Southside+Classic+2011

toc

=Round 2 - Wayzata BD v. Minneapolis South BO= I VOTE NEGATIVE FOR SOUTH BO.
 * WayzataBD || Pts || Ranks ||  || SouthBO || Pts || Ranks ||
 * Thorton Bates || 27 || 3 ||  || Jacob Boucher || 27.9 || 2 ||
 * Blaize DePass || 26.8 || 4 ||  || Lillie Oulette-Howitz || 28 || 1 ||

Blaize -- You have bad posture when you are reading which causes breathing problems. Stand up straight so you do not restrict your diaphragm.

Cupcake -- Good 1NC. However, if your argument ends in "Spec" you might want to spend your time on another position. Spec args trade off with good ones. It's a zero sum game.

Thorton and Blaize -- you two have to stop fighting with each other during your speeches. Thor is the captain of the aff ship, but he has to make sure he gets stuff prepped in a timely fashion and not yell at Blaize for not getting him the right answers to the spending da, which he should have prepped before the debate.

Thor - you were incompressible during your DA to the Executive Order counter-plan, to the point where I didn't immediately understand the link.

Liliie -- Your case debate is not going to help you at the end of the debate as much as more time on the cap K. You can make the warming advantage irrelevant by reading cards what say that capitalism causes warming and other instances of environmental destruction. Also, you should answer arguments in order. Answer Framework then the line by line because they put framework on the top of the cap K flow.

Thor -- Cupcake is right, you are questioning about arguments that were not made in the 2AC.

Cupcake -- You have to work on your clarity. I did not understand any of your arguments on intrinsicness, or the second half of your overview on the counterplan. I called clear at you a couple of times in a row, and you made no adjustment. In a debate like this it might be OK to slow down rather than staying unclear. Also, i think that you are not flowing, because you are answering arguments that were not made in the 2AC. For instance I did not have either the RVI or the Executive Order is secretive argument. Furthermore, your answers on the elections DA to the counterplan are weak. Take time in cross-ex or prep to figure out the position, and answer it. They are arguing that the Obama needs credit to get re-elected. This is not an uncommon strategy to agent counterplans.

Blaize -- You spent 2 minutes of your 1AR answering condo. You didn't read condo in the 2AC! You spent 2 minutes of precious 1AR time not answering the K which the 2NC focused her speech on. It is likely that she will be going for that argument. You might want to extend some offense on that flow. Also, you need to explain the Elections DA that Thor read on the Executive Order counterplan. Cupcake messed that up pretty bad in the 2AC, and you need to make him pay. Also you dropped SKFTA.

Cupcake -- a good way to make me mad is to tell your partner to shut up.Lillie is the captain of the neg ship, if she asks for help, give it to her, and be polite. I am docking you .2 speaker points for mistreatment of Lillie.

Lillie -- You need to simplify the 2NR. Do not got for T unless you are going all in on it, or you can win it quickly. You have a dropped we meet, so it will be hard for you to win topicality either quickly or even if you had gone all in on it. Blaize dropped SKFTA, you need to make it seem like a bigger deal that they dropped it. You need to leverage that on the probability debate -- a conceded DA gets absolute probability in debate.

Thor -- You snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2AR. You had a conceded Elections DA that you could leverage. You mis-explained your disad to the counterplan. What your argument is, Obama needs to be perceived that he is fixing the economy. The CP cannot solve this because it avoids public perception. Therefore, it is better to act through Congress so it can look like Obama gets credit. But you explain it that Obama needs to BLAME congress if plan goes wrong. That is the mirror-opposite of what your cards say or what you want them to say.

RFD I vote negative on the dropped SKFTA DA and the fact that the affirmative didn't make a solvency argument against the XO counterplan until rebuttals. Aff mis-explains their argument in the 2AR.

In the 1NR, Cupcake mishandles the elections DA to the XO counterplan. The aff's argument is that if the plan is enacted through an XO, Obama won't get credit for attempting to fix the economy. Obama needs to get credit for fixing the economy in order to get re-elected and maintain our hegemony through his interventionist foreign policies. The best argument that neg has against this is "I don't understand, give me leeway". You have cross-ex and 8 minutes of prep (i.e. the 2NC) go get the point of this argument. Blaize extends it (barely) in the 1AR. At this point this should be an easy win for the affirmative. However, Blaize also drops the SKFTA DA. Cupcake's overview makes claims that the SKFTA DA outweighs the case on magnitude, turns the case, and is more probable. So I have a virtually dropped argument to a dropped argument. This would ordinarily give the 2AR the chance to win the debate, by comparing his dropped elections DA to the dropped SKFTA DA. However, the explanation of the argument in the 2AR is backwards. He says that the reason the counterplan is bad, is Obama won't be able to ** blame ** Congress for doing the plan when it hurts the economy. Huh? Given that the 2AC was unclear when reading this arg, and that the 2AR could not properly explain it in the 2AR I will not give the aff any credit for the argument. The counterplan solves the case, and avoids the concede SKFTA DA.

