2012-2013+Ballots

=MDAW Round 1 -= toc Klayton -- You are right on the border of incomprehensible. You are mangling names, and there is no inflection which indicates where card ends and tag begins. Also, think into the second line when constructing the 1NC. 2AC could concede that their solvency is long-term, and that your disad happens faster, then read dedev. That would also answer your K, giving the 2AC a time trade-off. The counterplan wouldn't save you, since presumably the DA links to the plan, not the counterplan.
 * South BO || Pts || Ranks ||  || South EW || Pts || Ranks ||
 * Lily ||  ||   ||   || Klayton ||   ||   ||
 * Cupcake ||  ||   ||   || Cole went to play Soccer and didn't debate ||   ||   ||

Cupcake -- 60% of speech was incomprehensible, especially toward the end of your speech. These blippy perms are impossible to flow. Your first perm of "do the counterplan" on states is ridiculous, and Klayton is embarassing you on this question in cross-examination. Also, I was not able to flow all the stupid blippy perms that you read in the 2AC. The neg can group them say "this isn't an argument, don't evaluate it."

Klayton -- You need a couple of ways to win the debate after the block. Kicking both the counterplan and the K gives you no chance of solving for the aff. Also, why take the time to question about a perm you are going to concede to kick the cp. You need to substantiate your claims about "breaking the bank" and your brink analysis. You just have claims on this argument. You need to read cards, or have a deeper explanation of investor confidence. Keep in mind that the affirmative is making a Keynesian argument. You need an explanation that investors don't like Keynsian economics anymore, or a better explanation of why the plan would not spur spending.

1NR -- Overall I am concerned about the dearth of evidence you read during the block, and the dearth of offense you read on case. It is hard for the neg to win on DA + case mitigation, generally.

Lilly -- Best speech in the round. You did a good job of comparing on the nexus question of whether the plan is good or bad for the economy.

Klayton -- I realize you are not a 2NR, but you need to have a focused speech. Pick one of the two DA's to go for. I think the better choice in this debate is politics. You need to explain the da from the first link of the chain to the final terminal impact, and compare your prolif impacts to the case debate. By going for both disads, you are hurting your ability to tell a cohesive story. Also, you are far behind on the econ debate. First, you have no indicts of the affirmative's Keynsian argument about public investments solving the economy. Your "best" argument is the purely defensive claim that their impact might take 30 years, but without calling the card, I think that the aff is correct that they will get benefits for 30 years, not that the investment will only pay off 30 years from now.

Cupcake -- 2AR was way better than the 2AC in terms of clarity. Good extension of the econ story. After that the rest of the case debate is gravy, since there is no offense on those flows. Just get to the disads.

=MDAW 2012 - Camp Tournament Round 3=

1AC - Good speed and clarity. You don't get to the hege advantage with enough time, so you might be better off reading more cards on the econ and oil advantages. In cross-ex, he's looking for a cap link which you've already spotted him. Finish your answer with a reason why plan makes growth sustainable.

1NC -- You read too many cards on the CP. You should read one solvency cards, a link to federalism and an impact. Read fewer states solves cards, and save that debate for later. You could then read another net benefit to the counterplan.

2AC -- 1. Organization. You are jumping between flows too much. You should have your arguments planned out so you are not jumping between flows so much. If you have your own timer, you'll have better time allocation. 2. CP. On the counterplan, add a 50 state fiat bad argument. It will give you a time trade-off, and a substantial number of the judging pool agrees with this arg. You also need to impact your solvency deficit arguments. What does the efficiency of the federal government mean to the advantages? 3. The K. On capitalism, you have spotted them the link. You need to win the sustainability question. 4. Elections DA. You need more diversity of answers on the elections da flow. You are only making a case outweighs arguments. The weakness of any politics DA is the internal link. You need to make some challenges there. 5. Case. A) impact dropped arguments. They have conceded that warming causes extinction, and they have not made an offensive argument here. Exploit that. B) explain your args.

