Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1) Neither competition nor cooperation is superior always. But, when we evaluate which one is superior
most of the time, we need to look at general application and everyday use. Specifically, the round.
2) He contends that my framework is false because the resolution is not constant. However, if we were
to treat it as an undeniable fact, then we would never compete or we would never cooperate. That's not
real-world. We should look to the real-world to weigh arguments.
3) He claims that because I have no value, you have no way to determine whether cooperation or
competition is better. I direct you to my original framework statement - the resolution should be upheld
because "it is true in opposition to the false negative position." If I can show you that the negative
position is false or hypocritical, I should win the round. Additionally, he says I need to present "good"
that will come through upholding competition. Again, no, I don't. I just need to show you something bad
that won't happen, or prove that something is true, or that it has to be used.
Will Malson FastFlamingo 1AR Page 2 of 5
Humans are no different. War is an obvious example of deadly competition within the human species,
but most people don't realize that the same continues even during times of "peace." In our competitive
economy, those who lack the skills, education, talent or opportunity to compete well become poor. And
the poor suffer from death rates that are at least six times higher than the rich. (5) This higher death rate
is due to a lack of resources: namely, health care, nutritious food, toxic-free environments, winter
heating, information and education, and countless other means and devices that would protect and
prolong their lives.
A) Cross-apply my AC: If he convinces you that he's right, then I should win because he used
competition to show that. Three responses.
First, debate hinges upon competition. Without competition, debate is of no educational value. Not only
is it of no educational value, but it is without purpose, having no point of existence. We might as well
read some philosophy books and discuss them. It's an end-game we don't want.
Second, cooperation plays a minimal role in debate. All we've agreed to is what existed before - speech
and skirt length are the only things we're cooperating with. Everything else is up for grabs - any case,
value, criterion, quote, response to an argument, CX question, etc.
Third, mix and match - cooperation plays a minimal role, and debate hinges upon competition. Without
cooperation, the activity would be less desirable. But without competition, the activity could not exist.
It's the difference between a bad economy and extinction.
B) His actions speak louder than words - look at all of the competition he's engaging in. He clearly
supports competition as a means of achieving excellence. However, notice the lack of cooperation - all
we've agreed to is a judge and pre-existing rules. Debate hinges upon competition, and his entire
negative case hinges upon debate existing. Therefore, his entire role in this debate hinges upon
competition, and thus you should affirm the resolution because it cannot be false here.
He doesn't address this. He could've based his negative strategy off of what was in this paragraph, but
doesn't and accesses my hypocrisy point.
Will Malson FastFlamingo 1AR Page 5 of 5