2019 NSDA Lincoln-Douglas Debate Finals
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2019
- Resolved: Violent Revolution is a just response to political oppression.
Affirming is University School NC (Nehal Chigurupati), Negating is Liberty GJ (Grace Johannes). 12-1 for the negative.
One word to the audience, if you're going to clap, don't clap during cross-ex, and don't clap for only one speaker. Cmon pple
That’s so true.
the cheering during the 2nd cx was mad disrespectful, cmon people
I 100% agree with you. The North Korea example was good, but she completley disregarded the question of how could they escape the country. She literally conceeded a subpoint to him! How does that deserve acclamation?
JV As a privileged white woman I recognize in her the same the same. It is probably hypocritical of me to judge her, but I strongly doubt she has ever been opressed as is borne out by the lack of any feeling in her demeanour or voice.
@@JV-fo4uo I would actually politely disagree. I would make the argument that starting a violent revolution in NK, is harder than escaping. There has been footage of people actually escaping NK, but there hasn't been any evidence indicating that a violent revolution would actually work in NK. In fact, evidence indicates that when encountering authoritarian gov'ts, violent revolutions will almost always lead to more violence. As well as she didn't disregard his question, she made the arg that affirming would only worsen the situation. Even the aff could prove that leaving NK is nearly impossible, she still wins on impact calculus. On the line by line, She didn't really concede his subpoint. As well as he dropped more of the line by line arg. In his 2AR he doesn't even extend a lot of his arg he just gives repetitive voters. This wasn't even a close round she beat him 12-1. All judged by experienced judges. If I were in that crowd I would have cheered for her cause she objectively deserved to win Nats. Good job Grace (btw I went up against grace at nats and she crushed me so I highly respect her and I'm willing to defend her lol).
@@sugarsantillan3037 it is impossible to collect evidence on a violent revolution working in NK
@@nadiazayman779 that has literally nothing to do with her arguments. You are an extremely racist person to say that. Further, being white means nothing. A homeless white man's son, does not have more privilege then Oprah Winfrey"s son.
Some of the comments on this video are so disparaging. I'm a high school debater who was at nationals to watch this debate. Let me make two things absolutely clear: 1) She won that round and 2) The comments about how she is "having a mental breakdown" are extremely sexist. Comments like that highlight the problem with sexism in the high school debate circuit. If a female debater is assertive, she is oftentimes seen as "too aggressive," "overreacting," or "having a mental breakdown." These are comments never made about male debaters. If a female debater isn't assertive, she is seen as "too nice" or "not assertive enough." It's a Catch-22 situation for female debaters where they are judged and held to a different standard than their male counterparts no matter how they debate. As a male debater, I have obviously never been personally victim to these criticisms, but I have seen them first-hand. My debate partner is female and I've seen comments made on our ballots to her about things like how she dresses which is completely unprofessional, uncalled for, and sexist. Full stop. The comments like this on this video are disgusting. She probably composed herself and debated better than the people making these comments ever could.
To the comments about how she should have lost, I have three responses. Firstly, you can say her argument is inherently flawed if that's what you believe, but that was never properly articulated by AFF. A judge has to vote off of the round and what happened in it so even if an argument is flawed, that doesn't matter if the opposing side isn't able to effectively refute it. She debated her point extremely well and was able to articulate her points much better than AFF. Secondly, her argument wasn't flawed. I am personally on the fence on this issue, but I think her argument holds a lot of merit. Thirdly, on balance she is the better debater.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
@O P She was definitely more "aggressive"/"assertive" but
a. she wasn't even that aggressive it's just that her opponent was not that aggressive. People, male or female, in debate are a lot more aggressive and
b. comments did take it to an extreme because of sexism. If a male debater was as aggressive, he may be called out on it like you were, but he wouldn't be ridiculed with people saying he was "having a mental breakdown".
The most ignorant part though is people insisting she should have lost because of delivery(which should ideally have no impact whatsoever on the debate) when the aff never had a clear response to the "violence begets violence" arg that her case centered around. There's a reason the decision was 12-1. But you specifically did acknowledge that she won.
I'm not calling you out on being sexist because you're not, but I'm just articulating your statement that sexism has nothing to do with it is either because a. you haven't read the comments or b. you're willfully ignorant
@O P
a. To be honest i've only debated in novice and jv, so maybe people are more professional in varsity, but typically people are more agressive at least in my experience.
b. While the high voice probably does play a part in it, I don't think that her voice alone leads to people somehow saying she's undergoing a mental breakdown.
