WODC Round Two - Energy

My opponent's entire case rests on trying to convince voters that the debate structure I adhere to is rare or unfair. When in reality it is the most common one used on the site and most of the standard bearers use it. This red herring argument fails and it's just lazy debating. The intention is to win the debate by trickery or deception, instead of by providing extra arguments. I have no doubt a few people here will fall for it, because of bias for my opponent. It's a failing strategy however, and has cost him this debate. List of standard bearers who use this format, or a modified one if they instigate the debate as con. The list isn't extensive, but space is limited, they're all top ten on the leader board , active and well respected. Most people not on the leader board use this structure as well. 1. Mikal http://www.debate.org... 2. BSH1 http://www.debate.org... 3. Subutai(actually goes out of way to say no rebuttals by con in R2) http://www.debate.org... 4. Thett http://www.debate.org... 5. Wylted This is specifically everyone in the top ten who lays out the round structure. Everyone else either says 1st round acceptance or doesn't specify anything. If Zaradi doesn't like the most popular debate structure on DDO, I would've been happy to accomodate him, but he ignored it until I posted my round. He's wrong when he says it's not fair. Each side gets an equal amount of character space to issue arguments, rebuttals and counter rebuttals, and they each must do them in the exact same round. He should be happy, under his proposed system he'd have less space for counter rebuttals than me. Voters, don't buy Zaradi's desperate attempt to game a win here, count his dropped arguments as dropped, and ignore the red herrings My opponent has actually failed to provide counter arguments in his final round, as he is supposed to, so in actuality, he's dropped most of my rebuttals, and those must be weighed in my favor. Contradictions Neither me nor my opponent are obligated to be consistent. If he forwards to competing arguments to affirm the resolution, and one fails than the other argument can still stand and win it for him. Just as he can take multiple routes to affirm the resolution, I can take multiple to negate it. This isn't some form of special pleading that took place in my arguments, just a statement of fact. NAP My opponents rebuttals for the modified NAP, I proposed don't work. "First, the NAP is a horribly flawed philosophy. There's nothing about it that actually binds actors into following it. Furthermore, even if there are people who follow the NAP, there's no protection or recourse in the inevitable situation where someone doesn't follow the NAP." there's really nothing that binds anyone to any ethical system, even the ones he proposes. This is a red herring, We're discussing what should be done. Most certainly it is important to consider ethics when examining what should be done. Pro points to a situation, where a person robs somebody with a gun and since NAP doesn't discuss that specific scenario, it isn't a good guide. NAP, tells us what is ethical. Given that the robbery is unethical, there is recourse in NAP. As stated the government was created to preserve our rights (something not contested). The gun to the head is a violation of rights, the government has an obligation to seek justice against this individual. The courts and police should handle such an unethical action. Environment/counter-plan My opponent drops all my arguments that fossil fuels are bad for the environment and that a reduction in prices, and my opponent ignores my arguments about how supply and demand effect the prices of things. His system which proposes to make oil easier to obtain and cheaper, ignores the laws of supply and demand and the negative impacts of such a huge supply of cheap oil. He doesn't mention it, but I suppose he thinks that voters will allow politicians to keep oil prices artificially high, despite the fact that the conversation of gas prices is something the everyman discusses and complains about everyday. Corporations have incentive to keep gas prices high, politicians do not. My counter-plan is dismissed as coming too late and not being exact enough on how it would work. However, my opponents plans on how to implement the affirmative are also missing. This is a double standard. My counter-plan needs as much explanation on how it could be implemented as his plan, and so far his plan has no description on the implementation process. Constitution We know that the United States should obey it's own laws, and my opponent has provided no argument for why the government should violate it's own laws. Pro states that nationalization has happened before so it must be legal. This is the equivalent to saying that murder doesn't happen at because it is illegal, or maybe Rape must be legal, because it actually happens. People and governments break laws all the time. Laws aren't a magic force-field that stops people from doing bad things. It's true that the USA has violated the constitution before, and have had to be stopped by the Supreme Court. The Supreme court just ruled bans on Gay marriage are illegal. This means that the USA, has actually been found to be violating it's supreme laws, and now the law books must be amended. Under view My opponent has dropped this contention completely, but it should be noted that it's absurd this debate, even uses "The world is infinite" as a premise in any of it's arguments. Egoism My arguments about the definition of the US government are dropped. Which is that it is a collection of citizens, beholden to the citizens, so what's best for the USFG is the equivalent to saying what's best for the citizens of the United States. My opponent seems to confirm that interpretation of what the USFG is. "the role of the government is to serve the people that it governs, then nationalization of resources allows for governments to best ensure that resources are used to best serve the people" So we're both in agreement on the purpose of government (even if we disagree with how it's carried out), which is to serve the people. If the government is intended to serve the people, it's fulfilling it's egoistic role doing so. Conclusion 1. The structure used is fair and is the most common used. These arguments should be ignored. 2. In the previous round in the section titled "substance" I undermine my opponent's premises. Every single premise he makes is shown to be bad, and he drops all these, ignoring them in the "counter rebuttal" round, which is round 4. These arguments show how nationalization hurts the citizens of the USA, by attacking their retirement investments, violating their rights (see NAP). 3. The law of supply and demand argument is dropped and shows that more available oil and cheaper oil, will cause more consumption which harms the environment. 4. The principle of NAP, which is merely shrugged at and not fully addressed, shows that nationalization of industry, violates the rights of the people. Since the government should do what's best for the people, obviously they shouldn't infringe on their rights. Some Misc. Responses The structure arguments are annoying me, so mostly those will get addressed here, even if unnecessary because of the obvious ridiculousness of them. This is written in a flow of consciousness, so I may address a few other points here as well. "There'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." Absurd, there is nothing in round one that suggests the structure you propose, which is more unfair than the one I like adhering to. It is clearly an unspoken standard on the site, and most people adhere to it. I do it in every debate, unless I just want to negate. You're the only one, I've ever heard complain. In several types of IRL debate, this is the basic structure. LD isn't the only thing out there. "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 No, the very next round after R3, which is where this was written, you'd only have to defend your own case. R2 arguments, R3 rebuttals, R4 counter rebuttals and whatever your style is in concluding a debate. Each individual gets the same amount of rounds and characters to do each task, there is nothing more fair than this structure, and unfortunately you've forced me to deviate from it. You've honestly spent the entire debate, attempting to gain some sort of unfair advantage, whether it be contesting the most common debate structure used on the site, and one I'll continue to use, because in no way is any judge going to let you win this debate, which is such a clear loss for you, because of that silliness. You should've actually tried to defend the proposition, or used the 1 strategic forfeit that the WODC allows, which would've deprived me of half a point, instead of resorting to trying to weasel your way into an unfair win.