In this debate between CE Byrd and Johns Creek, the Affirmative ran a Deluzian Rhizome Aff and the Negative went for Framework – the plan must fiat federal government action. The Negative also read a kritik of the Rhizome.
The 1NC framework argument was pretty straight-forward – Aff has to use the USFG in order to establish some limits an predictability on the topic and that a predictable and limited topic is important to education. One of the reasons given was that it would promote a quality debate on the Affirmative’s advocacy and since they were unprepared it would be difficult to adequately test the merits of the advocacy.
The 2NC developed the following framework arguments:
(a) A topical version of the Aff would fiat the USFG adopts a Deluzian framework for ocean policy
(b) A limited topic promotes the best debate
(c) The Aff could still read their Aff and just lose on T – -it would accomplish the same academic purpose
(d) A better debate over the merits of the Aff would be had if it was topical
(e) Switch-side debate is good
(f) The argument could be run on the Neg (capturing the education benefit)
(g) A totally unpredictable debate is not a good debate
The 1AR went for the following answers (full 2AC is here)
-*Most importantly, the extended a number of turns on the kritik that said they solve colonialism and the impacts to colonialism outweigh the education impacts on T. They coupled this with an argument that there is no value to engaging institutions unless we question desire first. This argument was essential to the decision and will be discussed later
– We deal with the ocean, that has something to do with the topic. The Neg has some ground
– Debate shouldn’t exclude people who want to debate “outside the lines”
– The Aff doesn’t preclude the Neg’s form of debate, the Neg precludes the Aff’s form of debate
– The Aff has value
– It’s just one form of unpredictability
The 2NR goes for the following arguments
(1) – (a) above – do both
(2) – an unlimited topic makes for bad debates and an inability to assess the value of the advocacy
(3) – There must be some limits so that people can prepare and just mentioning the ocean isn’t good enough for a good debate
The emphasis was on “do both” and limits produce a good discussion.
Problematically, the 2NR dropped the turn on the K flow that said colonialism o/w education and that we must question desire first.
This really should have been an easy win for the Aff, but the 2AR didn’t say much other than to repeat a couple of tags. I only have some broken phrases and a few key words written on my flow.
The best the Aff has is a 2AR statement, “They dropped colonialism outweighs” and after bring promoted by his partner said, “We must question desire first.” There was no explanation of these arguments and no extension evidence. And most importantly, the 2Ar never answer the argument that the Aff should do both – Rhizome + read a plan.” This argument was extensively developed in the block and the 2NR and it solves for the “colonialism outweighs” argument.
If the 2AR had simply extended the two arguments, explained them, and, most importantly, had explained why doing both doesn’t solve, they would have won. Absent that, however, I don’t think it is fair to vote on these two tag blips, one of which is prompted by the other debater in the middle of the speech, in light of all of the 2NR explanation of why doing both is best.