home

=Welcome to Pete Nikolai Ballots. I post (most of) my ballots here.=

You can find my old ballots[| here.] =January 22, 2016 - Southern MN NSDA round 1= 2ac. Start with the case. They have conceded that structural racism causes everyday violence. This means that you should solve the disad links. You also dropped the white terror PIC. This should make this a very quick decision for the neg. Both speakers should be listening to the order to make sure arguments are not dropped.

The block. They dropped a counterplan. That should be the entirety of the block. They can't win on any other position.

2nc. Your not answering the intervening actors argument. Your argument doesn't account for how to weigh race impacts.

1ar - They didn't extend the domestic surveillance violation. if you arae going to address it, you should be making cross-applications to the "substantial" violation they did extend. Otherwise you are wasting time. The purpose of the 1ar is to start making comparisons that the 2ar can exploit. You also dropped the white supremacist PIC.

2nr - If this speech is anything but the white terror PIC I'm gonna beat you senseless. You don't need to talk fast.

RFD Aff drops the white terror pic. The counterplan, which allows the FBI to continue to use informants to fight white terrorism investigations, solves the case better than the case. The solvency of the counterplan is uncontested. There is no theory objection, and the counterplan is competitive. I vote negative.

I generally like the aff and it is set up to beat this negative strategy. On the counterplan you could make "perm do both" and explain how the cp is not functionally competitive with the plan. Also PICS bad theory. Finally, think about a solvency deficit argument that if exceptions are allowed to the plan, the squo will circumvent the counterplan.

=January 22, 2016 - Southern MN NSDA Round 3= 1ac. The 1ac needs a better description of what the Byrne program is.

Aff. At some point in the debate you need to explain what programs you stop funding and why those programs are important to the war on drugs

1AR was a real mix of top shelf and bottom shelf. There are times where you are really advancing the ball and doing a great job of spinning 2ac answers. There are other times were you are just extending tag-lines on arguments the 2ar is going to probably need. Extending conditionality, for instance, may have skewed your own time because you got to politics with not a lot of time.

RFD I vote affirmative on the perm. Neg reads a prison abolition K against a plan that functionally defunds the war on drugs. The debate comes down to the permutation of "do both". The neg is over reliant on "method debate means you do not get a perm." I have never heard a good explanation of this argument, and it is always debated out as a tautology. This round is no different. What is it about a method debate that makes a permutation incoherent? Also, why is this a "method" debate. The aff defunds the war on drugs, the alt gets rid of prisons. What is methodological about that? What are the competing methods? Absent any explanation of this, I can't figure out why they don't get a perm.

The negative says that even if the aff gets a perm, that the aff still links. OK, but the neg needs to go a step further and explain why the perm does not resolve the link. We can both get rid of the carceral system and defund it at the same time. Furthermore, the Bouie evidence says that a policy reform is necessary to address racism, and the negative never clashes with Bouie or references it in the 2nc or the 2nr.

=January 23, 2015 - Southern MN NSDA round 4= The 2nr was overly complicated. First, the counterplan solves the case. 1AR does not contest that. Second, there is no offense on the counterplan. The 1ar does not contest that. They only have a defensive argument about not solving the net benefit.

(1) CP solves the case - 1ar drops 1nrs analysis of Israel empirics about how they solved "racial profiling at Israel empircs. The 2ar makes the argument about how circumvention applies to the counterplan but I think that is new. Also, 2ar does not address that training is necessary to address racial bias at the airport, so I think that the counterplan probably solves the advantage better. (2) there is no disad to the counterplan. Again, the closet thing to offense is new in the 2ar that there is a solvency deficit. (3) There is only a risk of the net benefit.

= = =January 9, 2016 Round 5= Gauri - You extended an abu-jamal card that wasn't in the 1ac.
 * Wayzata || pts ||  || Edina || Pts ||
 * Liam || 27.4 ||  || Megan || 28.6 ||
 * Gauri || 28.5 ||  || Margaret || 28.7 ||

The plan seems to raise questions of object fiat.

Liam - You cannot interrupt Guari in the 2ar. She is the captain of the boat.

RFD. First, neg wins that the case is low risk. TSA is a racist institution and they have other techinques to profile muslims. I am not sure that the Meme or Harris arguments go far enough for the aff in this debate. I think they are great for answering other agents are racist or that you don't solve racism writ large, but post plan the airport will still be racist.

The politics debate comes down to how good the cards are, but I cannot call the cards. I resolve this debate in favor of the negative because they make the claim that their evidence is future predictive. The 2ar was pretty smart on saying that even if they are future predictive it wouldn't be until 2016. But it is not responsive to the reasons why it will pass, and I think that you need a better reason WHY the Cowan evidence would subsume the negs. ev. Since there is little risk of the case advantage, and no offense on the poltics flow, I vote neg. = = =January 9, 2016 Round 4= Washburn seems correct on the applicability of the Irigiary arg. Never was great in cross-x in this debate.
 * Edina || pts || rks ||  || Washburn || pts ||
 * Megan || 28.4 ||  ||   || Grace || 28.5 ||
 * Margaret || 28.6 ||  ||   || Never || 29.7 ||

CX of 2ac -- don't set up a framing question about how the neg wins. Talk about how you win. Now if they win a risk of a link to their criticism you lose, and Never seems to have a lot of ethos on the link debate.

RFD: I vote negative. This debate comes down to a question of "spin" and Never does a better job of spinning what the aff does than the aff spins what its does and the aff is the aff. First, the "self-reflection" strategy of the aff is an insufficient method of confronting the flaws of status quo debate. It is analogous to Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy, by walking into his office and shouting "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY" to actually confront ones privilgege they certainly need to acknowledge it, but white people need to take it to the next step. They need to take actions that puts their privilege on the line. This means either (a) taking actions that forfeit that privilege - i.e. affirmative action; or (b) talking to white people who do not already reflect

The link debate on the K is conceded in the 1ar. The aff does not address how the framing of "masculine hegemony" damages black men because they are the primary example of the masculine hegemon. The 1ar needed a defense of this framing vs "patriarchy" as Never suggests in the 2nr.

Edina needs to work harder on the perm debate. They need to explain how "different strategies for different people" resolves the link? If the perm still links to the criticism of the understanding of "masculine hegemony" then the perm doesn't resolve the link and it proves that the aff strategy is bad.

There does seem to be a pretty clear shifting in the 1ar to the 2ar about what self-reflection does in this debate. The 1ar is pretty explicit at several times in the 1ar that the value of self-reflection is that it makes them "better" white people. I have that word flowed at a couple of spaces in the 1ar. In the 2ar Claire tries to absolve the aff of this mistake.

=Section 5 Round 4= 1ac - Cut the second advantage. It is underdeveloped and that time could be better used reading cards on how you solve the aff.
 * Forest Lake || pts || rks ||  || Roosevelt || pts || rks ||
 * Ron || 27.5 ||  ||   || Chris || 27.9 ||   ||
 * Connor || 27.4 ||  ||   || Rilee || 28.1 ||   ||

1nc - You don't need to read T is a voting issue for each t violation. you can cross- apply. Also, use cx to pin them down on development or exploitation, and then just read one of those violations.

2ac - Make sure you point out that the capitalism k does not have an alternative. therefore it is a non-unique da.

Clashing with the 1nc is more important than extending a conceded case. You can use the conceded case to answer and outweigh the offcase K's.

