WODC Round 3 - Economy

So one thing is important to know about the debate to understand that makes evaluating this debate super simple:The links to the K, as he repeated multiple times in his rejection of my "No Link" arguments, are reliant on the topicality argument in that his K doesn't link to the plan rather it links to the resolution. The problem with this is that my plan doesn't encompass the entirety of the resolution: as I stated before and he never responded to (read his silence is compliance saying), his refutations need to be specific to the plan in order to be responsive to the affirmative. This means that if I'm winning topicality, the K goes away before you even evaluate the K because it's not specific to the plan, rather it's a generic response to the resolution as a broad concept. On My Last Overview: Bzzt. That's not actually what I said. His response to the overview makes a fundamental mistake in how defensive and offensive arguments interract with a "burden of proof" and in terms of affirming and negating the resolution, and while I don't have the time (6 hours to round deadline) nor the character space nor the patience to fix it right now, but I'll spend a little bit of character space clarifying myself. My argument was that the vast majority of his arguments (aside from the K and the CP) are defensive in nature, meaning that they don't function as reasons for why we ought to negate the resolution, but rather they function as reasons we ought not affirm the resolution, which doesn't look like a very big difference but in terms of the flow of arguments in a debate round that's a big f*cking deal. 100% of my impacts and arguments are coming out of my plan, which is straight affirmative offense. So if the round is in anyway close in the minds of the voters and you're not entirely sold for voting for either side, err on the side of the affirmative because I'm the one giving you reasons why I ought to win the round, whereas he's giving you reasons why he ought not lose the round rather than giving you pro-active reasons as to why he ought to win the round. On Running A Plan:He concedes I can run a plan. This in and of itself is a link to topicality within the plan (he can still argue that my plan is sh*t, but that's an entirely separate question). On "Topicality" of the Plan:His only warrant for why I have to meet the a and b definitions is that, effectively, he said so and if he didn't mean it that way then he would've formatted it differently. The problem with this response is that I don't have telepathy. I can't read Con's mind to understand that that's what he meant. All I see is that you list two words (Globalize & Globalization), and you provide two definitions. That in my mind means that you're defining both words. Don't blame me for your lack in clear formatting. I meet the B definition so that should be sufficient. And I definitely meet the B definition. Look closely at his response and then look back at my previous reply. I list out all the parts in the definition explaining that I meet and *how* I meet. His response this round? He just says that I don't and then gives a bad analogy to what the plan is and how it doesn't meet his conception of what globalization ought to look like. I've already explained how I have all of the things that he says I don't have. He doesn't make a reasonse for why I meet those things are wrong, rather just says that I don't meet them. Don't think more needs to be said here. I meet his definition, which means that the plan is topical by his definition. On the Kritik:So because I'm winning topicality, you're already disregarding the K because he already conceded that it's not specific to the plan rather it's a generic kritik of the resolution. The problem with this is that my argument as to his responses needing to be specific to the plan to be responsive to the affirmative goes unresponded to. This means that the K is already irrelevant to the debate from the get-go. But let's go to the other arguments.The problem with the K is that it's just not really very well fleshed out and explained. The impacts are there yeah, but he's not doing enough work to explain how I link to them. Extend out the three reasons I argued for why the K doesn't link to the plan. His responses just aren't sufficient.The first reason linking back to my first observation is just too late on his part. He already dropped the observation for two rounds previously, trying to respond with "there's no warrant" after dropping it for two rounds is just too late. Moreover, even if it isn't too late, I clearly explained the warrant coming out of it: all I have to do is advocate for "more globalized", which isn't what the K is saying I am doing. The second reason his only response is where he blatantly and outright concedes the K doesn't link to the plan. This is pretty much where discussion about the K's relevancy just stops. The third reason is where Con shows his lack of understanding of the lit that he's trying to use. I can only show that I don't use a "world ordering process" if you've shown how I use one in the first place. There's not even a clear explanation of what a "world ordering process" is coming out of the K. For someone who's supposedly spent hours reading and understanding the literature behind the K, there's not that clear of an explanation of what it is coming from him. And wanna hear the best logic in the world being used by Con? Con says I'm using a world ordering process. I ask what it is before saying I don't use that. His response is "how do you really know then????". It's kinda your job to show how I use one rather than just say I use it and stick your fingers in your ears... This is important because if he's not even explaining what a "world ordering process" is, then there's no reason to believe that affirming leads to this thing, meaning the K doesn't even lead to the resolution. On The Perm:I'm kicking the perm. He's not turning any kind of offense off of it, so there's no reason to continue evaluating it.On The CP:I love how he criticizes me for fiating international nations and then responds to my "Brazil wouldn't do this" by fiating Brazil...Unless my opponent is about to say that he lives in Brazil, I'm pretty sure he just fiated an international nation...But even just pressing the magic "fiat" button isn't enough. He doesn't respond to the fact that Brazil has made everything as difficult as possible for the Yanomami. He doesn't respond to the fact that Brazil has had numerous opportunities to punish and shut down the illegal mining and has not done so. He doesn't respond that Brazil has international legal obligations that tell them that they *have* to do this are they aren't in the status quo. Just saying "Yeah, we can fiat all that" isn't anywhere near sufficient. And the literal only difference between the CP and the Plan is who's implimenting it: I'm arguing from the UN working with the CCPY and he's arguing Brazil. Literally everything else is the same. This means that the plan and the CP have the same benefits and harms to it, therefore there's no "unique advantages" to the Counterplan: They are exactly the same. If he's asking for less vagueness (not that there was really any in the first place), I'm setting the record straight (again) right here: The plan I'm arguing and the counterplan he's proposing literally are the exact same, with the sole difference between the plans being the actor. This means that the entire debate between the plan and counterplan literally comes down to who's plan is more likely to be implimented by the actor of choice: me with the UN/CCPY or him with Brazil. So let's talk about the plan real fast.On The Plan:The plan is literally the only piece of offense left up on the board. And the plan is the only thing with even a slight possibility of success. Extend out the three reasons at the bottom of my plan as the reasons why you're preferring the plan over the CP. We're already finding success eliminating illegal ranching from Yanomami territory, so there's no reason to think that we can't solve for the mining harms and fix the problem entirely. The UN has already voiced there support for the Yanomami, meaning I don't even need to press the fiat button: they already want to help the Yanomami. And then Brazil is actually internationally obligated to follow the plan. The fact that they aren't means that the UN is within their right to step in and impliment the plan themselves. None of these receive any kind of response, and all of them function as reasons why the plan is far more feasable than the CP.Conclusion:At the end of the day, this debate is really easy to evaluate, despite the length. Let's review:1. I can run a plan, he conceded this. 2. The plan meets his definition of globalization, so it's topical.3. The K doesn't link to the plan, and doesn't even really link to the resolution all that well. In terms of actually impacting the debate, the K is irrelevant. 4. The exact details of the plan and the counterplan are exactly the same. The only difference between the plan and the counterplan is who impliments the plan. And my plan is far more likely to be implimented, meaning the plan is far more likely to solve for the harms than the counterplan.