Emory GK Disclosure Round 2
Eugenia Giampetruzzi
Similar aff to round 1. Taking out the space scenario. Adding a new one at the bottom of advantage 1. Here are the cards minus the new scenario.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Harvard College Round Robin 2020" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to harvard-college-round-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/harvard-college-round-robin-2020/CANLg-GBk1ttoCpEKoJQ36mzQaESxUbq5G1QXqM4o_0wOL6X%3DOQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Grace Kessler
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/harvard-college-round-robin-2020/8c6618a4-946d-497c-994f-07fdab5b039dn%40googlegroups.com.
Eugenia Giampetruzzi
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/harvard-college-round-robin-2020/09246ffc-b6a5-41fd-88f3-95e34060e3d1n%40googlegroups.com.
Brett Bricker
Emory
Grace 29.2
Eu 29.2
Samford
Sawyer 28.9
Maddox 28.9
Great debate. I voted affirmative for Emory.
A small risk of the AI advantage + net offense against the DA (if there is a link) means Emory controls both routes to the ballot.
First the advantage.
Prior to nitty-gritty evidence stuff, I had two competing impressions of the last two rebuttals.
1-Samford seemed very light in explicitly addressing the AI scenario, nor do I have Walsh on my flow. So, if it’s really completely external to the rest of the cyber defense, it’s huge.
2-The 1ar spent less than 10 seconds on the AI part of the advantage, and it being the only thing in the 2ar meant that some of the impact comparisons felt new.
Based on the affirmative’s Ahuja and Johnson evidence, Emory wins that at some point the US will make cyber response automated through AI, and that makes a US response to low-level provocations certainly escalatory.
Some negative evidence is not applicable. Previous cyber-attacks (lewis, lonzdale) and human-driven de-escalation (Kroenig, Lanoszka) do not assume integration of an AI response.
There are parts of this advantage that Samford is OK well on:
---Russia’s broke, so are they going to go probing? (Beliakova)
---Attackers seek to avoid escalation (Lewis)
Those things make the advantage medium-sized. I’m knocking it some more because:
---There isn’t a time frame for when AI will be integrated, and whatever explanation there is on this point is completely new.
---The “this is totally different!!!” theme of the 2ar took me by surprise, so I’m giving neg a little more credibility that their defense applies than Emory would probably want me to.
Overall, there’s a small risk. It’s long-term, but existential.
Second the DA.
Samford doesn’t have “link” evidence and Emory doesn’t have “no link” evidence. This is where some debating about the plan would help. Most of Samford’s ev assumes big NATO withdrawal. The card that is closest for Samford is the Brent card, but it does not make a spending argument, just a general cohesion/intra-European agreement argument.
This link question is difficult to decide, but the risk of a link is larger than the status quo. Not sure by how much, but it’s something. The problem for Samford is that even with a link, Emory has certainly won 2 things:
1---Defense spending is key to the economy (Kington). Some tech errors here.
2---EU economy is going to decline. The debate is close on the current status of the economy, but the warrant of coming Brexit make Emory win the momentum/predictive tie-breaker (Goodman).
For the climate argument, Emory is far ahead on the failure of this particular climate package (Krukowska, Amaro x2). I am as scared of warming as the rest of us, but it would still help to have an impact card that makes a more clear argument.
Overall, there’s a small risk of a link, but if there a link then Emory has turned the internal link to EU economy and won sufficient defense vs climate.
Samford, I really appreciated the case debating. It was very strong and you convinced me that this aff solves very little. Some arguments that might be worth pursuing:
---Does the US effectively shapes NATO norms?
---A5 won’t be invoked in cyber arena
---we won’t set up AI to launch on low-level attacks
---human intervention prevents AI launches
Emory, well done. You both debated great. I could do without “learn respect” and “ridiculously silly” --- mostly because the 1ar could read a card instead of stunting. In the 2ar, do a bit more to re-create the entire scenario I’m voting to prevent. I spent a reasonable amount of time piecing together your AI arg, and sifting through defense to figure out what did/did not apply. It’s .2 or .3 speaker points higher if you do that work for me. I was having trouble piecing together how the aff solves AI, and what part of your IL it was based on. Some arguments that might be worth pursuing:
---You need a card that’s like “EU wants the plan’s cyber threshold” to more effectively no link this DA.
---You could rely a bit more on “consultation solves” to refute the spending link
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/harvard-college-round-robin-2020/CAN61m2-jmyH%3DgqFG0cTMexrWXb%2BS30wUBaGV%3DWLSgZhsq%2B%3Ddsg%40mail.gmail.com.