Because you protect the oceans, you are at least comparatively advantageous to the squo. You have a good thesis to answering the T arguments, but you need to structure your argument more. To answer a T argument you need to make (1) a we meet argument; (2) a counter-interpretation for evaluating whether the affirmative is T; (3) a reasonability argument; and (4) some voting issue arguments. You also need to answer each of the T violations. You could concede the exploitation violation and just say you meet the development argument. You also need to answer both of the kritik arguments. You didn't have any answer to the First Priority argument (the "U.S. off the planet" k). To answer a K you need to (1) explain why the alt does not solve either the case or the K's impact; (2) theory about why the K should not be evaluated; (3) offense about why the alternative is bad; and (4) make an argument why the K is not competitive. For example, wouldn't getting the U.S. off the planet result in the plan

2NC - Strong, strong, strong analysis of how the First Priority argument interacts with the case. My only criticism is that the 1nc did not read the Tinker or Freeberg cards that you are extending and using in the 2nc. You don't really need it since you are using the K as a PIK (plan inclusive kritik). But if you want to use Tinker and Freeberg you have to read them. On the case argument you said that the plan is not "necessary" when you meant to say "sufficient." The civilian whaling is an alternative causality to the case so the plan is insufficient, not unnecessary.

1nr - You don't need to extend each of the dropped T arguments. Just pick one of the ones they didn't drop. The best argument they had may be applied to subsets (t- oceans) so don't answer that. Just extend T-increase.

1Ar - I like your realistic argument on First Priority. You need to impact that argument. What do you want me to do about the fact that the K is unrealistic? Should I vote against them for reading it? Should I ignore the K? Also, this argument wasn't in the 2ac. The 2nr will likely say that it is new. Why should you be allowed to make this argument. Did the 2ac say something that justifies it?

2nr - Typically, the 2nr should not include both T and other issues. If you are going to go for T and First Priority you should pick one specific violation. Explain the violation, explain why they don't meet the violation, then extend the voting issues. You did a great job of the K. The only thing you need to do better is explain why late-breaking arguments in rebuttals are bad. For example, you could say "don't allow new arguments in the 1ar - i don't get an opportunity to cross-examine them on their realism argument." Alternatively, "don't allow new arguments in the 1ar -- they moot about my 2nc." (You kind of said that, but need to be more explict on that."

2ar

RFD - The story of this debate is the affirmative understood their case better than the negative did, but the negative was better at the technique of policy debate.

I vote negative on the "give back the land" K. The 2ac conceded this argument, and the negative extends it through the debate. By endorsing an anti-imperialist methodology, I solve the case, and the basis for all wars. The 1ar argues that the alternative is not realistic. However, I give little weight to this arguement because it is new. The 1ar needs to identify why they should be allowed a new argument. Moreover, the 2nr explains why the unrealistic nature of the alt is a better way of addressing imperialism. The aff does not identify a solvency deficit for the alt, nor points out that the alternative is not competitive with their aff.

=Section 3 Round 1= 1nc - there isn't a link to social ecology. explain your link to post-modernism. In cross-ex, June presses you on this and says your card is specific to Focault. Look at the titles of their works. You might find it there, but just citing a work that cites "Foucault" does not make them "post-modern."
 * Jefferson || pts || rks || Rosemount || pt || rks ||
 * June Kuoch || 28.6 ||  || Andrew Sauvageau || 27.5 ||   ||
 * Cindy Chiev || 28.5 ||  || Lauren Kirkley || 27.7 ||   ||

2ac - When you are out of things to say, its ok to stop talking.

2nc - When you run out of things to say, it is ok to stop talking. You do need to say more about the Yancy evidence, and give specific examples of how Yancy is engaging in post-modernism. Also, there is no internal link between the aff and holocaust denial. Explain that more.

1nr - Use parallel construction. Don't repeat the 1nc shell on T, answer the 2ac line-by-line. Your failure to answer the 2ac, makes T a non-starter as a 2NR choice.

1ar -- that argument about the Killing Fields and Hiroshima was top-shelf. Good job. However, you flirt dangerously with the link. Their argument is that the problem with post-modernism is that it treats truth as subjective. However, the Yancy evidence is an impact turn to their link. It is saying that the problem with the negatives argument is that it assumes a white-hegomonic stance. Rather than saying your are critiquing post-modernism, you should be saying their modernism is wrong and dangerous.

2nr - all new. I can't find 99 percent of what was said in the 1nr.

RFD First a word about the 2NR choice. I am not sure whether the solvency argument should have been part of the 2nr or not. In the 2NC it was flagged as a net-benefit to the alt. It is more developed than the social ecology argument in the block. But there is no risk of an impact to the solvency argument since the 2nc never had an explanation of the internal link between post-modernism and the holocaust.

The 2nr was entirely new. The 1nr did not explain any of the links, much less the reformism link. The 1ar flagged that there was not link analysis in the 1nr, so I lean aff on the perm. The 1nr on the perm said, essentially, "nuh-uh." The 1ar read a footnoting disad to the alt which was dropped by the 2nr.

=Section 3 Round 2= 2ac - You were kind of a blur on the K. You need to be more clear when you are starting a distinct argument.
 * Highland Park || pt || rks || Eagan || pts || rks ||
 * Ian Dill's Partner || 29.1 ||  || Charlie || 28.2 ||   ||
 * The Ian Dill || 28.7 ||  || Kathryn || 28.4 ||   ||

2nc - I'm not sure how you win the debate on case alone. You need a reason why corporations are better than communities. You showed why community based fisheries are bad, but not why they are worse than the squo.

1ar - hellacious speech on T. On the case, I think you need to take a judge moment to explain how you get out of the case args. However, i think more importantly you need to point out how the case arguments do not have any impact and why your impacts are more important.

2nr - You need to be more comparative, especially on the impacts. I see your neolib argument as fundamentally a non-absolute pma. Still a risk of the case because they have empirics and you do not. Your only external impact is this sexism argument. You need to compare that impact to the comodification and neolib impacts that Ian Dill extended in the 2ac.

2AR - You have an empirical example, exploit that

RFD - I agree with the 2ar's framing of the issue. The 2nr are non-unique case turns. In order for the 2nr to win based on the arguments she is extending she needed to either (a) make an appeal to presumption and say that she has reduced solvency to near zero. (I think that might be the case); or (b) make the hierarchy arguments a k.

toc = = =Valley Round 1= 2AC - (1) you read too many cards on case. You should leverage the 1ac evidence to answer the neg arguments. (2) you read the wrong 2ac block to politics. The neg said "government shutdown" but your answers are specific to CIR. (3) the permutation of "do the counterplan" is not useful against the EU counterplan. You want more diversity of answers to the EU counterplan. For example it does not solve your relations advantage. You should read a "do both" perm. You could also challenge legitimacy of international fiat. (4) Good job on neolib.
 * Niles North HG || Pts || Rks ||  || Wayzata KM || Pts || Rks ||
 * Rubab Hyder || 27.4 || 3 ||  || Ishita Kamboj || 28.2 || 1 ||
 * Alexandra Gabor || 27.3 || 4 ||  || Madison Marko || 28 || 2 ||

2NC - (1) why kick politics when the aff answers the wrong scenario? (2) flow. On the K you missed answers that the 2ac made and answered arguments that they didn't make. This is all the hallmarks of a debater who followed the speech doc not the flow.

1NR - (1) you already read the Lacy 8 evidence in the 1nc. (2) good 1nr. Good line-by-line debating and impacting of arguments. best speech so far in the round.

1AR - (1) the block did not extend politics or T. you do not need to answer them. In fact the 3 minutes of 1AR time you spend reading new defense to a disad they didn't go for is a huge waste of precious 1ar time. (2) on case you need to compare aff cards to the neg cards. Reading more cards is not as important in this instance. (3) when judges ask for the order again it means you are going to drop something. You did not have the counterplan in your order. The neg can now go for the conceded EU counterplan and their defense on relations. More importantly, you dropped the human rights promotion net benefit the 2NC read, which even if they don't win their defense against relations probably outweighs the relations advantage.

