Sections+2017

=Sections 2017=

Round 3 - Jefferson v. Rosemount
1ac - pretty unclear/mushmouthed.

1nc - lumping all post-modernism together is a pretty facile criticism. It's not one thing except to the right.

2ac - Good speech. too fast at the end, but you adapted when I said "too fast"

2nc - I think you are on the right track of framing the debate as science/non-science but you need better explanations. Too often your impact to your argument is "un-yeah"

Block strategy - the 1nc got spread out on the framework flow. Too many disads to their interpretation were dropped. Also, the 1nr didn't answer the "we meet". I think that "we meet" is not a good argument, but it does need to be addressed. I wonder if the 1ar will extend it, and move on. I think if your frame in this debate is science good, the framework debate is a place for you to prove the impacts to those arguments.

1ar - I had trouble following you

RFD - The aff said we should have a geneological analysis for a queer diaspora in the transnational adoption process. The neg says "counterplan tax credits to pay for diaspora tourism in china." These are NOT competitive. Both go in the direction of a diaspora. The negative is certainly a more concrete proposal, but it does not clash with the aff. Therefore, the abelism net benefit is resolved by the permutation, since they are not saying "ban transnational adoption." 2AR drops the Post-modernism K, but the 2NR did not do any impact work on that argument.

Round 4 - Highland Park v. Eagan
2AC - When answering a counterplan remember this acronym: STOP (Solvency, Theory, Offense, Perm). In the case of consult counterplans, you should point out that there is no evidence that Russia would say "yes" to the plan. If Russia says no, then the aff becomes is disadvantage to the counterplan. Also, consult counterplans are artificially competitive, so there is rich ground for theory objections. When answering disads you need to diversify your answers. Have a combination of non-uniqueness arguments, no link arguments, link turns, impact arguments, etc. You need to give your partner different options to choose from when she's giving the 1ar. Good refutation on case.

RFD: I vote negative on the QPQ debate. Negative says that engagement requires a quid pro quo deal between the U.S. and the PRC. The plan unilaterally removes the Wolf amendment, but does not present a bargain in exchange. The negative further argues that their interpretation is better for ground and limits. The 2ac responds first that they meet the plan, but they do not say how they are a quid pro quo arrangement. There is no concession in the plan text. Second, the affirmative counter-defines "engagement" to means to be involved with china. In the block the negative says, the plan does not meet that interpretation either. This point is conceded by the 1ar. Since there is no interpretation in the round that the aff meets, I vote negative on topicality.

The 2ar makes an argument that the negative interpreation is impossible since they can't control what China does. This is a decent argument but it is (a) new; and (b) not fully explained.

Round 5 - Rosemount v. Highland Park
1NC - you need to think about your anti-capitalist method vs the anti-capitalist method of the affirmative. Let it crash is probably competitive with communicative engagement. rosemount, why you gotta steal so much prep?

2ac - when you are done be done. Don't summarize your arguments.

The debaters miss the nexus point of the debate. The question of the debate is whether letting capitalism collapse is better than adopting a strategy of communicative engagement. At a top level, while I think that Cap is the way to go against this aff, the links that the neg reads are too generic. You would be better off by reading links based on the human rights rhetoric, or communicative engagement, threat construction. Even the state would be a specific link in this debate. You combine those links with your Covello evidence, and you would be crushing, However, there really isn't any specificity in the cap links. This allows the aff to claim that they solve for a capitlaist mindset. If you had a specific link you would be better off. I think that the aff solves the k, or goes the same direction as the K, so it is permutable.

With regard to topicality, the word "engagement" is literally what the plan says. They are T.

Round 6 - Eagan v. Jefferson
the block - Both of you are debating like the aff isn't there. You are not clashing with the aff, but giving me the 1nc's "greatest hits." You need to compare your evidence to there evidence. You also must compare your story to their story.

Topicality - Neg is attempting to extend through the proverbial brick wall. The biggest flaw here is there no evidence supporting why the aff doesn't meet. Academic exchanges are not space cooperation. Plus the plan normalizes diplomatic relations related to speech, which meets the affirmative' interpretation. Also reasonability is dropped, and the aff has a counter-interpretation so that's pretty much game over.

Case -- No negative offense on case. There is only a risk of the leadership advantage or the space mil advantage.

The Counterplan theory. A) tension between the counterplan and the K is not a "performative contradiction." B) While it's conceded, I do not vote on it because I can vote affirmative because the case outweighs the disad.

The K - neg drops vague alts bad as a voter. They also drop framework which pretty much means I can ignore this in my decision.

DA - I assign this a very low risk. North Korea should have already caused the disad. Aff makes a cross-application that the leadership advantage should solve the impact. Also the instrinsicness argument is not dealt with in either the block or the 2nr.

Negative needs to make choices. Extension of topicality and the K traded off with time that would have been better spent on the disad.