=Round 3 -- Humboldt MP v. Highland Park CS= Lawanza and Ramon -- You are falling into the trap of debating a paperless team. You are spending too much time reading along with Ben while he reads his 1NC off case positions, rather than flowing and preparing your arguments. Instead, you should be flowing and pulling your frontlines.
 * HumboldtMP || Pts || Rks ||  || HighlandParkCS || Pts || Rks ||
 * Lawanza Montgomery || 26.5 || 4 ||  || Benjamin Cretsinger || 27 || 2 ||
 * Ramon Page || 26.6 || 3 ||  || Marie Sheehan || 27.9 || 1 ||

Lawanza - You have to answer the Nietzsche K in the 2AC. You are better off making framework arguments or reading disadvantages to the alternative. Ordinarily it is good for the 2AC to keep talking about his/her case. However, you can't talk about the case at the expense of answering all of the off- case arguments. You need to flow the arguments so you know what to answer. It appears that you were totally unaware that Highland Park read Nietzsche K. Furthermore, your answers to the china DA and CP need to be more differentiated. For example, you need to put the perm on the counterplan flow.

Marie -- Good 2NC. You have some breathing problems which I think you can solve through drills. The "chair drill" will help make sure you are breathing from your diaphragm. Also, you want to take breaths at regular intervals. You want to breath at the punctuation in your cards.

Ben -- First, 1NR prep should only be used when the 2NC can't finish everything in her speech. Second, you need to answer the line by line arguments on T. I agree that the case is not topical but you drop some voting issue arguments related to your interpretation. Specifically, you drop that your interpretation is overlimiting and that I should judge topicality on the basis of reasonability. You can beat these args, but you have to actually answer them first. You also drop their arguments about how exploration is a multi-variant term and susceptible to broad interpretations -- and that broad interpretations are therefore necessary.

Ramon -- Good 1AR on T. You extended K drops that make this a non-viable argument for the negative.

Marie -- Good 2NR. You picked the right arguments, and adequately kicked out of the stuff you are not going for. Good extension and impact explanations on the K for writing the ballot.

Lawanza -- Good 2AR. It is always a good idea to be talking about your case in the 2AR. I would really focus your speech on the natural disaster aspect of the case. The negative securitization arguments all relate to your hegemony advantage, and does not direclty address the natural disaster argument. I think in the future this is one way to attack the K.

Reason For Decision

The affirmative drops the Nietzsche K in the 2AC. The arguments that the negative hid the ball on this are unavailing to the affirmative. It is the affirmative's job to flow to make sure they catch all the positions read in a given speech. Also, I do not recall the affirmative asking Ben in Cross-Ex every position he read, or that he lied about it. The Nietzsche K was a good 3 minutes of the 1NC, which means that the affirmative, if they were flowing, or minimally paying attention, should have picked up that this was being run. Second, the 1AR arguments about natural disasters leading to extinction are new, and there is no answer to the "No Value to Life" argument that the neg is making. You need to make some argument about why an extinction is more important that a value to life argument. I think that this is a good way to refute the Nietzsche arguments but you a) have to make it in the 2AC, and b) make a comparison of why extinction is worse than an alleged loss of value to life.

If the neg had chosen to go for politics and disad, I also could have voted negative. Aff did not make a responsive argument to the china currency disadvantage. You need to make some uniqueness arguments about whether Obama has political capital or whether he can stop the China Currency bill from passing in the status quo. Basically, you need a politics frontline.

= Round 4 -- Roseville MM v. Eagan SU =


 * RosevilleMM || Pts || Rks ||  || EaganSU || Pts || Rks ||
 * Sean Martinson || 27.4 || 1 ||  || Margaret Schriber || 26.8 || 3 ||
 * Luke Mielke || 27.3 || 2 ||  || Hunter Undem || 26.5 || 4 ||

Luke - Usually 1AC's don't cross-app cards. You should just cross-app them in rebuttals, or the 2AC.

Hunter -- your spending DA is non-unique. We already lowered our credit rating to AA. Your evidence is from last August, which in this situation, makes it ancient. Also you didn't read an impact.

Sean -- First, you need to make sure you understand the T arguments before you get up. They have an increase violation which you fail to answer. You will be able to apply your voting issue arguments to this violation but you don't get a we meet or counter-interpretation. Second, you don't need to repeat your voting issue arguments (e.g., clash checks, lit checks, novice case limits check) twice on both the exploration and development arguments. Third, you should read offense to the counterplan. Make a solvency deficit argument and perhaps read a disad to the counterplan. I think that the STEM education advantage is a good solvency deficit.