2NR - (1) Why not go for the CP instead of the K? They dropped a net ben that impacts in nuclear war? (2) Impact the K and compare that impact to the aff's impacts. Explain your ethics arguments more in-depth. (3) The speech would be better if you talked about your epistemological claims in the context of your case solvency arguments. It's functionally a managerialism argument but you should talk about how neoliberalism doesn't work to fix problems for the same reason of your solvency arguments.

2AR - (1) This speech should not be a repetition of the 2AC. There have been three speeches since then and the argument has developed. You are extending arguments not in the 1ar, rendering many of your arguments new. Also, don't read new cards in the 2ar. You need to resolve the debate.

RFD - I vote negative for the K. The 1ar does not extend the 2ac, and reads 2 new "root cause bad" cards. There isn't really a "root cause" argument in the 2nc. Regardless, the aff's cards on this question are overly generic in the face of the negative's "epistemology of neoliberalism wrong" cards. This isn't really a root cause argument so much as the knowledge production of neoliberalism is wrong. Their is no indict of the alternative, which would solve the case better than the case.

=Valley Round 2=


 * Iowa City West KH || Pts || Rks ||  || Glenbrook North LN || pt || rks ||
 * Lauren Knudson ||  ||   ||   || Jason Levin ||   ||   ||
 * Audrey Hopewell ||  ||   ||   || Josef Niemann ||   ||   ||

1NC -- Your gasps for air are distracting, and I don't think they get you much more air in your lungs.

2AC -- Good extension of case but you could be more efficient. Shorter explanations of warrants would be helpful.

This is an extremely close debate that is decided by the 2ar giving a slightly more complete, comparative speech than the 2nr. I resolve the debate by ultimately determining that the risk of the case outweighs the risk of the oil DA. First, I assign a low risk of the oil DA because a few key 2NR assertions are underdeveloped/uncarded. The last thing the 2AR says is that the negative link evidence does not say that Saudi Arabia will "flood the market" but only says that it would have an impact on prices. I called the negative link cards and they all support the 2AR's analysis of the link evidence. They say that Cuba will be a major player, and the U.S. would have a fresh source of close by oil. But none of the cards say there would be a market flood, nor does the 2NR specifically reference a market flood. This also guts the perception link because no card supports that contention. Without a disad any risk of the case outweighs.

Second, I determine that there is a slightly higher risk of the case. The protectionism solvency takeout does not seem absolute. I agree with the 2AR that (a) post-plan there is no evidence that unions or the ag industry will be successful in lobbying for more protectionism measures; and (b) there are things other than rum, sugar and oil that we might trade with them on. On the case, the 2ar does a better job of addressing each of her scenarios, and warrants. There is a much clearer explanation of why the aff would solve the case on both advantages. Therefore, I determine that there is a higher risk of the case vs. the disad. Accordingly I vote aff.

=Valley Round 3=
 * The Blake Schools SW || Pts || Rks ||  || Glenbrook North AR || Pts || Rks ||
 * Zahir Shaikh || 28.8 ||  ||   || Laila Abdelmonem || 28.5 ||   ||
 * Allen Wang || 28.7 ||  ||   || Tori Rose || 28.6 ||   ||

Laila, you bend down and talk into your computer. Stand up straight, talk to me.

The affirmative wins a solvency deficit to the counterplan. The relations advantage is specific to passage of the Transboundry Hydrocarbon Agreement. Mexico has passed the agreement an dis waiting for the U.S. to do so as well. The CFR evidence says that failure to to pass the THA will hurt our relations with Mexico. The 1ar extends a nuclear terrorism and and bioweapon attack as "disads to the status quo" that stem from this advantage. The counterplan does not result in passage of the Transboundry Hydrocarbon Agreement. Instead it results in an offer to jointly drill with PeMex, Mexico's state-owned petroleum company. There is no negative evidence which suggests that this is sufficient, or even a meaningful alternative, to passage of the THA. Therefore, I think that the affirmative wins a solvency deficit to the counterplan that has substantial weight to it.

The 2NR does a smart thing to hedge against the solvency deficit by saying that the naval power net benefit would solve the impact. However, there are a couple of problems with this. First, the 1ar flags nuclear terrorism as an impact to the relations advantage/solvency deficit and the 2ar points out that the 2nr has no explanation for how naval power solves terrorism. I think this conceded impact scenario is sufficient to outweigh the net benefit. Furthermore, the affirmative's Posen and Farley evidence is fairly good on the question of whether there is a meaningful challenge to the the U.S.' naval supremacy. While negative wins a risk of a link (a) that risk is far smaller than the risk of the case; and (b) that risk does not address the nuclear terrorism (or bioterrorism) scenarios that the aff is winning.

=Valley Round 4= 1ac is unclear, the cards are all mushmouthed.
 * Niles North MS || Pts || Rks ||  || Glenbrook North DF || Pts || Rks ||
 * Alicia matthew || 26.8 ||  ||   || Jeremy Dorman || 27.4 ||   ||
 * Sharmain Siddiqui || 26.9 ||  ||   || Gonni Forman || 27.2 ||   ||

2ac -- Neg didn't read debt ceiling. You are really unclear. Your response to the protectionism da do not apply. You need to say that protectionism won't happen or PLAN SOLVES.

Neg - don't extend everything through the block. begin to narrow the issues.

RFD - Aff drops the advantage counterplan in the 1ar. The counterplan solves the case and competes on net benefits. The politics DA is not a net benefit. It links to riders just as much as the plan. It should not be in the 2nr. However, protectionism da is good enough It is conceded I vote neg. The 2ac had no responsive arguments on protectionism.

=Valley Round 5=
 * Eagan EA || pts || rks ||  || Wayzata DW || pts || rks ||
 * Matthew Erickson || 26.8 || 3 ||  || Bobby Dai || 27.2 || 1 ||
 * Collin Amundson || 26.7 || 4 ||  || Jaaazminnne Wang || 27.1 || 2 ||

Eagan -- Transportation infrastructure? Really? We just got done with the worst topic ever, and you bring it back?

Eagan - I hate prompting. Hate it. The extent to which the 1a prompted the 2ac was

Wayzata -- You have prep time management problems. You used almost all your prep in constructives.

Bobby - read more cards on the K. You make a number of claims that need support, so cards Also, you need to consider the 2ac to frame the debate. They didn't read specific answers to the borders K. Therefore, they only have generic attaks on the alt, but they concede the link and the impact.

Jaaazminnne (Jessica) -- You did an alright job on the line by line. But you need to be more comparative -- they didn't make a solvency deficit argument, or explain a net benefit to the perms. Exploit that. Since they didn't make a coherent solvency deficit argument, you should point out that if you get a tiny risk of the net benefit it means you win.

1AR is top heavy -- Your round overview is not helping you, and is probably a reason you get to the K with so little time. You need to articulate a solvency deficit to the counterplan. What does the counterplan do that means that they don't solve. It doesn't matter that you solve, why doesn't the counterplan solve. I get the impression you are thinking out loud in the 1ar rather than speaking.

Bobby - Impact framing.

RFD. This is a frustrating debate to judge, because any judge could pick either side and vote for that side. No one is winning this round and leave it up to me to decide. I vote negative because the 1ar dropped so much on the K. I don't think that the negative is winning the K so much as the aff lost it. The 2nr did not do a very good job of explaining the impact, explaining the alternative, explaining the framework. However, the aff answer's are so sparse that the 2nr does just enough to win.

