Resolved: Race is a better predictor of personal happiness than intelligence.

Interesting work, if nothing else. My opponent has violated every convention in debate that we have a rule for, besides ad hom. Specifically, they provided no material or topical argument during the first round of argument. Rather, they offered a simple four words that would be commonly understood to mean something had changed with the users phone. They then try to suggest that these four words constitute an argument after the fact. Simply put, that's obscure and it's cheating. They had plenty of opportunity to offer a case that is resolutional, supporting the truth claim of the resolution. They didn't do that! Rather they tried to adopt an obscure definition for the four words offered in the prior round that are not "common sense" in any practical sense. Moreover my opponent asked for common sense definitions in the offering of the topic, while suggesting that the definition of common sense might be up for debate, begging the question why someone would seek common sense definitions in the first place. Now we know why this caveat was offered; so they could run an abusive case.Academic debate conventions hold that we don't deal with inordinately obscure cases. At best, the affirmative tried to rework the proper order of presenting arguments with the intent of offering an obscure definition for four words that would not commonly be understood to mean what the affirmative claims they mean in the context of this debate. Below it is presented again:"New phone": The new phase-racial nature of societies has led to a shift in the ways in which ethnicity affects mentality."Who dis": This shift is one toward exclusion and destruction. Simply put, those words do not hold those definitions under any school of thought or in any evidence they offered. To fill in the blanks they appear to by offering a kind of communication analysis by latching on to perceived assumption made about the four words when they were provided. Not only is this abusive, it's not even remotely topical. Burdens: Aff carries zero burdensThe affirmative completely failed to meet any resolutional burdens. They had the burden to show us the truth claim; "Race is a better predictor of personal happiness than intelligence." is accurate, and failed to do so. They also failed to provide a clear link between what the affirmative did offer and the resolution. This only thing that is resolutional about the Aff case is that they attempt to talk about race, however obscure. It becomes increasingly difficult to know what the affirmative meant in the analysis of his initial four words, since it is entirely obscure and so poorly codified. Nevertheless we have robustly established it is non-topical (meets zero burdens) and obscure (abusive)My experience tells me this person had a preexisting plan for the abusive case, and may be trying to attack how his four word post was interpreted, but even that is not made clear. Even so, this would boil down to a very poor attempt to define himself as the winner (truism/tautology) and also abusive. Nice try, but in the words of Al Sharpton; "We gotcha"Now lets move on to advocacy. This also meets with concerns about abuse, the aff was asked, per the terms they offered, to provide advocacy prior to the first negative construction. They failed to do that. They loose right there. Changing the order of presentation in debate obscures burdens and reduces educational value in general. This is exactly what they deliberately set out to do, in academic debate, this would not just be a rules violation, it could suggest a behavior problem to demonstrate such blatant disregard for the rules after having already been warned. All this said, in the interest of not dropping the debate I responded with some analysis of the resolution itself, since that is all that had been offered. Moreover I was quite clear on this feature of the debate that seemed to have been dropped. I specifically cautioned against categorical evaluations of people on a basis of race, as unethical and unscientific. Never once, not one single time, did the negative suggest that any society, of any degree of homogeneity should avoid acknowledging social injustice related to race in any way.In fact, the negative case called specific attention the race being a social construct. The Aff tries to spring board from there to putting words in my mouth. Specifically they said: "If we cannot analyze the relationship between race and living standards in a society, we cannot identify and consequently cannot easily fix the race-related issues in our society;"Agreed, in fact this turns for the negative case. The negative contends that categorical evaluation on a basis of racial membership (as a social construct) to predict behavior or mood is wrong. And it is wrong! The resolution as worded implies categorical treatment and evaluation on basis of racial membership. It would be tantamount to a claim that, "some races (whether or not it specifies a race in particular) are significantly more sexually aggressive."Prescribing a categorical treatment of people on a basis of race will always be amoral, it's eugenics, then and now, and it's racist in the most vile sense of the word. The negative presumed to caution against such policy and behavior since there was no analysis or clear advocacy offered by the affirmative. If the affirmative had offered meaningful analysis of the topic in the first round of argument as agreed to I would have spoken to that analysis, but rather this has become about the affirmative attempt to circumvent debate conventions. "Shame," as we say in parli...The after-the-fact attempt to try and re-codify four words, deliberately used to imply a change in phone impacting participation, now repackaged and offered in a context wholly divorced of the original meaning is utterly abusive and diminishes the value of debate. The fact that it was likely a premeditated trick to cheat debate conventions makes it all the worse.Quick responses: Aff stated: "In addressing Con"s arguments, we must first dispel once and for all with the fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he is doing; he knows exactly what he is doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world... it is a systematic effort to change America."This is not topical whatsoever. He also failed completely to actually link it either to the negative case, or to the resolution. Xenophobia in Japan: Again, the affirmative failed to show us where this was topical, like in the entire case. It may have a rejoinder to this "counter-critique" but that also, is not made clear. Even if this were the case, it would turn to the negative, that better showed the resolution as presented lends to racism and demonstrated that we must understand race is a social and not scientific construct if we are to remedy social injustices that exist and have an inherent link to racial prejudice. Neg meets burdens, Aff fails to meet burdens and tries to cheat. Vote Con!!