Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Case debate


K and Alt

Counter K

Voting Issues, Impact Calculus, and Round analysis

Case debate.
Solvency response:

1. Zero evidence saying there is a systemic failure of the central government.

2. Zero evidence actually saying a bottle bill fails.

3. Central control solves harm two of state confusion. Some central control better.

Analysis: If a bottle bill would actually fail, he should have read evidence. Read evidence –
show warrants. The Negative speaker has shown not a shred of evidence against the case
proper except for a tiny disadvantage that gets weighed out in Impact Calculus.

Happiness Advantage analysis: Flow this also in response to the Kritik link. Also flow my
CX response of why the plan creates happiness. The only way that advantage links to the K
is if happiness is created by following the law. Instead, the happiness value comes from
actually seeing the litter cleaned up. Nowhere does our plan advocate blindly advocating
government regulations - in its essence, it allows free choice.
This debate is about policy – not ontology. True, ontological questions need to be dealt with
first – but this round is first and foremost a policy round.

We didn’t concede the framework – we agreed with it.

We, the AFF team don’t have to defend all of management. It would be absolutely stupid
for me to defend all of management when I know perfectly well that anything taken to an
extreme can be bad. The thought that I can’t clarify my position in the 1AR is absurd,
especially as the 1NR clarified his. This wasn’t a new argument; it was a clarification of an
existing one. My 2AC responses said governments were needed – never that unlimited
regulations are good.

The Framework/Criterion argument was just an analysis of the weighing mechanisms that
were already agreed upon for the round. I agreed with the Framework and you conceded
the Criterion. Nothing new: just old fashioned analysis.

We’re not stuck defending all of managerial thinking – we never propagated that mindset,
all we said is that governments are necessary and that some managerial actions are needed.

Framework offence:
Reflow my 1AR framework offence and weigh tangible impacts.

His K doesn’t prove tangible impacts as I’m not defending or stuck defending all of
managerialism. The Criterion was COMPLETELY dropped meaning it still stands. A
framework works to show what we should evaluate first. After we evaluate ontology, we
evaluate the policy. His Kritik has no tangible impacts as his K supposes that we’re
advocating every possible thinkable managerial action. It’s ridiculous. However, as we’ll
see, my Kritik has real world impacts as there is a direct link and better impacts.

Here’s how it’s evaluated.

K – based on all managerial thinking so it fails (more on this later)

My K – based on the exact mindset that they are subscribing to – a perfect link – and it
links concretely to genocide – again, reflow my 1AR arguments.

Then, the case – basically uncontested, the argument in this round that has the most
evidence behind it and the best tangible impacts. Dropping the criterion forced the
Negative team into arguing real world impacts so I win. This was THE fatal mistake of this
round. Every argument, I carry all the tangible impacts.
Real world impact analysis: If the managerial thinking caused
genocide for every time a managerial law was passed – there
wouldn’t be any people left in the world. MPX: K has NO REAL
Governments made of flawed people response: Reflow my Madison evidence here.

Response that all bottle bill advocates are managerial: Actually, if you read the evidence in
question, the only point the guy was making is that people won’t recycle – as evidenced
through 2AC statistics. It doesn’t show all Bottle Bill advocates support ALL managerial

Management degrades ability to think response: Actually, this is the other way around, the
aff plan gives people choice. They get to critically think and ask themselves if it’s worth 10
cents to recycle stuff.

Our Law and Order ideology is just that – governments are here to preserve law and

Anarchy: Not new – just an example and further fleshing out of our argument the K and its
alt stinks. The Neg’s alt is basically defending the position that NO GOVERNMENT OR

NEG DROPS MY LOGICAL FALLICY ANALYSIS – Admission = omission he admits he

commits a Logical fallacy in his whole K – it’s not logically sound so it’s flawed on that
level also.

Quote from Wraith Leader’s last speech: “Extend the 2NC arguments – they concede that
we solve enframing,”

This means NEG has NO wiggle room on the Link to the counter K. They claim to solve for
enframing – look at the 2AC and 1AR cards showing the concrete link.

The Arg that governments are made of flawed people response: Re-read the Madison card.
Men are sinful/fallen – that’s why a Republic like ours is so good.

The claim that Neg doesn’t have to defend a complete lack of government is flawed: How
may laws aren’t managerial? NONE. Law against stealing – management. Stop lights –
managements. Law against murder – management. Law about currency – management.

Counter K
Our Wolin evidence SMASHES their Thyle evidence. Our Wolin evidence accounts for the
Turn in Heidegger’s thought and goes further to say that he still supported Nazism as a
means for defeating European Nihilism to his dying day. We have a 100% link to all of our

We analyzed Heidegger’s turn in thought and crushed the argument and showed how he
still supports Nazism.


Richard Wolin, Professor of Modem European Intellectual History, Rice, THE TERMS OF

Heidegger at first viewed National Socialism in Nietzschean terms as an authentic overcoming of

European nihilism; that is, as a radical historical response to "the decline of the West." And
his disillusionment with the actual practice of the movement dates roughly
from 1936, until the end of his life he continued to believe (as he avows in the
concluding pages of Einfuhrung in die Metaphysik) in the "inner truth and greatness of National
Socialism" - that is, when the movement is understood from the superior vantage point of "the
history of Being."

This gives us 100% link to all the genocide impacts in our Wolin evidence and this destroys
his Thyle evidence. Our Wolin evidence still stands since we crushed his counter evidence
which means we get a 100% mindset link to the counter K and the genocide links. Read the
evidence and you’ll see that Heidegger’s Nazism was FOUNDED on his view of human
nature, making genocide inevitable.

Round analysis: Impact Calculus.

I win 100% of the case because even his solvency argument doesn’t have evidence backing
it while the case has LOTS of evidence behind it.
I win his K on both the Alt and on the Link – even if he wins it, there isn’t ANY tangible
world impact (see Framework analysis).

I win my K 100% - he can’t link out of it (see above analysis), I completely win the turn
with the Wolin evidence and win the mindset with the Rosen evidence. There is tangible
impacts from my K because his thinking has ALREADY resulted in Genocide.

When the Negative team dropped my Criterion, they ended the round. They can’t claim
any net benefit or tangible impact – meaning I control the WHOLE round – it’s not that I
just win my K, I’ve 100% nullified his K, won my K 100%, and won the case advantages. If
you weigh the round – you’ll see that I control the ALL of the impacts for this round.
Because of this, I strongly urge you to vote AFFIRMATIVE