The negative reads a borders K that argues that economic engagement is an imperialist tool to separate the North and the South which makes war inevitable. The alternative is to vote negative to politicize the the imperialism. The 2ac responds with a series of generic K answers -- none of which directly responds to the K. These answers could apply to any K. There is a discussion of the link in the 2ac. The aff cross-applies their T definition to argue that economic engagement is mutually beneficial to both countries. However, 2ac does not explain how this answers the link. This is a reps K, the aff needs to defend the rep. The negative's argument is that the representation masks what is really going on. The 2ac also says because Mexico has to match the U.S. funding, they are equal partners. (The aff had a number of perms and other answers but they mostly become irrelevant because the 1ar dropped them.) During the block the 2nc makes a number of link arguments. First, he reads a Petras card which says that the aff instrumentalizes (sp?) Mexico and uses it for its own end. The aff's competitiveness advantage of the 1ac as an example of this link. He also makes a "failed state" link. Finally there is a "you use the words north america in the plan link." The 1ar addresses only the "failed state" link and correctly notes that the aff does not portray Mexico as a failed state. However, the 1ar drops the Petras card, and the 2nr extends it.

The 2nc also DID have a framework argument. It was poorly developed, but existent, which says that before I consider the impacts of the case the aff has to justify their reps. The 1ar drops this argument as well. Under this framework I determine that the aff does not justify their reps, and the reps are bad because they allow for the instrumentation and exploitation of Mexico, which causes war. There is no disad to the alt so I vote neg.

=Valley Octofinals= 1AC -- Dug the reading of the 1ac. Fast, clear, with clear body language cues between tag and cards. Dug it.
 * Wayzata HL || pts || rks ||  || Westside WH || pts || rks ||
 * Hex Larson ||  ||   ||   || Peyton Wells ||   ||   ||
 * Tiffany Haas ||  ||   ||   || Lia Hagen ||   ||   ||

1NC -- In the 1NC i think you should have a diversity of links. "State bad judge" by itself is too much of a target for the 2ac. You treat the state as a thing rather than a group of people. People have agency. In the cross-ex you articulated a "check your privilege" link but that is not clear from the shell.

The cross-ex of the 1NC seems overly hostile. This "you are using the oppressed to win" argument cuts both ways. The Lincoln example also cuts both ways. I agree it is problematic to treat Lincoln as a white savior -- but he did take ethical action when he signed the emancipation proclamation

2AC -- The extra sheet isn't necessary. The state good stuff belongs on the offcase flow. Hex -- don't prompt. The speech was fine and the 2A is the boss of the aff.

This debate makes me think of craigslist. Craigslist was uncontrovertibly an agent of sexual traffiking. Same with Backpage. Both of these advertised women for sale who were brought to the United States, against their wills, to be sex workers. Stories abound of women chained up in suburban houses who were forced to have sex with men, so that other men could get paid. The oppressors used craigslist to advertise (in code) that the women were available. Words like "Fresh" and "young" were used as code that the women were under 18 years old.

Both individuals acting outside the state and the state working in cooperation forced craigslist to end the "erotic" section of its page. When Craig Newmark refused to hear the call of the state and the anti-sex trafficking ngo's Ashton Kutchar (not acknowleding his privilege) put public pressure on Newmark -- State Attorney Generals threatened prosecution and Craigslist does not advertise sex workers anymore. Is sex trafficing over? of course not, but perhaps we should not let perfect be the enemy of the good.

I vote negative. But I could definiently see an aff vote. I think the aff lets the neg get away with some shananigans. First, the "State bad" link. In no way does any affirmative who defends a federal plan cede their agency to the state. You do not have to agree with the state. In fact, doesn't inherency show that you are telling the state where to get off? They are not roleplayig, in the same way I don't think I am the general manager of the Vikings when i say they should get a better quarterback. However, the aff doesn't make this argument. I think that they lose the cede political link. I think that the aff's perm links to the state bad argument. Also the Ruiz and Mineguiz evidence isn't availing to the aff, or it also applies to the neg because the neg's method also demands "solutions." The aff needed an answer to "state can still solve." Perhaps a plea to prefer your specific solvency evidence to generic state bad evidence.

=Minneapolis South Round 5= 1NC -- this isn't a "strategy"
 * Edina ML || pts || rks ||  || Roseville LD || pts || rks ||
 * Adi Mittal || 27.8 || 2 ||  || Matt Lauer || 27.5 || 4 ||
 * Anne Lepow || 27.9 || 1 ||  || Dean Doneen || 27.6 || 3 ||

2AC -- The extension of case is not necessary in 2ac. You'd be better reading more args against the K's.

2NC - (A) You need to read cards; (B) do not ignore the line-by-line; (c) you ended 25 seconds early; (d) be more comparative. Better explain your answer to the perm.

1NR - Like your partner I suspect that you didn't flow this debate. You are ignoring huge swaths of the line by line and answer things that were not read. You are responding to the speech doc, not the speech.

1AR - There is no reason to read MORE cards on a conceded advantage. Especially if you aren't leveraging the case against the K's. Undercovered D n' G.

RFD

I vote affirmative on utopian alts bad. The aff argues that the utopian alts are bad because they force the aff to compare plan and advantages to perfection. They argue this is unfiar, because comparison is unwinnable for the aff. It was labelled a voting issue in the 2ac, and dropped in the 2NR. (Neg answer's vague alts bad, which is a different issue). Neither the 2ac or 1ar do a particualrly good job of warranting why this should be a voter, but if i reject just the argument, there is no alt, so I might as well vote aff.

Frankly neither side "won" this debate. Negative didn't have a strategy -- they had two arguments they made. There wasn't really an endgame for the neg. Conversely, the affirmative didn't have a good idea of what their strategy was against the two K's.

=Minneapolis South JV Finals= 1AC -- You might want to do a 1ac drill with your coaches so you properly pronounce the words of the 1AC.
 * Rosemount KS ||  ||   ||   || Bloomington WK ||   ||   ||
 * Shreya Shankar ||  ||   ||   || Michelle Wang ||   ||   ||
 * Michelle Wang ||  ||   ||   || Lauren Kirkley ||   ||   ||

2AC -- clearly indicate when you are switching between flows. your case arguments got lost.

2NC -- Need explanation of impact to speaking for others. Answer the part of the the T flow where they say we don't do govenerment to government trade anymore.

1NR -- Passion, but you need to not over do it. Be like the Pixies - loud quiet loud.

RFD

Neg needs an impact to debating policies and debating USFG action. The aff needs a better explanation of why debating about Zapitistas is important, but they have a better explanation of why their counter-interp is better than the neg interp.

=Roseville 3= 1AC - You are reading out of your nose. Practice breathing from diaphragm.
 * Wayzata AG || pts || rks ||  || Roosevelt DP || Pts || Rnks ||
 * Aasim Ali ||  ||   ||   || Rylee P ||   ||   ||
 * Nisarg Ghandi ||  ||   ||   || Mavrick ||   ||   ||

1NC - Save evidence comparisons for later speeches, also you don't need to summarize cards right after you read it. Answer the racism d-rule on human rights. The biopower K might not be the best strategy in this debate. There are pretty good cards on how the the status quo policy toward cuba is biopolitical.

2AC - Your framing contention is not relevant to this debate. Read your "plan solves biopower" cards on the K, not on the imperialism advantage.

2NC - Don't forget to answer the 2ac when extending the K. Also, plan on what the nexus question of the debate is going to be. In this debate, it is going to be whether the alternative is competative with the plan -- meaning you have to focus on the links. You need to compare your link arguments to their link turns.

Cross-ex of 2NC - You are debating a maverick -- your decision to take prep after cross-ex makes no sense.

1NR - Stay on the K and finish that up. The T arguments are non-starters cuz you don't allow any Cuba affs.

1AR - You spent 2 minutes extending an advantage that had only 1 card on it. you needed that time on the K more than on the case.