2NC 1. Link/Perm debate. They didn't challenge the link. You should briefly weave the link explanations into the perm debate. 2. Organization. You also should not ignore the line-by-line in favor of major subsections. You need to clash with certain of their arguments. For example, you made no response to the 2AC argument that they make cap sustainable. 3. Refutation. You read cards that respond to the Rummell evidence, but you do not debate the Rummell evidence. You need to explain why the Rummell evidence is wrong.

1NR 1. Counterplan - Net Ben -- Extend it. They made no answers to the federalism impact. 2. Counterplan solvency -- Good job. 3. DA. You should probably point out that they have spotted you the internal link and impacts. Make a comparison to the da vs. the case, that even if you don't go for the cp, you would still outweigh on the da. 4. The hege arg. Smart.

1AR. 1. Efficiency - you need to make choices. On case you should pick an advantage, and extend it, and weigh it against their offense. You don't have enough time to extend every advantage, and it hurts your time. 2. Flowing. You dropped multiple perms bad. 3. CP. You need to impact your solvency deficit arguments, and catch up on the net benefit debate. 4. Solvency. Good job. You are out debating them here. Make a comparison of your carded argument versus the 2NC's analytic argument.

2NR - 1. Choices. Correct 2NR choice. I know you like going for cap, but this was the correct choice since the 1AR dropped the DA. 2. The DA. You need to box them out, and narrow the debate down. Your explanation of the link debate is extraneous since they have spotted that issue to you. Instead you should be debating their only 2 arguments a) hege solves; b) war won't escalate. 3. The counterplan. The neg needs an impact to the efficiency/inefficiency arguments. At the end of the day, because they have dropped the DA, it will outweigh the case. However, you should be making arguments that counterplan solves good enough, and the net ben is dropped. So even if their is a solvency deficit, the net bens outweigh.

2AR. 1. Order. Condo should be first. It is your last best chance of winning the debate. 2. Condo. You need to answer the new 2NR arguments about why dispo solves. Specifically, you need an answer to dispo is not a stable concept, so neg's don't know how to answer it. 3. Case v. DA. You need to weigh the dropped case vs. the dropped da.

=MDAW Finals=

1AC - I didn't understand the overview. The tags and cards were incomprehensible. Otherwise good audience reading of the 1ac. I think you need evidence on the racism advantage that tells the judge how to weigh the advantage versus the disad.

2N CX - Your initial questions looking for links are too obvious, and are asking too final of a question. Your cross-examination on case is way better, but you should ask more leading questions to control the cross-ex. Ask "Why" when you need to know why, or you are confident the aff doesn't know why.

1NC -- Pretty bad-ass 1NC. The preempts on the K are unnecessary. You can have the perm debate and the framework debate in the block. You would be better off reading more args on equity advantage. I do think that you may have been too fast on the case debate. I was missing some of the tags.

1A CX - You are letting the 1N explain her story. Think about controlling the examination, by asking closed ended questions.

2AC - Incomprehensible. All too often I got about the first word of each tag. Answer the case arguments in the order that the 1NC made them. It makes me think you are not flowing when you answer the 1nc case arguments out of order.

2NC -- 1. Decision Making. You have to make choices. You would be better off collapsing down instead of going for everything. Kick out of politics. Shadow-extending it does not get you anything. 2. Dollar DA. You are correct about the 2AC mistakes on this argument. You do a decent job of boxing them out, but you need to make some impact arguments on the Dollar DA. 3. Counterplan. Multiple Perms Bad is the dumbest argument in any debate. You need to do a better job of debating the line by line.

1NR -- 1. Choices. Extending severance perms bad only works in a world where you identify a severance perm. You don't explain how any of the perms are severance. 2. Speed. You need to speed it up a notch speed. 3. Impacts. You need to explain the impact in more vivid detail. Your best impact is it turns the racism argument.

1AR -- 1. You need to make choices too. More than any other debater. In this debate, there are a ton of drops from the block. You should be more ruthless in exploiting those drops. Also, you should be making new evidence comparisions, which frame the issue.

