2017 Emory Semifinals Harvard Westlake CE (Aff) vs Harrison RP (Neg) — Watch with transcript
Videos
Shared
Debate
Practice vs AI
Research
settings
Videos
Shared
Debate
Practice vs AI
Research
settings
Videos
Shared
Debate
Practice vs AI
Research
settings

Videos

  • All Videos

  • Lectures

  • NDT

    College Policy

  • CX

    HS Policy Teams

  • LD

    HS Debate 1v1

  • PF

    HS Public Forum

  • Greatest of All-Time

  • My Favorites

  • Watch History

Research

  • Research Workspace
  • Card Search
  • Team Research
  • Leaderboard

Practice

  • Practice vs AI
  • Prep Workspace
  • Practice Partners
  • Practice Drills
  • AI Judge Decision

Coaching

  • Tournaments
  • Coach Workspace
  • Research Progress
  • Laptop-less Debating
  • News & Forums

Insights

  • Team Rankings
  • Debater Level
  • Topics & Video Statistics
  • Prediction Markets
  • Formats & Rules
  • Glossary of Terms
  • All Features

  • All Videos

  • College Policy

    College Policy

  • HS Policy Teams

    HS Policy Teams

  • HS Public Forum

    HS Public Forum

  • HS Debate 1v1

    HS Debate 1v1

  • Lectures

    Lectures

  • Watch History

  • Greatest of All-Time

    Greatest of All-Time

  • My Favorites

    My Favorites

  • WSD

  • ACC

  • Speech

Research

Practice

Coaching

Insights

DocsBlogGitHubGithubSupportPrivacyRedditReddit
Video library
'17Semifinals

2017 Emory Semifinals Harvard Westlake CE (Aff) vs Harrison RP (Neg)

Feb 2, 20171.0k

HW CE affirms against Harrison RP. Panel is Timmons, Zhou, Kukreja. Decision is a 3-0 for the negative. Here are some suggestions for redos: 1. Do Connor's 1AR again with a huge emphasis on putting a disad/solvency deficit on the counterplan that has a large impact. Part of the decision was because every judge believed the counterplan solved the entire aff. 2. Do Raffi's 2NR with an extra 15 seconds impacting plan flaw to give yourself another potential out in the 2NR; it is mainly conceded and simply given a response of "no impact" so impacting it could possibly be another route to the ballot. 3. Do impact weighing between the net benefit of the CP and the aff to make sure there is a unique reason for why banning a specific type of speech doesn't outweigh the benefit of free speech in general. ——————— Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/debatedrills Join our newsletter: http://www.debatedrills.com

Comments

Loading comments…

Pro Constructive

Affirmative

Play to where each speech begins and press Mark start, or let Detect speeches find them all — the timeline, the playing marker and each speech's captions follow.

Judges

What else could the Pro Constructive have done? Claude drafts 3 alternative responses and predicts how a flow judge would vote after each, next to the speech as it was given.

  • Flow judge: A technical, experienced circuit judge who votes on the flow: dropped arguments are true, extensions need warrants, and weighing decides close rounds.

Simulated responses and ballots are Claude's predictions from a rough transcript, not real results. Each run is a new AI request.

Related videos

R6Emory·VikrantDebate

The 1AC was ICC. The 2NR was settler Colonialism. The Decision was for the affirmative.

Feb 17, 20260.3k
QuarterfinalsEmory·VikrantDebate

The 1AC was UNCLOS. The 2NR was the Constitutions DA. The decision was for the negative.

Jan 28, 20250.5k

Queue

Nothing queued. Add a related video with itsbutton and it lines up here, to play when this one ends.

DocsSettings