2NR - You need to find the nexus question of the debate. The perm theory debate is not useful to you anymore -- you aren't answering RANT and they didn't extend the perms. Speech is overall is a repetition of the 2NR. You need to resolve arguments, and preempt 2AR moves. You are out debating them on the case, and they have not answered your link. You need to explain your link story in more depth, and COMPARE your link arguments to their link turns. That is what the debate will come down to.

2AR - Heteronormativity is a result/example of biopower Think about how arguments interact.

RFD - This debate is more gain-saying than debating. Neither team makes comparisons, takes honest stock of what arguments that they are winning/losing, and then resolves arguments. For example, the link debate. The negative's link argument is two-fold -- first, that the embargo prevents our intervention in Cuba, and second, that trade leads to more biopolitics. The aff does not engage those links. The 2ar does mention that the embargo is a form of intervention, which I agree with, but it does not answer the fundamental negative link argument. The heteronormativity argument is not addressed by the negative, but it is not addressed by the negative. Castro is shitty towards the gays in his country. Neg concedes that heteronormativity is bad. But how on earth does the aff access this issue? In the future, I think that the neg should say the alternative solves this.

The aff also extends their Perez 8 card which says that metaphors helps us understand power relations. But this doesn't answer the link argument identified above. Even if metaphors help us understand how power works, (a) that doesn't mean that the aff accesses those metaphors; and (b) that the aff isn't biopolitical.

The perm debate is not terribly relevant. The 1ar just answered the their, said RANT but didn't extend either perm.

I vote negative on a risk of the K.

=Roseville 5= 1nc - plan flaw is a speaker point slayer.
 * Washburn DJ || pts || rks ||  || Wayzata BH || pt || rks ||
 * Ellen Dymit ||  ||   ||   || Raymond ||   ||   ||
 * Ella Johnson ||  ||   ||   || Thor Bates ||   ||   ||

2ac - Best answer to plan flaw -- it's an oral activity - - the judge knows what we meant. Also, get your stuff together, partnership fights about what to extend or how to answer stuff in the middle of speeches hurt ethos, time allocation, and clarity. Talk during prep.

2nc - plan flaw is a speaker point slayer.

1NR -- (1) Prompting = speaker point slayer. (2) Answering the 2ac out of order for no good reason = speaker points slayer; (3) you need to answer the impact debate. This is a non-viable net ben, unless you win cp solves all of case.

2NR - Plan flaw is a speaker point slayer. Another version of "tech" is effiicency. While there were some late-breaking answers in the 1ar there was also development of the the 2ac answers. Regardless, this is such a minor argument, you should never go for it. Ever. The fact that they capitalized their stuff is not a serious plan flaw. Extension of this position hurt your time allocation on where you could win -- DA v. Case.

RFD (1) Plan Flaw. The negative is bent out of shape that the affirmative spelled "United States" with capital letters, and no such unit of governement exists. This is asinine. No matter how much "tech" the negative puts on this issue, it is not a reason to vote negative. There is no warrant for "the plan won't happen." There are scrivner errors all the time in legislation. They may be a typo in the constitution, and the republic is still standing. This is a non-starter. As a theorhetical objection to the plan, there is no loss of ground or education due to this "error".

(2) the rest of the debate. The rest of the debate comes down to plan versus the squo. Rarely a good position for the affirmative. Thor shadow extends a non-unique case turn about biodiversity loss from the counterplan, and Ellen drops it. Ideally Ellen would answer this, but it came in the last 5 seconds of the 2NR, and I can't give credit for the extension, other than referencing that the argument was made earlier in the debate. Aff wins a risk of the oil advantage. Neg keeps extending there won't be a nuclear terrorist first strike, but does not answer the specific scenario of the the aff. All also wins a risk of the warming advantage, if for no other reason than the neg drops the deforestation internal link which says that we need the Amazon rainforest to eat up the co2 and provide oxygen. Both of these advantages outweigh the disad. The 1NR does not answer the resversibility argument. We can come back from economic decline -- which the empirics support, but there is nothing reversible about warming. Once the rainforest is gone, so long existence. Also, the affirmative wins there is a low risk of the link since on the issue of immigration, political capital is not likley to have as much an influence as the hispanic vote and republican response thereto.

=Lakeville 3 - JV= 1AC -- You want a consistent pattern for reading the 1ac. You have this slow way of reading the tags, even slowing down as the tag does along. You want a consistent speed, with inflection. When the neg asks you in cx, the border has been around since 19th century where has been the genocide -- see native americans, and the mexican people.
 * Roseville RL || pts || rks ||  || Eagan JH || pts || rks ||
 * Sophia Rossinni || 28.4 ||  ||   || Nicole Jaeb || 28.2 ||   ||
 * Matt Lauer || 28.7 ||  ||   || Maegan Hunt || 28.1 ||   ||

1NC - T violation was unclear. Cap underview in the 1nc is not necessary. You need better links to your framework argument. They didn't read a plan. You need to say that the aff needs to read a plan. Advantages not related to the plan are the least shady thing that they did.

2AC - T and Framework need counter-interpretation. You need to be more responsive to the FW cards and comparative between methods. 2NC -- Debate is about competition and clash. You need to talk about how the aff screws you out of competition. Also, you need to clash and compete with the aff. On framework, you should be further ahead, because the 2ac did not read a counter-interpretation to your framework, so if I am voting aff, I don't know what I am voting for or how I should evaluate debate. However, you aren't being comparative, You are just reiterating the 1nc. Use this speech to compare your vision of framework versus theirs. On the case debate, you have a lot of assertions but no warrants.

1NR - Need a better explanation of the link. The 2ac did not challenge the link but did point out that you didn't have an explanation of your link card. This is a primer on what identify politics is. Your link argument is that identity politics distracts us from fighting capitalism and is a tool of capitalism to divide workers from resisting it. That is your link. Since the 2ac did not challenge the link your explanation would be enough for you to win on cap, provided you do a better job on the root cause argument. However, if you understand the link then that explanation will help you with the root cause cards.

1AR -- the best part of your speech is Cap. You are comparative, you are using the 2ac. good job there.

2NR -- You need to make choices. You are covering everything shallowly. You need to be comparative. You need to make a warrant in the final speech. On key issues you just gainsay the affirmative.

2AR -- Work on efficiency. You do not need to extend every 2ac argument.

RFD This round was fun to judge because both teams made good jokes but takes things seriously.

I vote affirmative. The negative goes for too much in the 2NR. Capitalism, there is no link. Neg needs a better explanation/understanding of the identity politics links. Topicality, there is insufficient extension. The 2NR did not mention the interpretation. Framework, is the closest issue in the debate. Aff needs a counter-interpretation, and a defense of that interpretation. 2NR does not extend their interpretation or an impact to their interpretation.

=Lakeville Round 4=
 * Edina RM || pts || rks ||  || Bloomington PB || pts || rks ||
 * ukriti Rawal ||  ||   ||   || Ann Phan ||   ||   ||
 * Anand Mittal ||  ||   ||   || Madeline Brunko ||   ||   ||

1ar could be more strategic. First, just group the T's and extend your counter-interp. You are ahead that it is better for debate. Mention that there is no literature support for their interpretations. Case is not going to be relevant in this debate. There isn't a disad to weigh against it. The debate will come down to the K, so focus your time there. Make sure to say RANT on the perm theory goo. You need to compare. Your late-breaking evidence will get some time trade-off but you need to give the 2ar a reason to compare your cap good cards to the cap bad cards.

2nr. they didn't extend the perm!!! why are you debating the perm????. you didn't even say voter on the theory goo. The 1ar properly diagnosed the issue of the debate -- util. You should be explaining under that framework you still win. The trick of your argument is it runs through the filter of misogyny -- capitalism is bad for women. But you have to now run that trick through the util filter.