2NR -- 1. Order. The framing issue of the debate for you is timeframe right? Then why not begin on that issue? Your 2NR would have been 1000X stronger if you had began on the dollar DA. 2. Counterplan. You need to answer the case arguments about paradigm shift.

2AR -- 1. Impact comparison. You need it. Badly. You are ahead on the case flow. You need to weigh those impacts versus the dollar da. 2. Econ Debate. Two ships are passing in the night. The people who write the dollar disad think that Keynesian economics causes inflation, which is bad. The Dollar DA is direct refutation of your economy DA. You need to explain why your argument is more correct. Not just that it is there.

RFD This debate is hard to decide because no one is really executing well. I resolve this debate for the affirmative because the 2NR does not do a sufficient job of explaining the story of this disadvantage. Thor does a good job framing this disad as a timeframe question. However, I do not have a coherent explanation of what investors perceive, and why they perceive it. More detail here, in the real world terms, would have won this debate for you. Also, the 2NR needs to compare the starvation impact to the case impacts. I think you are correct that you are ahead on timeframe, but you need to compare that to the case.

The counterplan is also hard to evaluate in technical terms. But I vote on the dropped case arguments on why a federal signal is necessary.

=Valley Round 1= 1AC -- You need to work on over-articulation. I am probably only getting 75% of what you are saying in the 1AC. Also, you had 30 seconds left in the 1AC. You can either (a) read another card; or (b) slow down so you speak clearer.
 * Niles North DN || Points || Rks ||  || Glenbrook North DM || Points || Ranks ||
 * Irene Diblich || 26.5 || 4 ||  || Kevin Du || 27.5 || 1 ||
 * Shelby Nordstedt || 26.6 || 3 ||  || Scott Mulchnik || 27.4 || 2 ||

2NC -- Don't answer the 1NC's cross-examination questions. It is OK in limited situations, but when you answer before the 1N can even speak in the first instance, it hurts your partner's credibility.

1NC -- Not a fan of disads that link to fiat. It is an artificial link. You should frame the link not as fiat, but as demonstrating that the congress is not do nothing. However,

2AC -- You used a lot of prep time. 7:00 minutes. You finished your 2AC with 2:34 remaining. You need to put more answers on the elections DA. You had only 1 answer about the farm bill. You need to attack the da on multiple levels, rather than putting all your eggs into the same basket. Your answers on the Heidegger K are not responsive. The 1NC was not a criticism of technology (that tangible thing) but on technological thinking, which is different. On the case flow, you need to answer the line by line. You did a good job of referencing their arguments, but you didn't refute any of them. Just saying "Fritz 9" is not an argument. You need to identify the warrants from that card and explain why those warrants are better than the warrants in the 1nc cards.

2NC -- You do a good job of explaining how the 2AC was not responsive to your Heidegger K. However, I would prefer that you answer the 2AC in order rather than jumping around. I think you could have used an overview, that framed the debate so that they can't weigh the case against your criticism. They didn't make any framework arguments, so you should make some arguments that re-frames the debate.

1NR -- Good extension of politics. Don't read new impacts, however. The 1AR could not read democracy bad, and get back into the debate. You needed to get to condo with more time. It is really the aff's only chance of winning at this point so you do not want to undercover it.

1AR -- Your best chance of winning this debate is to win the condo debate. I could see an argument for extending case before you do that but you spent nearly half your speech extending case. The next thing you should be doing is extending conditionality debate. You didn't get to it at all in your speech. The only answer you have to deal with is an aff side-bias argument. There is no offense, and their is no counter-interpretation, and there is no reason why dispo doesn't solve for aff side bias. This was a gimme, but you gave it way by spending too much time on textual vs. functional competition.

2NR -- You didn't extend the DA in the block.

2AR -- Your order doesn't make sense. The 2NR went all in on the counterplan, so you only need to address the issue of whether the counterplan is competitive. Addressing non-extended case arguments is a waste of your time since the only issue is whether either permutation is viable.