Margaret -- Do both is not intrinsic. The sequential perms are intrinsic because they add the element of sequencing. Really they are severance because they sever out of the immediacy of the plan, which screws up your disads. But you have to label this arg a voting issue. On spending you really need to address the unqiuness better

Hunter -- You had a conceded "increase" violation. You didn't extend that. You need to improve your flowing so that you are clashing with the points made by the 2ac in the order Sean made them. You need to answer the lit checks, and clash checks arguments not just the novice case limits check arguments. You need to answer their counter-interpretations directly.

Luke -- decent 1AR. Good choice on T to extend the development argument, which makes the exploration argument irrelevant. On the disad, I think that you should argue that the new impact read in the 2NC is sandbagging and a reason not to accept the impact. You should do a better job of explainign how the loss of the AAA rating emprically denies the link. On the perm debate you should have an intepretation of what an intrinsic perm is, and explain how "do both" is not an intrinsicness perm. Regardless, because they have no impact to the spending disad there is no net benefit to the counterplan.

Margaret -- You have to make choices in the 2NR. You cannot go for everything. You need to pick a position and go for it. The increase violation would we the way to go, but your partner did not extend that violation in the 1NR, so it is unavailing to you. You should either go for T, or counterplan and case. They don't make a solvency deficit argument or read additional offense against the counterplan, so you would solve each advantage and any risk of the disad means I should vote neg. When you go for everything you lose time to really nail down the points you want to win.

Reasons For Decision

I vote affirmative, because the negative does not have a complete position that I can vote on. First, neg drops the arguments about how the aff is development. Second, there is no net benefit to the counterplan, since the link should have already occurred after the credit rating was lowered to AA.

= Round 5 - Eagan DW v. Minneapolis South JJ =


 * EaganDW || Pts || Rks ||  || MplsSouthJJ || Pts || Rks ||
 * Justin Dietz || 27.8 || 1 ||  || Mubashir Jeilani || 27.4 || 3 ||
 * Kevin Wei || 27.7 || 2 ||  || Matt Johnson || 27.3 || 4 ||

I VOTE AFF FOR EAGAN DW.

Kevin - You slur the names of authors.

Mubashir -- You probably should read an external net benefit to the counterplan (i.e. politics), or at least a card that says that the counterplan would solve. You also might want to read aspec to avoid "perm do the counterplan"

Kevin -- let Justin give the 2AC. He is doing fine. Your interruptions are unnecessary.

Matt -- you need to pay attention to the line by line on the security dabate. You are dropping a number of arguments that the 1AR can impact. For example you drop two carded arguments that the alternative cannot solve. You drop the "Coverstone Perm" (i.e., do the alt in all other instances) and the corresponding "double-bind" argument. Also, your arguments on framework do not make a ton of sense.

Mubashir -- You are too weded to your blocks. You need to actually debate the aff, not just read some blocks one of your teammates wrote. More to the point, you have to address the 2AC arguments in order rather than jumping around as you recall some of the 2AC arguments. Also, unless you read a politics disad there is no impact to your cards about political capital.

Kevin - You mishandle the counterplan. It is true that they didn't read an impact to political capital, but they do have another disad to the perm. Namely, that the perm destroys SOP, which has an additional net benefit to the counterplan. You have to answer the Reddish evidence on the counterplan. You need to do a better job of impacting the congressional backlash argument. You claim that it means that the counterplan cannot solve for terrorism, but you don't really explain why. You need a more memorable explanation of this argument in the 1AR.

Matt -- Wrong 2NR choice. You could have won the round on the counterplan. They had no solvency deficit arguments, and they dropped the main net benefit in the 1AR. They have no args about the Prez Power net benefit or the SOP net benefit. There only game is the unsubstantiated claim that a congressional backlash would mean you do not solve for terrorism. However, their card does not support this argument and they don't provide an explanation for this argument. If you just reiterate your solvency card you'd win.

In contrast the k has some devistating dropped arguments, as I mentioned above.

Justin -- A simple way to win this debate is extend framework. Kevin extended it and Matt dropped it. You need to do better job of explaining the Coverstone Double-Bind arg.

REASON FOR DECISION

I vote affirmative on the Coverstone-Double-bind argument. Neg drops the perm do the alt in all other instances, and the argument that if the alt cannot withstand the perm, it is a weak alt that cannot solve. There is no cross-application of the other perm cards or answer to why the alt alone is comparatively better than the perm. Also, there is no discussion of the K's impacts. It would be hard for me to weigh the K against the case since thre is no weighing done by the 2NR.

I think that the 2NR needs to make an epistemology argument. You need to say that all of the aff claims are grounded in a bad methodology for describing the world, and therefore, they don't get any solvency for the case.