=Sections Rd 1= Tiffany -- You should interpret the book -- when you read it monotone it makes it harder to follow.
 * Edina || pts || rks ||  || Wayzata HL || pts || rks ||
 * Bree Pielen || 28.4 ||  ||   || Tiffany Haas || 28.5 ||   ||
 * Samantha Hunt || 28.6 ||  ||   || Hex Larson || 29 ||   ||

Sam -- The debate is going to come down to the root cause arguments. Strategically I think you get this. However, I think you need to do more than mention m aquiladoras. you need to contexualize your arguments about the root cause arguments viz-a-vie the maquiladoras. Explain how you are gonna liberate the maquiladoras from male, white corporate oppression. This is what the 2NR vs 2AR will come down to, so you want to force the block to answer this argument in more depth, so that they can't start it for you. Also, answer the performance piece of the 1nc.

Hex -- Great overview. You need a better explanation of why their "post-modernism" turns don't apply. Do not assume your audience knows how Butler and Irigiary are different. These cards indict a method of post-modern feminism, you need to answers these better than "not our authors." Also explain the term "manarchy".

Tiffany -- The number one thing you could do to improve your speaks is to work on vocal variation and throw in your personality. (Hex is particularly good at this).

Bree -- Extension of the case is not really relevant to the debate. The debate comes down to (a) whether the aff has addressed the correct starting point; or (b) whether the methods are truly in competition. You address these issues, but if you win either of these arguments, you win the debate. Spending time extending the case is not useful. The time you spent on case would have been better served on the perm. For question "(a)" you need to answer this "the first slave was a woman" piece. I think you are letting them get ahead on that question. However, you are doing pretty well on question ("b") whether the methods are incompatible. If you are going to extend the case then you need to compare those impacts to their Irigiray impact evidence. Finally, need explanation of what historical materialism is. I don't think you used the phrase "sexual difference" once in your speech.

Hex -- You need a more concrete or memorable explanation of why the performance is an independent reason to vote as opposed to just a link (of ommission) in the the rest of your argument. If you lose the perm, why wouldn't the perm resolve this issue. Impact the puns argument on the perm.

RFD

The 2AR is quiet good on the questions she addresses, but does not address a couple of issues that are determinative. First, she concedes the menstrual performance piece of the the K which is labeled as a voting issue by Hex in the 2NR. This is an easy way for me to vote. I think it is a link of ommission, but neither the Sam nor Bree addresses it in their speech.

The 2ar really needs to dig in on how they acknowledge sexual difference in their speech, and articulate a reason why a method of focusing on sexual difference is bad. The Eber card is not specific enough, and really, inapposite. The Eber evidence is really about deficiencies in Drusilla Cornell's feminism not Irigiray's. Therefore, their is only a risk that the alt would solve the case.

The perm debate. First, I find that the aff gets to "perm" since the debate is a question of competing methodologies, they get to test if the methods compete. Second, I find that the permutation links to the K for two reasons. The affirmative drops the Cuba example. As I discussed post-round, the affirmative needs to explain the degredation of women in Cuba. Either say "not our Marx" or "you got it wrong neg, Cuba is awesome for women's rights." Either would demonstrate a lack of a link to the perm. Second, there is a risk of the hijacking argument. I assign very little risk here, but it is a risk. Neither side does a good job of clashing on this issue beyond "yah-huh" vs. "nuh-uh." Negative does slightly better analysis by talking about Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro. I think that constitutes enough of a risk of a link to the perm, and there is no argument that solving sexual difference won't solve for domination.

=Sections 2=
 * Eden Prairie || pts || rks ||  || Wayzata || pts || rks ||
 * Alex ||  ||   ||   || Kate ||   ||   ||
 * Katherine ||  ||   ||   || Priyanka ||   ||   ||

2NC -- Mostly good job, but you have some time allocation problems. You are middle heavy on the link debate. More efficient explanations of the link are necessary.

RFD I vote negative on the criticism a couple of ways. First, the aff needs a defense of their epistemology. I do not mean this from an evaluation of the link, I mean this from a perspective of "debate strategy." Epistemology K's are not an un-heard of strategy so when you run an aff like this, you need a defense of how you know what you know. The absence of an explanation of how you know what you are talking about hurt the aff in this debate.

From a starting point of the decision, I could vote negative on presumption because the negative drops that predictions are impossible in the 1AR. The 2ar makes a persuasive argument that the predictions arg does not apply to agriculture, which is true as far as it goes. The problem is that there is an IR component to the aff (i.e., Cuba accepting the aff, the notion that the U.S. must invest to "perseve" that ag, etc.).

However, I do not vote on presumption. I vote negative because there is an obvious link to the criticism that is conceded by the aff. Namely, the "dependistas" link which says that idea that Latin America is not capable of doing things and need our assistance. This is precisely the affirmative who claims that U.S. investment is needed to prop up current Cuban ag practices.

The aff has some game on the perm debate. The Zizek argument makes sense, but I think there are two problems. FIrst, contrary to the the 2AR's assertion, I think that the alt could result in a portion of the affirmative. Secondly, the perm would link to the Dependista's argument, which means that acting with knowledge of the problem wouldn't solve because the act is precisely the problem. This Zizek argument is good if the perm says "good is good enough" or "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", but the Dependista's argument means that the aff is neither perfect, nor good, and the alt is conceded to lead to better knowledge production and better policy making. Finally, the Reus-Smith card is conceded by the affirmative which says the epistemology questions must occur first.

This brings us to the framework question, because the aff has a conceded bio-diversity decision rule. The negative interep says I do not weigh the aff, the 2ar drops framework. Which means I do not get to the decision-rule.

=Sections 3= 1NC - Impact the solvency advocate argument and the lack of good "say yes" argument.
 * Highland Park || pts || rks ||  || Jefferson || pts || ranks ||
 * Sam ||  ||   ||   || Harry || 27.5 ||   ||
 * Ryan ||  ||   ||   || JingJing ||   ||   ||

2NC -- The framing issue isn't relevant - you kicked the disad. In cross-examiantion you should say "yeah, we don't get rid of borders, and your plan doesn't pass either. the point is a question of method."

2NR - Wrong choice -- They are behind on the framing issue of "Economic" engagement. Social programs is not a form of trade -- If you perm the interpretations you come out ahead. even if economic engagement has to be quid-pro-quo, they are not a form of ECONOMIC engagment, and you interpretation is better because it accounts for the term "economic" in the res. Also, if you are going to go for the K you need to explain why (and perhaps reference a card) about how the alt solves for structural violence. I get that you think that otherization is the root cause of structural violence, but you need to explain WHY that's true.

1NR -- Do not prompt the 2nr. she is the captain of the negative ship. if she is going for the k she has to answer all the 1ar arguments. your telling her to move on was (a) wrong, and (b) unnecessary.

RFD This is an instance of the affirmative snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. There are a couple of key mistakes that the 2ar makes in this debate that results in an affirmative ballot. First, the 2ar does not extend the perm. You were ahead on this argument, other than the "you sever your reps" claim. I do not think that you do that. If the 2AR says we can simultaneous take practical action to address violence and rethink the borders at the same time, I'd vote quickly for the aff. Second, the 2ar banks heavily on the "you don't actually get rid of borders", but it's not like the aff actually takes practical action either (see "fiat is illusory" from K 101). JingJing extends the Rajaram 5 evidence to support the proposition of rethinking the concept of the border is the first step for solving the link and impacts of the K.

Because the 2NR extends Rajaram 5, they probably solve the link to the criticism. The 2ar says that the alt won't solve corruption in Mexico, however, this is precisely the link -- the assumption of the nation-state. However, the aff does not talk at all about the criticisms external impact. The Lunchin card which goes uncontested, says that the border is the root cause of all violence. This means that the aff would solve the invisible violence of the aff, but also the visable violence which makes the alt net beneficial.

