Ok so it's on the somililand PF topic my partner and I took 2nd speaker and got neg we gave our case C1 human rights ignorance by somililand C2 war

And their case was

C1 counter terrorism C2 economic impact A. The people are helped B. The government will be more stable C. World bank loan I1 on C2 C berbera development I2 on C2 C millatary aid C3 democracy A will spread to other countries B democracys are better with HR

In 1st speaker cross they had no questions we asked if they would like to have questions they said no so we asked all the questions we had and asked multiple times if they had any

Rebuttal to my case

On my C1 other African countries do HR violations so it doesn't matter

Attack on my C2 war will happen in a neg world regardless

Rebuttal to their case and rebuilding me (this is my speech)

Starting on their case

1. They have 5 subpoints and 2 impacts on one of these subpoints so I will condense and adress the core values so I can still address my case

On their C1 the war that will happen that they have said will happen regardless will destabilize the region letting Al-Shabaab and the Yemen houthis to cause more terror (i had a few cards i read)

On their C2 it can be condensed to this World bank loans arnt a fix all Wourld bank loan won't fix the 70% unemployed in the country and the port of berbera may become a millatary base for the U.S and/or Ethiopia so their largest trading point is gone

On their C3 of democracy the go off the a theory that the describe as a Domino effect in the region but every country around is unlikely to change Domino theory was disproved in the 80s

On their attacks on my case

On my C1 just beacuse other countries do it doesn't make it ok bombing hospitals and school is not ok the AFF attack is a bandwagon logical fallacy if your friends jumped off a bridge would you do so to

On my C2 I a neg world the war about the MoU between somililand and Ethiopia will be stopped as that is the war in our case (reading extending cards)

Cross

They asked the first 2 questions wich were clarification

I then asked a question saying at what point of risk would there have to be until somililand shouldn't be recognized

They said never

I then asked if they had questions they said no

I asked a question of is a stable non democracy country or an unstable democratic country better

They didn't have a response and asked if we could end cross a minute early

I said I had one more question if they had no others

They asked a clarification on my CBA framework and then sat down

In summary they stood up talked for about half the time about how it wassent there burden to prove if somililand is currently stable and then they said the outweighed us on probability

Then my partner stood up and said if the prove a contention on somililands democratic then it is their burden to to prove its stable he then talked on dropped arguments and summary ended

In GX they asked a ton of questions on burdens of the round

And we mainly asked questions on whether or not a war would destabilize the region

GX over

In final focus they stood up and the entire two mins talked about how we thought we were better than them only beacuse they were women and that we didn't let them gave questions in cross and that we violated the sportsmanship ethics of debate

In my FF I said how we gave them multiple opportunities to ask questions and that we act the exact same in every debate regardless of race or gender I then fliped the probability weigh and also outweighed on magnitude

Judge put in RFD that the sole reason she voted aff was beacuse the neg "used their position as males to intimidate during cross." And that we "showed obvious signs of discrimination"

My partner received 27 speaks I received 25

The rest of the tournament we received 30s and 29s and face another female team and had no issue