RFD -- I vote negative on the smoking ban counterplan. The neg conditions the plan on the states implementing a smoking bad. The affirmative does not answer whether the states will say yes. The counterplan therefore solves all of the affirmative, and saves lives. The only question is whether there is a viable perm. The two perms are "do both" and "do the counterplan." First, I am not sure that the 1AR extended "do both" but the 2NR is behaving as if they did. 2NR says that "do both" perms fail because the states need credible conditioning. Neither the 2AC or 1AR has an argument that answers this. 2AR goes only for do both, but does not make an argument for why credibile conditioning is necessary to solve the smoking net benefit. It was wise to kick "do the counterplan" because of all the theory goo on that perm, but you need to answer this conditioning argument.

=Valley Round 2= 1AC - Clarity is a real problem in this debate. Very monotone and low volume. Also face me so that I can hear you. You are talking to your lappy.
 * **Wayzata ZK** || **Points** || **Ranks** ||  || **OPRF MM** || **Points** || **Ranks** ||
 * Leighton Zhao || 27.0 || 4 ||  || John Martin || 29.5 || 1 ||
 * Nikhil Krishnan || 27.2 || 3 ||  || Morgan Murphy || 29.3 || 2 ||

1NC -- Good speech. Clear. Fast. Loud. Smart.

2AC -- You need to rework this aff. You are reading too many of the K's greatest hits. Focault, Badiou, Derrida, etc. These authors are not entirely consistent with one another, and Derrida and Focault have some real tension. I am a relatively K friendly judge, and I do not understand most of what your aff is about. Based on cross-examination I am getting the impression that the neg knows more about your aff than you.

2NC -- Excellent 2NC. Good explanation of the Nayer argument/floating pic.

1NR -- Good job on T. Excellent issue identification and framing of the T question. \

1AR -- Prompting results in a dramatic decrease in speaker points. Also, not using full speech time. On the cap K you need to answer the Kovel argument. The 2NC argues that cap is the source of biopower, not the other way around. You have no answer to this. This is devistating versus the critique because you do not upset the cap apple-cart, which means that your harms will inevitably replicate themselves. Also you need to answer the Marshall 95 evidence that analysis of biopower is a link. You are dropping too much on the K flow, and frankly you need to answer the extra-T argument on framework especially since you jettison your defense of the state in the 1ar.

2NR -- I know it is hard to pick in situations like this, because both the K and T are good options. I am glad you went for T (even though I am from Central) because I like it when the 2NR goes for 1NR arguments. You spend a little too much time justifying why you go for the floating PIK and T. I think the "even if" is pretty clear. If they do use the state, than PIK, if they don't then T. However, I think that the shifting throughout the debate by the aff means I could vote negative on T regardless.

RFD This affirmative is a hash. The aff does not understand many of the arguments and authors they use in the 1AC. Deconstruction is not genealogy. They are two separate methods. Regardless, the 1AR vastly undercovers T, so most of the 2AR is new. The negative reads framework to say that the aff must defend (and only defend) action by the United States Federal Government (USFG). In the 2AC, it becomes clear that the aff defends action by the USFG as a starting point, but also defends "local action" and "genealogy." In the 1NR overview, Morgan says that if they don't defend the USFG they are not topical but if they defend more than the USFG they are extra topical. This argument is not addressed. The 1AR says that they use the USFG as a starting point. This links right into the extra-topicality argument. She says that this would destroy education because it makes it impossible to negate when the affirmative can pick an infitite number of additional actors, plus the USFG. She also says that this will hurt fairness. The 1ar has essentially 2 arguments. First, they use the USFG as a starting point should solve all their limits debate because they start the debate defending the USFG. Second, he states that there is no topical version of the aff since using the USFG cannot solve their afff. I definitely see these two arguments as being in tension with one another. But more importantly I see them as being unavailing. Using the USFG as a starting point does not solve her extra T argument. Second, there is a topical version of your aff. I suggest that in future rounds, the aff take the 2NR's advice, defend the plan, and say that is presentation of the plan is the genealogy that Foucualt calls for.