Aff argues that the aff is a prerequisite to the alt, but there is no evidence or explanation of why this is true.

Again, extension of the perm would have resolved this debate for the aff.

=Sections Round 4=
 * Eagan || pts || Rks ||  || Rosemount || pt || rks ||
 * Charlie || 27.9 ||  ||   || Lauren Kirkley || 27.6 ||   ||
 * Kathryn || 28.3 ||  ||   || Jacob Alex || 27.5 ||   ||

2NC - Answer the K line-by-line. You drop too much to make this a viable position. I suspect you have some flowing issue. You respond to arguments out of order, and to cards not read in the 2ac.

The block is organizationally a mess. The debaters are jumping randomly to weird parts of the debate, flirt with double-coverage and miss whole swaths of the 2ac. This lack of organization hurts your ethos and the overall story of the K. For the 2NR to win on cap, you need a coherent, memorable explanation of the root cause argument.

1AR -- Thank you for re-structuring the flows.

2NR -- I am having a problem understanding the impact to your solvency argument. IS your argument the plan lack the UN for enforcement of the norms? is your argument that since the UN abandoned the norms that proves that the norms fail? You need to be clear. If it is the first argument, than this is in no way "game over" for the aff, since they say that the plan will cause Mexico compliance, and you do not contest that. If it is the second, then I guess I'd agree that is a problem for the affirmative. But you are not being clear about this.

RFD None of the neg solvency arguments are absolute, and the 2NR does not answer the reparations piece of the aff.

I vote aff on the perm of do the aff and the the alt in all other instances. Neg does not answer the "Coverstone" argument that "if the alt is so good, it should be able to tolerate the aff; and if it's not the alt will inevitably fail." There are two net benefits to the perm that the neg does not address. First they drop the "policy paralysis" argument from Foucault, the impact of which is the aff's moral obligations. Second, they drop the Nixon evidence which says that even if the aff isn't perfect because the state is corrupt, that is not mutually exclusive with radical change.

=Section 5= RFD I was pretty sure I was going to vote negative until the 2nr ended 20 seconds early, dropping dispositionality bad. It was flagged as a voter, and Ruby argued it should come before T. It's dropped, extended in the 2ar.
 * Jefferson || pts || rks ||  || Eagan || pts || rks ||
 * Ruby || 28.5 ||  ||   || Colin || 27.5 ||   ||
 * Alexa || 28.4 ||  ||   || Matthew || 27.8 ||   ||

=Section 6= 2NC - That is a great speech. Smart, clear signposting, clear explanations. Just really good. 1AR - Time allocation. The 2N spent time on anthro -- it is most likely what he is going to go for, you need to answer that. Also, explain why offense/defense is a bad way to view topicality. The 1NR is way good on why you lack offense and a counter-interpretation, so you need to explain why since T is all or nothing for the aff, defense should be good enough. The problem is, you need to attack the impacts of ground loss and education.
 * Rosemount || pts || rks ||  || Highland Parq || pts || rks ||
 * Jacob || 27.6 ||  ||   || ian || 29.0 ||   ||
 * Lauren || 27.5 ||  ||   || db || 29.2 ||   ||

Neg -- I think you want to read an extra-topicality standard to the aff. The diversion of funding from military spending is not T. And their entirety security advantage is based on that. You are hinting at that, especially in the 2nr, but it is not in an earlier speech.

RFD The plan text of the aff cuts military funding from the Merida Initiative and switches it to USAID. This is a quintessential example of extra-topicality, but the negative does not have an extra-topicality standard. Instead the 1NC interpretation is that "increase means to make greater." In the 2AC, the aff says that they meet since USAID is a form of economic engagement. The 1NR says this is irrelevant because they switch funding around. However, it is relevant since post-plan more money is being spent on USAID, and the neg concedes this is a form of economic engagement.

The 1NR says that their interpretation is necessary to get disad links such as the China DA. The 2NR also adds that their interpretation is necessary for getting spending links. The aff would link to a China DA, since it increases economic engagement. The negative has no explanation of why they need a spending DA or why spending DAs are good for debate. However, offense/defense is good for determining competing interpretations, it is not good for answering whether the affirmative meets the interpretation in the first place. The plan says increase spending on USAID, the only interpretation of "economic engagement" in the round says that USAID spending is a form of economic engagement. Therefore, the aff meets the neg's interpretation. There is an extra topical component, but that's a separate issue from the gravamen of the neg's interpretation.

=State 1= I enjoy judging both teams.
 * Jefferson || pts || ranks ||  || Washburn || pts || rks ||
 * Ruby ||  ||   ||   || Ella ||   ||   ||
 * Alexa ||  ||   ||   || Ellen ||   ||   ||

1NC - Neither K links to the aff, or are competitive with the aff.

2AC -- Hard to flow on T. I suspect that is intentional. You are crushing on the no link evidence.

1AR -- Answer switch side debate solves your offense. Your topic eduction arguments are met by this.

2NR -- Mostly good work on T. but you extended the wrong part of the violation. The 1nr extended the "you don't talk about economic engagement argument" in the 2nr extended "you are not long term." Everything else you say is correct however. I will probably require the aff to point that out

RFD I vote negative on the old T debate. The aff starts behind the 8-ball by not being, you know, being T. The 2nr intepretation is that the aff must engage in long-term economic contacts with Cuba, and the violation is the aff is a 1 time deal. The 2ar explanation of how they meet is new and not reasonably extrapolation of the 1ar. Secondly, it does not answer the long-term engagement part. (As I mentioned in the post-round, the 2NR extended the wrong violation, and if the 2AR said that I'd quickly vote aff).

The aff concedes competing interpretation is how I should evaluate T, and extends their counter-interpretation (us plus the neg interpretation). This interpretation links to the negative's disads to their counter-interpretation, namely that it explodes topics because any aff could make this argument since it is not textually based.

=State Round 2= 1NC - Your T arguments do not make sense to me. Toward is easy to meet. Of course the aff read teh wrong counter-tinterp, and did not answer it.
 * Jefferson || pts || rks ||  || Edina || pts || rks ||
 * JingJing ||  ||   ||   || Sam ||   ||   ||
 * Harry ||  ||   ||   || Bree ||   ||   ||

2AC - You need to address the sustainability issue of capitalism. the primary trick of the cap K is whether it is sustainable, if the negative proves that a collapse is coming now, they can make your turns non-unique and re-frame you out of the round.

2NC - Either you need to read more cards or be more clear about what cards you are reading. Also, flow. You answer 2ac arguments that were not made by the 2ac, which says to me you are answering the speech doc, not the actual speech.

Aff - work on prep time management. You have less than a minute remaining for the 2ar.

1AR - You need to hone in on the sustainability debate. Please identify what piece of evidence you think supports the claim that capitalism is sustainable. Explain the warrant more clearly and memorably. In was in the last 15 seconds

2NR -- You should be using the cap flow to make case irrelevant. Why does it matter if we can survive a nuclear war if you solve the root cause? Why does it matter if people won't model mexico, if the alt solves warming and other environmental destruction.

2AR - laundry list of your impact is not doing you any good. You need a framing question for the debate that resolves it in your favor. Yes you are winning parts of your case, but it's the cap flow that matters. You spent over 2 minutes answer stuff that does not matter.

RFD Neither final rebuttal makes a framing question on which I could evaluate this debate. First, on framework the neg could have won easily if they would have talked about how the aff didn't justify their method. Framework needs to be impacted -- how does it affect the debate?

I vote negative. First, the 2ar and 1ar drop the epistemology question. The 1NR reads a piece of evidence that the affirmative's epistemology is based on cap, so I should not trust their truth claims. The 2NR extends this piece of evidence, so I am left to question the aff's claims. However, the 2NR does not really deploy this drop effecitively as it could have, and it is only on the most general level that I question the aff's truth claims.

