WODC Round Two - Energy

On The Structure of the DebateThere's nothing within Round One to suggest that the way the debate was structured was how Con suggests it should be. Moreover, that's not even some kind of unspoken standard on this site, nor is it that way in debate IRL. Lincoln Douglas is the best example where the negative's very first speech is where they read their case AND attack their opponent's case. Moreover, it's not unfair to ask him to do both because it's compensated by the fact that I have to refute his case and defend my own in the very next round, which means we're both splitting characters. Prefer this method because it best increases the strategic aspect of debate: knowing which arguments are worth characters and not worth characters is an important skill to maximise the effectiveness of your arguments and the set-up that best allows for that is best for showing who the better debater is, which is the entire point of debate. This means that you hold him to the drops he's had. He didn't respond to my case at all until round three, and doesn't respond to a single attack against his case. Don't let him make a response to any of the attacks against his case next round because it physically becomes impossible for me to respond to them, where he's had the ability to respond to them all debate long. It's not my fault he didn't take advantage of the opportunities in front of him, so hold this against him when you're weighing the round.From here, this debate becomes super simple to evaluate. I'm going to walk you through a summary of the round in this aspect and point out the reasons why you affirm today, which includes the framework debate, the contentional debate, the counterplan now that it's been presented, and on-case refutations on the neg.FrameworkMy opponent pretty blatantly conceded to egoism, which is a game-over mistake on his part because egoism is unique aff offense. Under my framework, the USFG is entitled to do whatever they so choose to do for whatever reason, even if it disrespects their citizens. This means that if you're buying egoism, which you have to at this point because he pretty blatantly conceded to it in the last round, then you affirm because the resolution essentially becomes a truism: the USFG can do whatever they want, so it's morally acceptable for them to nationalize the oil industry and try to join OPEC.And ignore the role of the government argument because:1. It's irrelevant to the debate. Just because the government has respected citizens, that doesn't mean they have to.2. It's not inherently against my case. I can use the $1 trillion plus in revenue to turn around and vastly improve the lives of my citizens, moreso than would be possible if we didn't nationalize. Moreover, he never warrants any kind of "rights" that would be violated by affirming other than his NAP argument, which I'm already winning.So the framework is the first place you can look because there's literally no other framework to go off of. He concedes that he's not running util, and he drops all the responses I make against the NAP so there's literally no other framework option for you to go to to evaluate the round. You affirm straight up here.Contentions:My argument that the USFG gains $1 trillion plus in revenue if we nationalize the oil industry stands. The only responses he makes against it in the last round miss the mark entirely. His attempt to pidgeon hole me into doing either economic relief or debt reduction misses the point I'm making; we can do whatever the flying f*ck we want with the money. We can compensate the oil industries, start to reduce the debt, AND provide stimulus to the economy while having income to spare. The potential benefits we can do with it is nearly limitless, I was just listing examples. Also, he misunderstands the reason why I stated we ought to try to join OPEC. I never made the argument that it gives us cheaper gas, rather I made the argument that "Joining OPEC gives us a voice in the decision making progress, meaning we can steer things toward our advantage" to repeat it literally. Nothing about cheaper prices, rather a desire not to give OPEC the ability to screw us over. Moreover, none of his contentional arguments actually stand since he dropped all the refutations. And simply saying that joining OPEC encourages more oil use and leads to the environmental harms he listed isn't enough to actually make me bite into the harms, nor does he warrant this statement at all. I could join OPEC and not encourage people to use a drop of oil. Counterplan:First off, you're not even evaluating the counterplan because a) it's unfair for him to be able to present case arguments at his leisure while I present all of my case arguments from the very start. It gives me less time to repsond to things that carry massive amounts of offense in the round, which unfairly tilts the debate in his favor and b) don't buy the argument that he didn't have enough character space. His round was 8k in a 10k limit debate, and even if you buy his excuse that he only had a few hundred to spare anyway, his counterplan was only 300 characters, meaning it probably would've fit anyway. He chose not to put it in immediately, which is unfair to me. Hold it against him.But even if you ARE evaluating the counterplan, his counterplan is garbage. 1. He offers no reason to believe that the impacts of this are more beneficial than the impacts I'm extending off from my case.2. He offers no warrants for why any of this is even possible. He gives us no reason to believe that any of this can actually be done.3. He doesn't explain why anyone would actually do this in the first place.4. But even if there's some massive amount of weight to this somewhere that I'm not seeing, you can turn this against him because nationalizing the oil industry is the best way to achieve this counterplan. The government has far more resources than any private corporation or organization, meaning that if anyone can actually force people to follow these standards, it's the USFG. This means that the only way we can actually impliment this counterplan is by affirming first. So you either don't evaluate the counterplan on a standard of fairness, don't evaluate it because it's bad and unwarranted entirely, or affirm off of it because affirming is the only way any of that can actually get done. There's no way he gets any kind of offense off of it. On Case Refutations:Literally every argument I made against his case was dropped entirely. Extend out the reasons I stated why the NAP is bad and impossible and self-perpetuating and insufficient. There's no way he can garner any offense off of this.Then extend out the argument I make against the environmental harms. Just saying we should nationalize the oil industry doesn't actually mean I'm causing harm to the environment. I can nationalize the oil industry and force it to comply to a whole bunch of green-friendly regulations and policies that improve the environment entirely. There's nothing forcing me to take a match to the country's supply of oil. Then extend out the arguments I make against his constitutionality point saying that it's totally legit to nationalize an industry and we've done so multiple times in the past. There's no reason we can't here.Underview:For the sake of simplicity, I'm kicking the underview. He doesn't bite into it, and concedes that he's not making any kind of utilitarian argument. And even if he was secretly and planning to take back the concession next round, I still outweigh through the economic profits and our ability to do a whole bunch of good with that kind of money. Conclusion:This debate is super simple to evaluate and you affirm in a ton of different places:1. The framework is sufficient to affirm because he concedes to egoism and egoism warrants the USFG doing whatever the hell they want to, regardless of what the citizens want. This means since egoism stands then the resolution becomes affirmed before anything else happens in the debate.2. I'm winning the contentional debate because of the economic benefits from nationalizing the oil industry. The revenue that we'll get outweighs any of the impacts coming off the negative case.3. The counterplan doesn't have any kind of solvency to it or any kind of warrant to it at all. Moreover, if it was possible at all, the only way it would work is if the government nationalize the oil industry and imposes it, meaning that you'd have to affirm before this even becomes possible.4. There's literally no other way for the neg to get any other offense because he drops all the responses to his case that I post, meaning that he has no case left.