=Valley Round 3= 1AC -- Good reading. Clear. You need to highlight so you can finish the 1ac.
 * Niles North SY || Points || Ranks ||  || Blake BN || Points || Ranks ||
 * Adam Yusen || 28.2 ||  ||   || Mary-Madeleine Norgard || 28.0 ||   ||
 * Jyotsna Seesala || 27.9 ||  ||   || Alexandra Boyd || 28.1 ||   ||

Cross-Ex of 1NC -- too much time is waisted in cross-examination over what will replace capitalism post-alt. You can save these arguments for the 2AC. It was pretty clear that the neg was not going to take a position on this question in cross-ex.

2AC -- Good job on elections. You have too many meta comments about your speech doc. Telling them what cards to skip is unnecessary in a world where the neg is flowing. If they are not, who cares. In your cross-ex of the 2NC, it is not worth examining on the question of "dropped arguments are true." Also, don't ask about unanswered arguments, because it gives the 2N time to prep the 1nr, as happened in this debate.

1NR -- Do the impact work as an overview. You need to compare your impacts to the case. For example, do U.S.-Russia relations help solve terrorism? You can then use your disad as a free extra CP against the aff. You need to put up a uniquness wall. Talk about current events that have changed since their evidence was written. For example the Romney 47% tape, etc.

1AR -- When extending a perm you need to explain why the perm is net beneficial. Also, you need to be less reliant on prompting and Adam needs to prompt you less. You also need to impact your solvency deficit arguments on the counterplan better. A) what piece of evidence says that coordination is key; B) explain why coordination is key; c) explain what would happen if the states didn't coordinate.

2NR -- You need to resolve arguments. You are just listing off different issues in the debate and declaring victory on those issues. You need to tell a story about what the world would look like in the world on the counterplan and compare that to a world of the aff. Also, you need to explain why you win the nexus question of the debate. For example, you need to explain why there is no solvency deficit because of coordination. How does the counterplan solve for the coordination problem?

2AR -- Good job talking about the case in the 2AR. You also need to work on resolving arguments and comparing stories.

RFD The lack of comparison makes this debate difficult to judge. First, I have to resolve the politics debate. It would be helpful if both final rebuttals took stock of what issues they are ahead on, and what issues they are behind on. The neg is ahead on the the direction of the link. The aff is head on uniqueness.

The negative is head on the direction of the link because they are reading better cards, and they work to subsume the affirmative' link turn. The neg link is that new spending will make Obama look bad and hurt him in the election. The affirmative says that counterterrorism efforts help Obama's brand. The problem is the Agiesta 12 evidence says that he already leads the republicans on this issue. The plan might reinforce that issue, but this evidence does not support the claim that it would improve Obama's chances. Conversely, the Skelley 12 evidence says that Obama would get tagged for "wasteful spending", and the neg does a good job of explaining how the plan would be perceived as wasteful given the spending that we already do on port security. this is supported by the cards read in the 2AC.

However, the affirmative is ahead on the uniqueness debate. This if unfortunate because I think that the cards they are reading are just wrong but the aff doesn't make these arguments. The aff needs to answer that the polls are biased argument. They do not, so I discount their cards about why Obama is ahead and privilege why Romeny is ahead.

Without a risk of a net ben, the counterplan does not factor into my decision. No reason not to do the plan.

=Valley Round 4= 1AC -- Like the aff.
 * Niles West CC || Points || Ranks ||  || Millard West SM || Points || Ranks ||
 * Gershorn Chan || 27.9 ||  ||   || Jack Spady || 27.5 ||   ||
 * Nick Charles || 27.8 ||  ||   || Brian Murray || 28.0 ||   ||

1NC -- You need to answer more of the advantages. You are leaving too many of the scenarios unanswered.

2NC -- If you take 6 minutes of prep for the 2NC, you should be reading more than 1 card in the 2NC. you need to read more cards in the 2NC.

