166310976.post-5624955815546161862009-06-29T17:10:51.420-07:002009-06-29T17:10:51.420-07:001. Capitalism unsustainable. I think this is cruc...1. Capitalism unsustainable. I think this is crucial, and almost always helps more than it hurts. No - make that always. <br /><br />Let me put it this way, in the most practical terms. I've seen negs lose on "transition is bad" and "transition is impossible" and "aff outweighs" - all of which I think can be answered, in part, with collapse inevitable.<br /><br />I've never seen a neg lose on "your transition inevitable claims minimize your impact." Never. Ever. Independent of the truth value of your claims, I'm way on the right side of the stats on this.<br /><br />I think that the big impacts are still in play - capitalism's sustainable in the short term, and it can do a lot of damage before its collapse. <br /><br />ANALOGY: It's a rabid dog. Put it down.<br /><br />2. Role of ballot:<br /><br />I think the neg should explain the judge's preferred role. That doesn't mean that your K is a T VIOLATION - it doesn't auto come first BUT it should be PRIORITIZED. It's a WEIGHING argument, not a THEORY PUNISHMENT. <br /><br />("A subpoint: we define capitalist as current system, B. Violation they're the current system, C vote neg to preserve limits on capitalism." NOOOOOOOOOOOOO.)<br /><br />Also, what is this "worlds" stuff? Both teams are talking the same world - Earth. They have different filters for viewing that world and selecting political priorities in relationship to it.<br /><br />Sorry if blunt - just want to give my clearest answer to your questions!Michael Antonuccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08131310751971005948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839986040166310976.post-50379979630139570552009-06-28T13:42:42.836-07:002009-06-28T13:42:42.836-07:00I have a couple of questions
Depending on the neg...I have a couple of questions<br /><br />Depending on the neg impact(s) to cap, do you think reading "cap collapse inevitable" can hurt the neg as well? Say the neg's impact is nuclear war from imperialism, wouldn't "cap collapse inevitable" also non unique the neg's impact too(unless they somehow proved that the timeframe for their impact was relatively short term)?<br /><br />To me, it would obviously help the neg when they're reading systemic impacts (like poverty or maybe value to life?) because they can quantify the benefit of a short term revolution versus the long term inevitable collapse of capitalism. Another way that it might help the neg is if you read the berry card that says a short term economic collapse is better than a long term one because of finite resources.<br /><br />My other question is about the necessity of having a "role of the ballot". Do you recommend defending the alt as a micropolitical strategy in the same world as the plan? Or should the neg make framework arguments and say the K comes first?<br /><br />I guess it would help if you would be more specific about what exactly you recommend the neg says in the block/ 2nr about the role of the ballot.<br /><br />Thanks, your comments are very helpful!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00104823749100955320noreply@blogger.com