Clements Du Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFA State | 2 | Langham Creek Justin Schnitzer | Ishan Rereddy |
|
|
| |
| TFA State | 4 | Westwood Esha Venkat | Dylan Jones |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| TFA State | 2 | Opponent: Langham Creek Justin Schnitzer | Judge: Ishan Rereddy 1AC - Climate change |
| TFA State | 4 | Opponent: Westwood Esha Venkat | Judge: Dylan Jones 1AC - India with disclosure |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
Fairness Doctrine CPTournament: TFA State | Round: 2 | Opponent: Langham Creek Justin Schnitzer | Judge: Ishan Rereddy We’ll defend that democracies ought to model the fairness doctrine Exclusion DA doesn’t link – we only regulate that the content of the media ought to be objective, not the process. Journalists who have personal relationships to a subject can still produce unbias articles on that subject. However, in the aff world, they’re still hit with suspicion by news agencies that their reporting is bias even if their articles aren’t | 3/11/22 |
Journalism DATournament: TFA State | Round: 2 | Opponent: Langham Creek Justin Schnitzer | Judge: Ishan Rereddy Norms of objectivity are used to exclude minority reporters White reporting of racialized issues is racist Racism from the media spills up to the public Racism has terrible impacts | 3/11/22 |
T - Free PressTournament: TFA State | Round: 4 | Opponent: Westwood Esha Venkat | Judge: Dylan Jones Violation: you didn’t. India doesn’t have a free press. Modi’s cracking down on the media A free press isn’t pressured by the government CX proves – they say they apply to all media companies Standards- 1 Precision — allowing the aff to arbitrarily jettison words in the resolution at their whim decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Means that I can’t predict what the aff will be so I will have no prep against it which decks clash. 2 Jursidiction – judges can’t vote on a non-topical aff 2 TVA – Read the COVID and threat construction advantages under a different country with a free press | 3/11/22 |
TH - ESpec v1Tournament: TFA State | Round: 2 | Opponent: Langham Creek Justin Schnitzer | Judge: Ishan Rereddy | 3/11/22 |
Th - AspecTournament: TFA State | Round: 4 | Opponent: Westwood Esha Venkat | Judge: Dylan Jones Violation: You didn’t. 1AC doesn’t explicitly specify who’s going to be implementing the plan. The word “plan” in the plantext implies that it’s a government that implements the aff, but the solvency advocate implies that it’s a journalist Standards – 1 Stable advocacy – not speccing an actor allows you to shift out of neg offense in the 1ar – if I read a government crackdown DA, you’ll just say that the aff defends that the media should implement the aff - outweighs since the 2nr is too late to read new links so I lose every round after the 1ar. It’s not regressive since it’s part of the advocacy text which is limited in terms of plan action. 2 Topic education – different actors produce different solvency and advantages, which makes specification key to nuanced topic ed – outweighs because we only have two months to debate the topic. 3 Prep skew – I don’t know what they will be willing to clarify until CX which means I could go 6 minutes planning to read a disad and then get screwed over in CX when they spec something else. This means that CX can’t check because the time in between is when I should be formulating my strat and waiting until then is the abuse. Key fairness because I won’t be able to use the strat I formulated if you skewed my prep and will have a time disadvantage. Can’t check also since judges don’t flow and debaters are trained to be shifty in CX so I can’t hold you. | 3/11/22 |
Th - Contact infoTournament: TFA State | Round: 2 | Opponent: Langham Creek Justin Schnitzer | Judge: Ishan Rereddy | 3/11/22 |
Th - spec advocacyTournament: TFA State | Round: 4 | Opponent: Westwood Esha Venkat | Judge: Dylan Jones There’s no fixed definition for advocacy Violation: you didn’t Vote neg on stable ground – 1AR clarification of “advocacy” links out of disads, counterplans, and PICs and decks clash along with critical thinking. For example, I could read a DA about how watchdog journalism is really good and restricted by the aff, but the 1AR can redefine advocacy to exclude watchdog journalism. Makes it impossible for the neg to construct a 1NC because I don’t know what links into the aff. CX doesn’t check because A Not flowed B Skews 6 min of prep C They can lie and no way to check D Debaters can be shady. Education is a voter else schools don’t fund debate Fairness is a voter – it’s constitutive of this activity and provides incentive to play the game which turns every other voter Drop the debater a deters abuse b dta is incoherent bc we indict their advocacy No RVIs – a illogical you don’t win for being fair b chills abuse checking c incentivizes being abusive to go for the RVI on theory Prefer competing interps – a reasonability is arbitrary and requires intervention b reasonability creates a race to the bottom where we see how abusive we can be c competing interps creates a race to the top to create the best norms | 3/11/22 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
3/11/22 | antd6@protonmailcom |
|