Block strategy -- I am not a huge fan of the block strategy. It is a tactical mistake for the neg to only read 1 card during the block. You are collapsing the debate too early, since you have to win that your evidence was better than the aff evidence in the first instance. It puts no time pressure on the 1AR because he can just reference 1ac and 2ac cards, and doesn't have to think too hard about how to compare that evidence. Second, you have no way to solve for the aff, and you don't have defense that is game over good. The aff gets a comparative advantage.

1AR -- The negs only chance of winning this debate is to win that the econ da happens before the case can solve, taking out solvency. You need to compare timeframe.

2NR -- The "concession" on T is rather silly, and you are overselling it. You do not prove that there is an actual time differential between giving loans and building of ships. This is crucial to the thesis of the 2nr -- that I should evaluate on timeframe differential.

RFD I vote neg and I am flabbergasted that I am doing so. First, the 2AR's big move in this debate, to concede the Bonney 10 evidence does not pay off. That card was not extended after the 2ac, and frankly the 1ar over-claimed it. The failure to repeal the Jones act might be a drain on our economy but it does not guarantee runway spending. Second, the Bencivenga evidence is as good as advertised. It says that if the US goes into debt, it will cut spending on shipbuidling. This means if the neg wins a risk on the spending da, it turns back the whole case. The aff needs a real non-unique of their own here, but they don't question unqiuenss. There is not going to be new spending. The plan is new spending. The savings are all long term, and the Keynsian economic stuff does not directly refute the link story. I vote neg.

=Valley Round 5= 1AC -- Fast and clear. Good job.
 * Bloomington GD || Points || Ranks ||  || Glenbrook North BS || Points || Ranks ||
 * Alexa Groenke || 28.2 || 2 ||  || Dale Brinsky || 27.0 || 3 ||
 * Ruby DeBellis || 28.3 || 1 ||  || Ryan Spector || 26.8 || 4 ||

1NC -- You finished with 1:10 remaining. You read cites and cards like "Shy Ronnie" from Saturday Night Live. Tags are clear, but the text is difficult to understand because you mumble it quickly.

2AC -- Good time allocation.

2NC -- On topicality you have to do more than repeat the 1NC violation. You need to extend the debate, not just repeat. Did a better job of extending the smoking ban counterplan. However, you need to work on responding to the line by line, rather than just dumping everything on the perm. You probably need to work on flowing since you read answers to a perm that was not read in the 2ac.

1NR -- Double coverage in the block makes baby jesus cry. You and your partner need to split up issues in the block. If the 2NC answers topicality, the 1NR should not. The only exception is if she needs you to make one additional answer. But you should under no circumstances make the same arguments tht she made in the 2NC. It wastes your time, and messes up the flow. Also, you need to answer the line by line. You are dropping too many individual arguments on the counterplan flow. Counterplan debates are not just about the perms. You need to answer the solvency deficit arguments.

1AR -- Good job on T, tax cuts cp, and sacred cow. I think you had a little more trouble on the smoking counterplan. You had a pretty good reason for say no, but I think you need to talk more about the burden here. The burden should be on the aff to win "say yes" not on you to win "say no." However, I think you are ahead on that. I was less clear about what your answer to intrinsic perms bad was. Are you arguing intrinsic perms are good because they are educational? That is not an availing argument.

2NR -- You made the wrong 2NR choice. You had a better chance on winning smoking than winning the tax cuts cp with sacred cow net benefit. On the counterplan you have dropped a disad to the counterplan that private militaries are bad. This disad was dropped in the block and extended in the 1ar. You kind of answer it by saying that the military will still control itself under the military but be funded by the privates. However, a) this is a new argument in the 2nr; and b) really?

2AR -- The intrinsic perms good argument is not an "easy way out". It is a pretty bad arg.