@@iconictennismoments9101 Yeah I'm not saying she's not aggressive. I'm just arguing that she's called out way too much for it, and I personally have seen more aggressive people called out less.
The comments pointing out that her argument is flawed are sexist? I've been called out for being overly aggressive a multitude of times and I am a male debater. The way she talked with the double breaths and crying voice made her sound like she was having a mental breakdown. The reason it may be more exacerbated in female debaters is because they usually have a high voice and that projects the crying voice more. This is basic logic, but then again you have your pronouns in your Twitter bio so what should I really expect?
@@elgreco998 "The comments pointing out that her argument is flawed are sexist?" The comments referred to as sexist are the ones criticizing her delivery rather than her arguments.
"I've been called out for being overly aggressive a multitude of times and I am a male debater." Obviously, if anyone, regardless of gender is aggressive, they should be called out. But in this debate, while she was more aggressive than her opponent, there are definitely more aggressive styles of debate. She didn't do much to warrant being called out.
"The way she talked with the double breaths and crying voice made her sound like she was having a mental breakdown. The reason it may be more exacerbated in female debaters is because they usually have a high voice and that projects the crying voice more. This is basic logic, but then again you have your pronouns in your Twitter bio so what should I really expect?"
Criticizing her voice is subjective, but at least from my perspective, she was nowhere near a "mental breakdown". You coming out with a random, false troll at the end doesn't help your ethos much.
The aff could have used the stonewall riots as a violent revolutionary act that had minimal deaths and led to less oppression.
not a revolution
@@davide.3478 I mean he does say a revolutionary act, rather than just a revolution
@@pandu5137 But the resolution is specifically about revolution.
@@evanli8813 Violent revolution isn't necessarily something aimed at toppling a regime, sometimes reform is the goal. For example, the civil rights movement could be described as revolution.
Zachary Wheat How was the civil rights movement a violent revolution?
Came here to find hope after the Trump-Biden debate. Thanks for showing us how it's done
This is pretty incorrect still. The negative is almost having a breakdown. This isn't how it is done...
@@shadowkille8r99 That's just her voice??? If anything it's the content that matters.
@@choerrim7745 I think that what you said is pretty true. The content is very important. I was just saying that “showing us how it’s done” is probably not the best way to analyze the negative debater.
@@shadowkille8r99 she did "show us how its done" though. I dont see your point at all
Michael Sattler i thought it was really good so
Both of these debaters were really, really good (sobs in bad debater). But I think that the affs. case about non-violence being ineffective was probably something that he could’ve reworded. Non-violent forms of protest against a government have been successful before. So maybe something like “non-violence is less affective in the long run”. Of course, this is just how I interpret this, feel free to tell me what you think, or if your opinion clashes and why.
*sobs in no talent*
I debated LD and policy in high school like 11 years ago and I wasn't so great at it. I can't read fast enough, lol. I had fun and liked being part of a team, more than anything. There were quite a few holes on both sides. Past me wouldn't win in this round. I wrote my own rebuttals as the aff while watching to relive those times 😌
Y’all fr tho, to everyone saying crap like the AFF sucked because of 12-1, or the NEG was having a mental breakdown, make it to the NSDA Finals and then you can talk. The AFF and NEG people are hella better than you, so you have no reason to disrespect them whatsoever.
The prerequisite to debate is not speech but reason.
SJ Y. I didn’t mean “you can talk” literally... it’s an expression
SJ Y. And there is no reason for people to bash or make fun of them when those people themselves don’t have the guts to do this either
@@goatmix3775 so movie critics cant criticize movies because they cant make movies? Nice logic bro
@@zee_terminator2850 but they are knowledgeable on the topic of movies, but most of these people are trolling
This was such a great round! While watching it, it was definitely hard for me to tell who I would've voted for if I was judging. What really stood out to me, and how I knew Grace was going to win was just by her last speech. Nehal did a great job, but her very clear points, her confidence, and how she clearly states all the problems in Nehal's argument just made it clear that she won. Both of these debaters are amazing, obviously since they made it to the top two in Nationals. I hope to be as good as them someday!
Grace and Nehal both did a great job, but I agree it's clear Grace won (though I think they are equally talented debaters). The issue is the burden was definitely on Nehal who is arguing for something that is historically/ presently strongly opposed by most people in the United States. IMO the problem is he tried to approach this by playing it safe (citing the American Revolution, US backed rebels in Syria), which are NOT the strongest examples that exist of why violent rev is justified. If he had cited the strongest examples (Chinese Revolution, Cuban Revolution, Filipino guerrillas against US colonization) and talked about controversial issues such as colonization (the reason behind revolution) and the overall failure of the US Civil Rights Movement outside of the fall of Jim Crow (one of the most famous nonviolent movements in modern history), he would have had a better case. But, of course, taking that stance is very risky in Anti-Communist, Anti-Cuba, Anti-China, Anti-Black Nationalist America. Thus it's not surprising Grace won at all, but man it would have been interesting if Nehal had taken that risk (although given the circumstances it is understandable that he chose not to).
