2011 NDT Octos: Loyolla EM vs Northwestern BK

This was a great debate between Jack Ewing and James Mollison from Loyolla and Layne Kirshon and Ryan Beiermeister from Northwestern. Don’t miss the order for the 1ac, by the way, it is 3 off! 3 off for the 1ac! Northwestern would go on to win this debate on a 3-2 decision.

Constructives

Rebuttals

Decisions

Advertisements

9 Responses to “2011 NDT Octos: Loyolla EM vs Northwestern BK”

  1. What the hell? The 1AC says the other side dropped arguments, and ends with “vote neg”!

  2. Okay, calmed down, watched the round in full. That was… the most weaselly 2AR (4AR?) that I’ve ever heard. As a listener, not flowing, I give a lot of weight to the arguments that the affirmative’s tactics kill switch-side debate and impede education. I didn’t learn a single thing about the topic, and I didn’t really see any reason for the USFG to expand eligibility or quantity for visas at the end of the round. I’m also not convinced that the round becomes terminal under the aff’s framework; conversely, I feel that the neg’s argument that they won the previous round 3-0 holds a lot of weight.

    Who sat?

  3. Abraham Corrigan Says:

    I complained about this to Odekirk when originally watching this debate. The idea of a round ‘do over’ because loyolla didn’t get a fair shake is a fatty double turn with the substance of their argument (not so much of a authentic relationship to one’s excess/waste). While clearly NU doesn’t advance anything close to this argument, i still think it really strategically hurts loyolla by weighing down the 2ar with a bunch of process/tech when all they really want to say is “utility is bad, the entire debate focus’ on this issue & nearly all of NU’s answers ultimately beg the question of whether the concept of utility really has utility – no impact to any of the negatives args = vote aff”

    My 2 cents
    Abe

    • Scott Odekirk Says:

      that is a valuable two cents

    • I think calling it a “do over” dramatically oversimplifies their argument. It’s a continuation (hence the 3nr) which I think jives pretty well with all of their arguments about the impossibility of knowing anything. The idea that approximately an hour and a half of talking can arrive at the truth of a matter is somewhat ridiculous, and the idea of continuing an argument ad infinitum probably demonstrates that, and is a pretty good example of the constant oscillation of laughter.
      While this was not made clear in this particular debate, even if calculus means you can arrive at a destination physically, it does mean you can never really arrive at a argumentative conclusion. Xeno’s paradox is solved by the fact that an infinite number of acts of “catching up” occur in a finite amount of time, but in the process of learning, each step of getting progressively closer to some “truth” cannot be summed away, and so nothing can ever be truly known for certain. The 3nr is a demonstration of Xeno’s paradox in the context of debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: