I’ll show you on the lbl

F/W

He says not a voter – doesn’t respond to the warrants in our Discourse First impact evidence – I’ll extend them -

1- Reps shape policy – he hasn’t contested the thesis of the K that orientalist representations of terrorism create inaccurate policy actions because they always only ever respond to this caricatured, monolithic image of “the evil terrorist” rather than investigating the actual structural causes of terror.

2- In round impact. Fiat is illusory, the plan doesn’t happen. The only thing we control in this round is our discourse. In the same way a judge should vote a debater down for using sexist or racist terms, they should vote if we prove their rhetoric is bad. If the judge has to endorse the discourse of one of us, it shouldn’t be the aff.

He says impacts outweigh but:

1- cross apply both above – he can’t solve his impacts in a world where his policymaking is based on orientalist reps AND his plan doesn’t happen. Role of the ballot is endorsing discourse.

2- oh and dehum outweighs.

He says action is key -

Cross apply both above about racist action being counterproductive and illusory.

He says motives -

He misunderstands the K. Its not about his ‘motivations’, its about the rhetorical framing both he and his evidence uses to explain and frame terrorism. His impact evidence proves this; the idea that any and every terrorist attack could lead to extinction or even nuclear war presumes a certain epistemic understanding of terrorists that our link ev says just isn’t accurate. Embedded in his evidence and understanding of the concept “terrorism” are these representations, which is why we get our link ev.

Agreement insufficient -

If the aff said “[censored by the admin dude] the n-word” then agreed racism was wrong. Just agreeing to our impact doesn’t mean you get out of it.

INTERNALS.

He says plan not defeated -

Proves he just doesn’t get this kritik, extend above analysis about turning case and reps first because fiat is illusory.

He says non-u -

Proves he doesn’t understand kritiks in general. The alternative provides a unique option for the judge to take to refuse his threat construction. The alt doesn’t have to “solve” for all instances of racist threat-con – it just has to reject yours, in the same way the judge should drop you for using the word “[censored by the admin bro] the n-word”. The K also means the plan is UNDESIRABLE on a policy level because its policy implications are predicated on an inaccurate epistemology.

And, we still solve – gendered language kritiks prove that reps K’s change the ways debaters approach discourse.

He says no CP -

First, not all opposing debaters are “he”, and treating them like they are is sexist. “He” is not gender neutral. “He” naturalizes the idea that “man” is the norm, contrasted against “woman”. People like the OP are reasons why patriarchy and discrimination exist.

Second, so what? A counterplan would be as illusory as your plan. We’re doing discourse analysis here.

“TURNS”.
group em, they boil down to poorly articulated policy paralysis args -

1)we don’t preclude policymaking
2)we are in fact a pre-req to it – accurate approaches to terror are necessary to policymaking – you’re a caricature at best.
3)No internal to why we PREVENT policymaking once you get your reps right. Once you figure terror out, you can act on terror.
4) No Impact – If your action is undesirable it shouldn’t be taken- dehum outweighs your aff, proves it undesirable, means we shouldn’t act in those cases.

Next time, try not to sound so sophomoric.

What I wish I would’ve done more in high school debate was Step 1. I usually jumped right into Step 2, and as a result, I lacked a lot of general knowledge that could have helped me throughout all of my rounds. But I made up for it somewhat with Step 3. Understanding all of the arguments on both sides will help you immensely.

And Peter, your tree count is pretty impressive IMO. I’ve only consumed 1 tree at most