I believe under enough research, Nehal could’ve been able to provide all of that and won easily. Look to Jo Spurgeon, 2020 ld champ, she admits to having woken up 30 minutes before the topic was released and spend 6-9 hours a day on her case until nationals. Look at her debates and she is on fire, knows exactly what she is talking about. Knows every argument made and every response to every argument and every response to every response to every argument. Her research payed off as even the most talented debaters in the country crumbled against her. If any person wants to win nationals, they have to research extensively and know literally everything.
Yes! I totally agree with this. There is a heavily strong bias against violent revolution. I’m also liked how you mentioned the Chinese revolution and Cuba revolutionary which are truly democratic and powerful instances of revolution that led to human emancipation. The US has a heavy bias against this kind of stuff as ingrained in our educational institutions so I’m unsurprised there is an overwhelming majority vote against the resolution.
@@jssenguyen3277 yeah exactly! It would have been a hell of a debate and very interesting if he had framed the date in that way. Even if he still wouldn't have won, I believe it would have been a debate whose value went beyond simply this competition. But as you say the US education system tries so hard to stamp out that history that being able to access it in the first place would have been hard as a HS student i'm sure
@@MCAwesome15 i go to the school that nehal went to, and i also do LD. according to our coach he would spend like 6-8 hours every day prepping for that topic. he was so good because of how much prep he did
I wonder if it is possible to share the scripts for case analysis?
Just watch a different round at a NatCir debate. These cases are weak and easy to flow.
@@firstlast7994 I youtubed NatCir debate, but nothing showed up.
any links?
@@MartinLutherMP look up 2017 TOC LD finals or something like that
@@firstlast7994 they’re both lay cases so they’re weaker than prog cases
How much prep time did they get? It looked like more than usual.
Us LDers get 4 minutes instead of 3
I could never debate alone how do LD debaters do it.
i start LD next month, just got done w world schools season :)
@V RL LMAO i dont remember talking specifically to you tf .
Hannah Dunn ok but no one cares so...
@@rehanshah1279 wtf was the point of commenting that then? of you dont care then move along and stay in your lane. you're coming at a freshman when im only metioning something that im passionate ab.
Hannah Dunn aight no one cares tho so there was no need for you to comment
good debate ! i was there
Who won?
Neeraj Joshi the girl
The affirmative won easily. But also, there's an inherent problem with the negative argument that renders her case irrelevant: Justice does not require effectiveness. Justice is simply good, whether or not the people who resist oppression win. The colonies, when they declared independence from Britain, were justly resisting oppression regardless of whether they won the war. The same principle applies to other violent revolutions.
This is exactly right. Justice does not equate to practicality.
The colonial era is irrelevant as it's outdated.
@@kiersontitus7322 That argument only applies if you see Justice as something that must be practical. That issue has already been addressed, though.
You do know that the negative won 12-1?
@@katepeckham4704 Yes, I know that the judges overwhelmingly voted for the negative. But I still think that, on the argument scale, the affirmative won.
The negative debater's argument is inherently flawed, in that it talks about the potential violence to the oppressors while ignoring the real and chronic violence, through socially condoned means such as starvation due to insufficient food, death due to lack of health care and suicide due to the constant debasement by the oppressors, to name a few.
Additionally, the so-called Syrian gas attacks have been proven to be total propaganda, and the woman who testified to having seen babies on the floor was an actress.
she gives examples of chronic violence
It not that she ignores the original oppression, its that the violence and death created by revolutionary acts usually doesn't outweigh the original oppression. She could have also emphasized the point that in most cases oppression is opinionated. Some groups may think that they are being oppressed and some may think the opposite, and justifying their points through violence is not the best alternative.
It was an example that people knew, I agree with that rebuttal, but nonetheless the odds are that that point would make a bigger impact than a more obscure (if arguably more truthful) one.
It doesn't matter if her argument is flawed, the AFF failed to call it out or to rebut it.
aff couldve debated better but that applause in second cross was so disrespectful.. i could not imagine being him
Thank god this isn't the NDT
Hey, national competitor for LD here. The comments about how the guy should have won are absolutely wrong, from an LD perspective she crushed him. Also, the volume she is speaking at is typical? I feel like the negative comments are from people who are not in debate. Presentation DOES matter, it’s part of being convincing. She came off as more passionate and confident than he did, I would be scared to debate her lol
Amazing debate!