RFD I vote affirmative. The counterplan is worse than the plan. The negative concedes PMCs bad, and the solvency deficit created by privates. These outweigh the net benefits, because the case would solve the terminal impact to the abl laser da. Also, the neg dropped the carded non-unique argument. Defense already seen as sacred which would have triggered the da.

=Valley Doubles= Westside KP v. GBN KM

1AR -- There is something about this 1ar that undermines your entire creativity argument. The 1ar is reading prepared blocks that do not account for what the block said in extending framework. When she runs out of those blocks, the aff turns into a ventriloquist act, where the 2ac speaks, and the 1ar repeats. How does this demonstrate any creativity? There was no adaptation to what the negative actually said, and the speaker is not speaking for herself, but her partner telling her exactly what to say.

2AR Prep -- Were you flowing the 2NR? you are asking so many questions that it is clear to me you were not.

RFD I have much sympathy for the negatives closing arguments in this debate. Based on my experience in debate, I think that the Lundberg evidence has much empirical support, whereas the affirmative's position has very little empirical support. First, I think that the nexus question of this debate is the creativity/censorship debate. The affirmative says that I should vote for the team that maximizes creativity. The neg does not provide a different filter, so maximizing creativity is what determines who wins the debate. However, I am not sure the "censorship" and resisting censorship is the best mechanism for maximizing creativity. First, the negative is continually extending that a certain degree of censorship is necessary for promoting creativity The negative's own Gehrke 98 evidence supports this claim. It says "critique arguments...expand our conceptions of policy debate by demonstrating the roles of critiques **in policy discourse.**" That is, critiques have their greatest utility when they are used from within the traditional debate space, rather than just reforming the debate space. Thus, working within the debate space will foster more creativity.

Secondly, I don't think that the aff gets a link to censorship in the first instance. They were not punished in any meaningful way for running their argument. (Losing a round where they had a fair hearing of their argument does not constitute censorship).

=Valley Octo= Westside KP v. Highland Park TS

Both final rebuttalists need to do a better job of comparing arguments and terminal impacts on the framework debate. This debate comes down to an almost irresolvable comparison of creativity vs. anthropocentrism. The aff says I should vote for the team that best advances creativity. He has 2 warrants for this claim. The first is the Del Gado evidence which talks about storytelling and counterstorytelling and how that brings in voices from the margin. An approach which incorporates that adds creativity. Second, is the Gehrke evidence which says debate has to allow critical arguments.

The negative says that the gateway issue, before we get to creativity is rejecting anthropocentrism. This is bad because it is the root of all oppression. The neg says this is a good model for debate for two reasons. The first is it is structurally educational. Second it is policy relevant.

I think that anyone can see that these two positions are not directly responsive to one another. Aff argues that neg is not creative cuz no team could win because all resolutions are anthro. This is a reason to debate the anthro flow, not go for framework

=Valley Quarters= Iowa City MY v. Whitney Young DV

RFD Throughout the debate, it appeared that Whitney Young was in control. They had smart arguments on the case, and had a couple of good net benefits. The decision to kick the elections DA in the 2NR seems to be an error because there is no offensive reason to vote negative. The neg could win on a case turn, I suppose, but I don't think that any of the turns that the 2NR extends outweighs the case. The first turn is the private sector crowd out turn. The 2AC responds that there isn't much of a link threshold to this argument because the plan is a drop in the bucket to overall governmental spending. 2NC does a good job of extending the card, and giving reasons to prefer the card, but does not answer the fundamental problem of the link threshold and does not compare the size of this impact to the aff.

=Roseville Round 1= 1AC -- Super monotone. Makes it hard to flow the 1ac. If you add vocal variety you can distinguish between tags & cards.
 * Highland Park TS || Points || Ranks ||  || Eagan BuSe || Points || Ranks ||
 * Sheehan || 28.3 ||  ||   || Charlie || 26.9 ||   ||
 * Taube || 28.2 ||  ||   || Katheryn Bulanek || 27.0 ||   ||

1NC -- I think you should still write up a counterplan text, make your "demand" on the 50 states. I would also pre-empt any of the usual federal key warrants (i.e., coordination, etc.).

