Current LD topic

As a brief road map; I'll be reviewing my opponent's last speech, going AFF and NEG as needed, and I'll close with a few voters. --- NEG- V: 1. My opponent claims I don't link to the resolution, but doesn't tell us why not. this is an abusive attack as I don't know how to defend and argument if my opponent doesn't tell me what the argument is. Also ignore the definitions attack; these ruin debate 2. America was founded on justice; the warrant is intrinsic to the resolution VC: 1. First my opponent's only warrant is on ground; in all debate you want the judges to reject your opponent's stance (This is exactly what my opponent is doing right now) thus the warrant is faulty and falls. 2. No warrant; the link is in my attacks (as I explain later on) Obs1: True; I never claim evidence is bad. however with-out logical analysis, and value basis; evidence is worthless. We're debate Value, not policy. Obs2: This attack is abusive, my opponent doesn't present the evidence in the round; and I don't have another speech to negate it. Thus this attack is N/A Obs3: Untrue; The resolution doesn't give me a burden of proof, (something my opponent doesn't negate) thus my job is simply to disprove my opponent; My V/C is established in both my observations, and the attacks I make on my opponent's case. AFF- 1. Untrue; this is a logical fallacy, the Value is supposed to "guide" the debate- meaning it has to be an inward belief, or an idea. At the point that a Value is and end, there is no guidance but a goal. This is policy debate; as my opponent is solving a problem. Value debate is where we determine the highest Values in a situation 2. AFF's prior refutation defeats this defense. His value is a self-proclaimed "end" an end cannot be vauge, but must be specific. otherwise there is nothing to guide anything; we have to keep in mind that the value is the scope to view the round, which "Global Stability" does not do. 3. First of all there are two things here, a. My opponent doesn't cover the attack I made thus it will extend across and he still has a poor criteria b. The fact that they are intertwined does nothing for the realm of this debate, as it is still not a weighing mechanism; ultimately my opponent does nothing in the way to defend my earlier attacks on his Criteria, he simply re-iterates the earlier faulty claims. My opponent's Criteria utterly falls. 4. The attack I make here is only relative at the point my opponent's value falls; I have shown that "Global Stability" is not a value thus there is no value for this criteria. 5. a. Two points here, first my opponent admits in his opening remarks that true terrorism is a drive for global stability, link this with my prior attack and he looses the main impact here, as this is essentially the equivalency of the red scare. Second my opponent's latter remarks about Hegemonic Stability Theory, only prove the lack of content to this card; we as the Global Hegemon want to instill the fear akin to the red scare in our people so we can hold the world in out vice-grip of our own bias. At this point we lose justice, and the resolution cannot be properly met. We deny out central core values; war no longer becomes something we fight for justice, liberty, or to protect what is right, but something we fight solely to maintain hegemony and power. This corruption can certainly not be a high value in the round, and thus you must vote it down. b. I think my opponent is missing my point here; I do not call religion into play as the main point I wish to drive home, but as an illustration to clarify my prior point. Thus I simply extend my prior un-attacked point across. 6. This proves my point exactly; so as an extension on my prior attack, I'll add my opponent's refutation into the mix. My opponent's value isn't "global stability" but "United States Stability" at this point we realize that my opponent's case is entirely biased to their own side, again through this we can never gain Justice, America's core value and principle 7. Cross-apply defense; I'm not arguing that it's empirical evidence thus we should not look at it, that would be utterly stupid; what I'm saying here, is that it is nothing BUT empirical evidence. It is at the point we realize that it is solely empirical evidence, with absolutely no personal analysis; that we can see it's irrelevant to the scope of today's debate. This is a value debate, so at the point that his contentions are only trying to prove a point (a debate style/technique more suited for PFD) he is not fulfilling the standards of this debate; thus I don't need to waste my time arguing them. Empirical evidence is good, but it IS NOT the driving force behind argumentation. He does not have that driving force, thus these contentions are irrelevant to the debate. As for my opponent's drops and extension portion, I did cover these in my constructive, so these are going to fall. Voters: 1. V/C debate; my opponent doesn't have a value; whereas I do. My opponent doesn't attack my criteria, but simply calls abuse; whereas I show that his criteria doesn't uphold justice, and ultimately defeats it's ultimate purpose. Thus this too falls, and you must look to the Negative's. 2. Lack of reason to vote AFF; My opponent does not fulfill his BoP in terms of what should happen in an LD debate, whereas I do so. at the point we realize this there is simply and utterly no reason to vote AFF. When we realize this it is obvious that the vote goes to the NEG, as I was able to uphold the burden the resolution gives me by refuting the AFF stance. Therefore for all of these reasons, I urge a Negative vote in this round!