For such a high level stage, not really.
I was a bit disappointed that nobody thought about Gandhi's non-violent demonstrations that led to the end of British rule in India. Also, after 9/11 our toppling of Iraq without a plan for a new government didn't work out so well, so toppling an oppressive system without a political plan for governance is not such a good idea historically.
I was thinking of Gandhi's non violent demonstrations also. However, such a prevalent topic will have tons of research and cards for both AFF and NEG, thus, it would be more helpful to use cards that aren't too "On the surface" since your opponent may or may not have rebuttals/counter evidence against it.
who else is from ardrey kell here?
:0 who knows
the resolution is obviously on the affirmative side.........
Fairness is not a voter.
She only won because she was a female
@@sjy.53this aged well
this is beautiful...
Lots of Pacifist in the audience who are not appreciating the merits of an argument and it's logical progression, but instead have sided steadfastly with non-violence as the argument in itself, as if anyone prefers violence.
TheAsianRepublican Nobody was clapping for the opinions. That’s the antithesis of high school debate. They were clapping because she was doing better, and had good questions in CX. She defended her argument better. This event isn’t about opinions at all.
Nah the aff argument is that any change from the status quo is good, but the neg says that when we have a violent revolution we see even worse oppression. The aff could not disprove that response.
Citing the Rwandan Revolution would have ascended the AFF argument to godhood
straw man fallacy from negative, effectiveness is not the same as just.
look to the ends. What do the ends show, more oppression. I also wouldn’t call it a straw man, aff literally says “we can kill some innocent people.”
I must say this was a good ass debate and both sides debated really well, overall I think a big factor for the neg winning was her speaking skills. The crowd and the judges definitely listened a lot more to her because she was being more aggressive and I think that's the primary reason she won. Overall I think aff had the better argument and her case was fairly flawed.
I think both of their arguments had both great points, and flaws, but I definitely feel like it was obvious that she won after her last speech.
Did the negative side ever mention a third contention? She was speaking way too fast so I lost her train of thought
No, only 2. Neg speeches are shorter to have time to respond to the affirmative
the fact that ppl r saying the guy should of won bc of the way that the girl presented herself is wild. its a debate, its abt what they're saying, not how theyre saying it???? nobodys even listening to what theyre saying or have even seen one of these debates before
this is why you shouldn't repost NSDA videos. There will be people with opinions, shitty opinions, sexist and rude opinions. Which is why to protect HIGHSCHOOL students from these opinions the NSDA disables the comments in their channel.
mr moneeeeee
monopoly man moment
I want to know the mindset behind the one judge who voted for aff
Liam Webb the lady was agressive and having a mental breakdown
Welcome to debate that's all it is aggressiveness and mental breakdowns
@Evan Li she was raising her voice a lot and was shaky, and during the 2nd cx she tried abusing him
@Evan Li Lmao it kinda does, it seemed like she was getting a lot of anxiety. and while he was questioning her she had a hard time stopping, like she didn't want him to get too much questions in
@Evan Li Most certainly an abusive norm. She cuts him off, evades the question, and invokes response.
A debater arguing that non-violence is inefective is like a dog chasing his own tail.
Dude the pf topic is about military in the middle east its possible
@@liamwebb8918 all the same he would look more persuasive wearing an ammo belt when arguing that 😁
@@pauljekyll3508 I agree
@@liamwebb8918 I dig people who even watch things like this. Be well :)
@@pauljekyll3508 dude debate is literally some peoples lives
This resolution sucks ass and will end neg in any trad circuit. In progressive circuits a lack of good actors makes its worse
Its really hard for LD topics to be "neutral" or "two sided" both sides just have to find ways to overcome it. Thats the beauty of debate
Any...
LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL PEOPLE HERE?
Camdenton ftw
Srsly. He got his ass kicked, Dude!!!
Not me
Liberty, Ohio?
I’m from Liberty North lol
Wait, so who won?
the girl, but I think the boy should have
neg
@@harangbkim no
@@MCAwesome15 the girl won
@@bravesquid6183 the guy didn't and shouldnt have won. The girl was way bettrr. These commenters really think they know more than 13 lifetime prestigious coaches
Negating sounds like she's going to have a breakdown
Carl The Friendly Llama she’s talking slowly. And, that’s just her voice. She won the debate, she wasn’t freaking out at all. Frankly, everyone knew she had it after the NC. She wasn’t breaking down, it’s just her natural voice.
