Stockdale Scully Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Puget Sound | 2 | Plano Independent RP | Alex Sapadin |
|
|
| |
| USC | 2 | Marlborough ED | Kristiana Baez |
|
|
| |
| USC | 6 | Marlborough EW | Ben Cortez |
|
|
| |
| USC | 3 | Harvard-Westlake KD | Deven Cooper |
|
|
| |
| USC | Octas | Troy Independent AP | Joseph Barquin, Noah Christiansen, Kristiana Baez |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Puget Sound | 2 | Opponent: Plano Independent RP | Judge: Alex Sapadin 1AC - PTD |
| USC | 2 | Opponent: Marlborough ED | Judge: Kristiana Baez 1AC - Prison Strikes |
| USC | 6 | Opponent: Marlborough EW | Judge: Ben Cortez 1AC - Prison Strikes |
| USC | 3 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake KD | Judge: Deven Cooper 1AC - Inequality |
| USC | Octas | Opponent: Troy Independent AP | Judge: Joseph Barquin, Noah Christiansen, Kristiana Baez 1AC - Abolition Democracy |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
ND - Case - AT Abolition - Round Octos - USCTournament: USC | Round: Octas | Opponent: Troy Independent AP | Judge: Joseph Barquin, Noah Christiansen, Kristiana Baez We’ll concede Robinson ’16 – but that frames your ballot because if we either win that the affirmative sustains structures of capital you vote negative because they will only continue to produce their own impacts Collapse is good— Prevents extinction from environmental destruction Prevents runaway warming which causes extinction. AND “a” means singular – this isn’t a topicality argument, but a solvency claim that they cannot fix global structures of capitalism with only a singular government recognizing the right to strike | 1/6/22 |
ND - Case - AT Inequality - Round 2 - USCTournament: USC | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake KD | Judge: Deven Cooper
AT Lingis a) Ev just says a gap can lead to a marginalization of democracy but doesn’t describe a terminal b) No impact to climate change was substantiated so a 1ar would be new – just says the rich may struggle to reverse but doesn’t prove anything AT Greenhouse a) this is just in the context of trade workers/unions, not all workers writ large – also no real terminal impact AT Pope a) is about social disunity not necessarily people earning less than one another but being disunited that would still exist in the aff because ppl like jeff bezos will still be much wealtheir than the avg person b) Cribb cites alt causes such as political economic and religious divides which they cant resolve AT Richter a) doesn’t substantiate that economic decline really implicates war b) the K turns this – structural violence perpetuates economic inequality some more turns here Unions don’t solve inequality – they’re too weak and tons of alt causes Shutdowns The incessant productivity of hegemony is a drive toward its own destruction. American hegemonic power has surpassed the domain of being referentially related to any material reality and can now only identify with the image of its own destruction. Solvency
1) They do not have a piece of evidence saying that the RTS is key to solve income inequality. Even if their ev is right that income inequality writ large is bad they dont resovle a large enough portion. Read their uniqueness evidence it cites education and healthcare. 2) Their argument about income inequality is about the global differences between states wealth and average incomes. Even if there is an increase in income in some sectors, that doesnt mean the disparities b/w the countries get resolved. 3) Their link evidence says they increase incomes by 2-5 which is woefully inefficient to solve, their are massive differences between these countries i.e their uniqueness evidence cites other countries having a 16x difference, that minor increase is insufficient to solve Ill LBL solvency ev – burns - Not about the right to strike in all cases - Makes a perception argument and says that unions can do their work “through the threat of union- ization “ Richman card doesnt actually make a spillover claim in the evidence or the part they've highlighted Nolan ev - not reading a CP so irrelevant Framing The standard is to prefer form arguments first – if we win a claim that the affirmative shouldn’t have been brought into debate at all that comes before any of their impact scenarios because it directs the logic behind them AND there’s a Strategic Cover Disad to their model– the use of fiat to overcome links means people are able to outweigh thinks like being racist with their extinction impacts – that means even if they are right that things spill out of debate and they can make a difference you still vote negative because they create neo-conservatives like Kyle Rove, Ted Cruz or Neal Katyeal – even if you don’t believe that they will make bad people, at the very least they won’t have the opportunity to test them which is a terminal solvency deficit to their model None of their death is bad standards are an answer to our arguments about the nature of their extinction impacts Governments consistently don’t use utilitarianism or realism – only our theory of power explains why the US was in Vietnam despite knowing it was a losing war and the public being against it | 1/6/22 |
ND - Case - AT Prison Strikes - Round 2 - USCTournament: USC | Round: 2 | Opponent: Marlborough ED | Judge: Kristiana Baez
2. Even Norway’s prisons are immoral and counterproductive — and if that’s possible in the U.S., so is abolition. 3. By taking the prison itself for granted, the aff’s reformist discourse precludes emancipatory alternatives to the carceral system. Solvency 4. Vote Neg on presumption: allowing prisoners to strike doesn’t mean that there will be radical reforms in wages and 5. No solvency: Alt causes: the prison industrial complex includes broken, racist court systems; corrupt policing; prison wages and conditions are minuscule solving for racial injustice and structural violence, at best they get solving like 5 of structural violence, and even then, prio structural violence 6. Anything short of abolition can’t “solve” mass incarceration. FW 7. Framework — the role of this debate should be about the development of movements to challenge institutional racism—whether or not the aff’s reform is good or bad is secondary to how reforms comes in to be | 1/6/22 |