Second, the neg is ahead on the permutation debate. First, there is a disconnect between the 1ar and 2ar, where JingJing extend's "all other instances" and The Kid extends "do both." Having said that aff's best argument is that the "many headed hydra" analogy cuts in thier favor because any left over cap means the alt does not solve. But the 2ar does not address the McGargle evidence that the 2nr is extending on all the important questions of the debate. She says that a global revolution wil be complete so I evaluate the risk of the "coverstone" argument as pretty low. There is a disad to cooperating with the state, so the permutation fails.

Finally there are the turns. Now, I think that this piece should be a bigger blow out for the negative. They should be ahead on sustainability, but as i look at my flow I cannot find for the life of me whether cap is sustainable. The 2ar says that there is a profit motive/human drive to be capitalist, but does not compare this claim to the McGargle solvence evidnece. McGargle shows that war and inenvironemental destruction are about the profit motive.

=State 4= Hex - Let Tiffany answer all the questions.
 * Wayzata || pts || rks ||  || Highland Park || pts || rks ||
 * Tiffany ||  ||   ||   || Ian ||   ||   ||
 * Hex ||  ||   ||   || Dan ||   ||   ||

This debate is fabulous at the end of the block. The only thing that concerns me is that the 2nc was non-responsive to the conditionality argument. Their conditionality argument is more a question of ethics than how many alts is fair for the neg. There is not a direct answer to the "view from nowhere", performative contradiction or that conditionality is the epitome of patriarchy. Having said that the block is really good.

1ar -- Need better explanation of the impact of condo.

RFD This is a very difficult decision to make, which is the result of this being a good debate. What makes this debate difficult to judge is that I find it hard to use either last rebuttal as a road-map for my decision. If the resolution were RESOLVED: THE AFF WON THE DEBATE, I'd be hard pressed to decide either way.

First, I evaluate the permutation. There are multiple perms, but it appears to me that the aff is extending do both. The 1AR reads a Marino card about why speaking for others is good. I do not have a clear explanation of what the impact of that argument is, or why it is a net benefit to the perm. The 2NR's responses to the perm still links to the K. The first link is the destruction of the other -- the Konachek argument. I am looking over the 1ar to recall how or if she responds to this link. First, she argues under the the K, women are considered irrelevant to the political subject. Second, she argues that the aff is anti-imperialist. I don't really see the conflict between these two sides, or a denial. So I think that the negative wins that link. The second link is the comparison of oppresions. I don't think this link goes far for the negative. The aff is not saying "omg, women are not judging late elims at the ndt; that is JUST like the abjection of the cuban woman." They are saying that it is the same politics. In the 2ar Hex makes a framing argument that it is about how the perm resolves the link, not whether there is a link. I agree with this framing. She explains how the alt and the "plan" could co-exist, and extends the Marino argument, but I still don't get how or why this argument means anything. Also, I don't have a clear understanding of how the perm would resolve the link. Hex also says that the alt does nothing so it wouldn't solve the aff, and we have to resolve oppression. This reminds me of the case framing issue Hex makes in the 2ar that the K does not resolve the relation of women to the debate space, which the alt is silent on. Therefore, I think that is a net benefit to the perm.

This in turn brings us to the floating PIK debate. This is not a highly fleshed out portion of the debaet. 1AR says PIKs bad, but I do not know what that means or why. 2NR says that the alt can result in the aff. Hex has a number of points of why the floating pik does not solve the case. The question is does Hex get these arguments as extrapolation of how the PIK does not solve the aff. Most of them are new, and I do not allow them. But Dan does not provide a concise, rememberable explanation of how the PIK does solve the aff. This get's back to the aff's ROB. Without an explanation of how the PIK does that, I err aff on this question.

The 2ar extends Lawler, which was extended by the 1ar, and not addressed by the 2NR. Lawler is the argument that the K links to the aff. There is no comparartive analysis of this in the 2nr. This makes the aff a disad to the alternative, and makes it net benefifical over the k since the neg does not address the aff in teh 2nr.

=State 5= Too much swearing. I get that you all think that its a form of censorship, but I really don't link it and it caps your speaks.
 * Blaine || pts || rks ||  || South || pt || rks ||
 * Griffin ||  ||   ||   || AJ ||   ||   ||
 * Sam ||  ||   ||   || Klayton ||   ||   ||

2nc prompting the 1nr is also a speaker point cap. One debater; one speech.

RFD I have a lot of sympathy for the affirmative's argument, and I think they are ahead on a number of issues. However, I end up voting negative on framework. The aff needs a counter-interpretation. Framework, like T, is a matter of competitng visions of what debate should look like. Without an interpretation, it is unclear to me what you are for, not what you are against. There is a reason why I think that the neg's "we're not saying roleplaying" applies. Their interpretation is we must discus the agency with the lever of power -- that's what makes us political actors. Thus, even if you are correct that the USFG is a static, unchaning actor, the negative's argument is that by talking about that actor, we can make that actor better. If you had a counter-interpreation you would be able to use your offense more effectively.

=State 1/4's= Cx of the 1nc went poorly. Your link is "Spanos is the primary example of the post-modern philosopher that our evidence is talking about. He writes abstractly, citing authors like Foucault and Heidegger. I think that people who wirite about spanos (all 3 of them) would consider him post-modern. The way he is colorblind, and anti-black is he never writes about people of color, or the experience of black people. his entire concern is he writes about how the U.S biffed Viet Nam."
 * South ||  ||   ||   || Blake ||   ||   ||
 * Lillie ||  ||   ||   || Zahir ||   ||   ||
 * Trace ||  ||   ||   || Allen ||   ||   ||

=State 1/2's= South v. Wayzata

Lillie - less time extending a conceded case, more time answer the links.

Hex- 2NR needs to start with a macro framing question, and and explanation of how the K interacts with case.

RFD The aff's return to the case in the 2ar was helpful for my decision. The 2AR explains that the affirmative is a call for an open understanding of the world, that the status quo's presenting around the topic and the other is enclosing and results in cultural destruction. The aff says that we should not assume there is 1 truth, but multiple truths based on social location. I use this explanation of the guide to my decision, to see whether the "cliticism" is an answer to this.

Trace explains that the aff is an impact turn to the criticism of having a "starting point" because it presumes that the seeking of truth is devoid of social location. Hex extends several links to the criticism but does not memorably or adequately impact the links, or explain how they refute the case. Maybe they have a disemobied subject, but so what? what does that mean?

=Final= a) Wayzata does not understand the aff's claims about truth claims. They do not say that there is no truth (other than their tag which literally says that), they say that truth should be a matter of revealing, not received knowledge.

b) The cede the political disad is already ceded. The aff says that the right wing has taken over because they appeal to received capital T truth claims.

c) dropping the case was damning for the 2nr because because it means that limits are bad because they are devoid of acknowledgment of social location,

=UDL 1=
 * Sough GO || pts || rks ||  || Washburn DJ || pts || Rks ||
 * Lillie ||  ||   ||   || Ella ||   ||   ||
 * AJ ||  ||   ||   || Ellen ||   ||   ||

2AC - What good is a border if a border is not enforced? To the extent that the aff does not enforce the border there really isn't a difference between the aff and the link.

2NC - the debate is about the hypothetical vs non-hypothenical. You need an explanation about how the non-hypothetical links to your predictability arguments.

1NR - You need the border link!

1AR - Excessive 1ar prompting -- 2NR should make a point to ignore what Lillie said when deciding the round.

2NR -- Correct diagnosis of what the round will come down to.

RFD Dropping the Kulynch evidence in the 2NR hurt the negative. The neg is defending a static, status quo form of politics. The aff is a criticism of that form of politics and a way out of it. The impact is the case.