LD is based more in emotion than other debate formats because it weighs ethics heavily
@@bxmboo6591 well emotion as in using emotion and ethics to convince ur audience, not literally break down
@@Michael-ui6zc yeah i agree, her argument was very emotional and she seemed like she was on the brink of a breakdown, but it's very likely it was intentional.
@Evan Li First thing we learn in debate, have confidence in your own argument and in yourself.
off got shit on
12-1 for the neg? That's surprising.
Idk if u do debate, but usually in national final round, the judges are more tech than appeal and presentation, but if this was in a local tournament, than most likely 9 out of the 10 times, the AFF would've won pretty easily
@@mohnishkarthikeyan3503 disagree but ok
@@mohnishkarthikeyan3503 MOHNISH NO WAY LMFAO
420 views and only 11 likes and zero dislikes? waht? and why do they only look forward and not at each other?
Madison D you should look at the judges not the opponent
You don’t want it to get personal.
You're making your case to the judges, in order to attempt to convince them that they should vote for your case
Thats the rules. you cannot look at your opponent
i looked at my partners and the judge docked point for me being too personal
Debate isn't about screaming and trying to rip other pple
i mean
*it kinda is*
Um, I do debate, and that’s exactly what it’s about.
you clearly must not be a LD debater
@@xoxosophia7002as a accomplished LD debater I would argue LD is not ripping into the person and rather the logical and argumentative side of debate.
No cap but the guy should’ve won tbh
Agreed
@Evan Li Flow should give the win to affirmative because she runs an argument that prereqs on practicality. Justice doesn't require practical application, it is a value-filled concept intrinsically. She presses him for an example of correct application, he fails to provide, and that I assume is why he drops the round but the flow would disagree. He needed to push philosophy harder than ethical pragmatism and challenge that practicality is necessary.
"Liberty, once lost, never returns" - John Adams. This concept is true - within a social contract between citizen and government that stems from a deontological perspective, it doesn't matter how effective a consequence-based action is. You need to act objective to the contract in every situation, not shift the target for better outcomes. This is an apriori that dictates the terms of the contract: when you change the terms case by case, you suffer from tacit, long-term deficits and destructions of rights that never return because the government now can breach its contract using outcome as a justification. Thus, to prioritize long-term stability over short-term benefit, it would be necessary for certain virtues (especially justice) to remain constant regardless of the outcome. He easily wins by pressing on it more and I still believe, if I were an adjudicator voting tabula rasa, that I would vote for the affirmative ballot because of that logical deduction. She does do an incredible job of moving the target though. Bad debate norm in general.
@@sjy.53 Her argument are not about the practicality of violent revolution but rather that violent revolution kills innocent lives and never really leads to any change. The aff conceded this with his own meta-analysis that said that researchers will never be able to truly prove that violent revolution ever caused the change in government. She also argues that there are better ways. These arguments easily outweigh under justice. Justice doesn't need practicality, sure, but that's not what she's arguing. She's saying that violent revolution kills innocents and can't be proven to ever lead to meaningful change.
@@sjy.53 He also didn't run deontology, so voting based on your own arguments is immoral. As a judge you have to vote an what you hear from the debaters.
@@sjy.53 nehal ran a justice and a mitigating structural oppression v/vc. Both of which are consequential, so how are you going to say the ends don’t matter in the debate?
One word to the negative speaker, please relax and take a deep breath!
Can you count? Cuz that was more than one, in fact I count seven
@@countspyder4769 Can you use the proper variations of words? Because 'then' isn't the right variation to use in this context.
Poopy
thank you for those wise words, beethoven
Stinky
Dt
Terrible round
this girl is really annoying to listen to...she sounds like shes gonna cry...
Sexism is dumb
@@carlthefriendlyllama2126 there are thousands of studies done that say there are subconscious and societal factors, that lend themselves to higher rates of disapproval towards female speakers.
@@carlthefriendlyllama2126 clearly your opinion on debate is wrong. You say "that's just what debate is" but maybe your narrow reductionist views of what debate can be are taken to task by the fact that she was a national champion? Delivery isn't and shouldn't be as important as argumentation in this context. The competetion is a critical thinking excercise.
@@carlthefriendlyllama2126 clearly not in this context. She's a national champion.
@@josephwofford8537 Only won because she would've had a breakdown if she lost. Admit it son
Rename the title to "Liberal/socialist propaganda "
The guy should have won. This is racism.
plz tell me ur joking
lmao
Racism? What? Absolutely not. The girl was just better. I have no idea why you think this is racist.