ND - Case - AT Prison Strikes - Round 6 - USCTournament: USC | Round: 6 | Opponent: Marlborough EW | Judge: Ben Cortez 3. By taking the prison itself for granted, the aff’s reformist discourse precludes emancipatory alternatives to the carceral system. Solvency 4. Vote Neg on presumption: allowing prisoners to strike doesn’t mean that there will be radical reforms in wages and 5. No solvency: Alt causes: the prison industrial complex includes broken, racist court systems; corrupt policing; prison wages and conditions are minuscule solving for racial injustice and structural violence, at best they get solving like 5 of structural violence, and even then, prio structural violence 6. Anything short of abolition can’t “solve” mass incarceration. FW 7. Framework — the role of this debate should be about the development of movements to challenge institutional racism—whether or not the aff’s reform is good or bad is secondary to how reforms comes in to be | 1/6/22 |
ND - K - Abolition - Round 2 - USCTournament: USC | Round: 2 | Opponent: Marlborough ED | Judge: Kristiana Baez There is no reform of making prison conditions better – the Prison-Industrial Complex itself is the product of liberal reforms — any strategy that accepts institutionalized state violence can only perpetuate it. Their focus on prison labor, proven by HRW ’19 allowing prison labours to publicize their conditions, as a part of the prison industrial complex is a diversionary tactic that normalizes broader forms of population control utilized by neoliberal governments. This is not a semantic point – this mindset informs of how they view non-prison labor and replicates class based racism. There’s no single explanation for the rise of mass incarceration besides carceral logic itself The Alternative is to BURN DOWN institutions of governance and reform—fantasies of civil participation fail to resist the violence executed by the state and accommodate its continuation through a belief that the system can be corrected. Abolition as an insurgent politics is a refusal to negotiate and seek recognition from the state in order to lead to change. | 1/6/22 |
ND - K - Abolition - Round 6 - USCTournament: USC | Round: 6 | Opponent: Marlborough EW | Judge: Ben Cortez There is no reform of making prison conditions better – the Prison-Industrial Complex itself is the product of liberal reforms — any strategy that accepts institutionalized state violence can only perpetuate it. Their focus on prison labor, proven by HRW ’19 allowing prison labours to publicize their conditions, as a part of the prison industrial complex is a diversionary tactic that normalizes broader forms of population control utilized by neoliberal governments. This is not a semantic point – this mindset informs of how they view non-prison labor and replicates class based racism. There’s no single explanation for the rise of mass incarceration besides carceral logic itself The Alternative is to BURN DOWN institutions of governance and reform—fantasies of civil participation fail to resist the violence executed by the state and accommodate its continuation through a belief that the system can be corrected. Abolition as an insurgent politics is a refusal to negotiate and seek recognition from the state in order to lead to change. | 1/6/22 |
ND - K - Baudrillard - Round 3 - USCTournament: USC | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake KD | Judge: Deven Cooper The affirmative is caught in an exaltation of use-value that perpetuates capitalism The subversiveness of a strategy of resistance can only be effective if it begins with the object and deconstructing the metaphysics of value. Fear of cyberattacks creates global resilience networks built around Orientalist behavior modification When confronted with the ethical injunction of the aff, respond with “I would prefer not to”—vote neg on presumption | 1/6/22 |
ND - K - Baudrillard - Round Octos - USCTournament: USC | Round: Octas | Opponent: Troy Independent AP | Judge: Joseph Barquin, Noah Christiansen, Kristiana Baez Of the dream only a memory trace. Of the real there remains only the virtual. And of the Other only a spectral form We begin with a brief history of debate, its disappearance and reappearance as a militaristic game of informatics, logistics, and digitization – everything outside a reassured order must be destroyed through forms of asymmetrical violence paraded around as a fight – this is the key analysis the 1AC misses, by framing themselves as a disruption of the repetition of debate they breathe life back into fundamentally reactionary forces – the same way Louisville created the PRL or Ryan Wash created a massive conservative movement against debate – this card turns AC Meiner "If the matrix were to make a movie about the matrix, The Matrix is surely the movie it would make"—we think this is true of the 1ac's relationship to debate. The move towards authentic radical theory within the cemetery walls of the Western university merely engenders a semiotic fantasy of radicalism paving over very real conditions of violent colonialism, pain, and death in order to make this space possible. We will be very clear here. Debate is not a home. Debate never will be. The affirmative is caught in an exaltation of use-value that perpetuates capitalism K comes first—The subversiveness of a strategy of resistance can only be effective if it begins with the object and deconstructing the metaphysics of value. Charity Cannibalism DA—we become addicted to the feeling of solving ethical crises, causing us to artificially construct more—snowballs to extinction The aff is another instantiation of the white hyper real – it becomes another analytical encounter with whiteness and the world which just opens up more forms of liberal recognition politics When confronted with the ethical injunction of the aff, respond with “I would prefer not to”—vote neg on presumption | 1/6/22 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
1/7/22 | assassinsbear15@gmailcom |
| |
1/6/22 | assassinsbear15@gmailcom |
| |
1/6/22 | assassinsbear15@gmailcom |
| |
1/6/22 | assassinsbear15@gmailcom |
| |
1/6/22 | assassinsbear15@gmailcom |
|