2AC -- Occasionally you swallow cites, especially on framework. I'm still getting the arguments, but you might have problems later int he debate when you extend the cards. Related to that, you should not extend author names. You want me to get claims/warrants, not author names. Reference the cite after you've made the argument.

2NC -- 1. The best way to handle an apocalyptic rhetoric K is not to read more link arguments. You need a defense of your representations. Alternatively, you can read a new, non-apocalyptic rhetoric impact, and argue "judge choice" to kick out of the bad reps. 2. I think a better answer to roleplaying bad is "no link". You are not asking me to step into the role of the federal government, you are asking me to make a recommendation of what the USFG should do. I am making a recommendation. Like if I say "If I were you, i'd answer the apocalyptic rhetoric K better", I am not playing your role, I am just saying "this is what you should do."

1NR -- The best speech the neg has had so far was your speech on solvency. I think you need to make an appeal to presumption, that if you win an absolute takeout to solving for auto-mobility you should win even if you don't win an offensive argument. Also go old school and argue that if you win they can't solve for auto-mobility the stock issues come before any risk of offense on the apocalyptic rhetoric K.

1AR -- Good job, but you let your partner prompt you too much. This is more a note for Marie, but I think that prompting hurts both speakers ethos. Good issue identification by Ellen, however. I would point out on framework that the 2NC did not extend her interpretation, she just read a bunch of new cards on utilitarianism, which was not the subject matter of the framework argument in the first instance.

RFD The negative needs to think a little deeper about framework in this debate. The affirmative's argument is that the politics disad does not link because they do not fiat a plan. You need to get a link to politics on framework. You need to make an impacted argument that requires the affirmative to defend the implementation of the plan, as opposed to just "demanding" a plan. I think a good argument is to say that the aff can make whatever "demands" that they want, but they still have to defend the hypothetical implementation. In this case you could make arguments about why politics disads are good, because they are the only way we can become informed citizens which impacts us in the voting booth which is the only place where we can place our hands on the levers of power. The affirmatives method would exclude that.

The utilitarian framework does not get you much in this debate if you don't win that they have to implement a plan.

I could also vote affirmative on the apocalyptic rhetoric argument. As I mentioned above, you need some cards about why apocalyptic rhetoric is good. All you do is read more link arguments. Put differently, it would be like if the affirmative answered your politics disads with cards that explained why bikes are unpopular with congress.

=Roseville Round 3= 1AC -- I understand that you are new, but at round 3, you should have your 1ac in order. You need to read impacts to all your advantage as well as internal links. In this debate you did not read an impact to oil dependency and you didn't read an internal link to to your warming advantage. I am not sure either of these advantages are prima facie.
 * Jefferson AZ || Points || Ranks ||  || Rosemount GS || Points || Ranks ||
 * Zach Anderson || 26.3 ||  ||   || Bailey Stubbe || 26.5 ||   ||
 * Jing Jing Zang || 26.6 ||  ||   || Tristan Goblirsen || 27.5 ||   ||

1NC -- You need to read an impact to the oil da. You need a text for your states counterplan. You also don't need to read 3 solvency cards that all say the same thing. Good vocal variety.

2AC -- You dropped Heidegger K. Not the suggested course of action against Rosemount. Really dropping a K in the 2ac is never a good idea. On T, you need a counter-interpretation to the violation you actually read. In this debate the 1nc said you were not a substantial increase. You need an counter interpretation to "substantially increase."

1NR -- Double coverage makes baby jesus cry. If your partner addresses an issue, you don't have too. You should just take the issues that the 2NC did not take. This should be planned out before the debate.

1AR -- Your decision to pretend that the block dropped conditionality when it wasn't in the 2ac is either brilliant or terrible. It would have been helpful in this debate since the 2ac dropped the Heidegger K. I think you did the right thing reading new cards in the 1ar on this question, but you need to tie it to the new cards read in the 2NC. Make it look moe justified.

2NR -- There is an expression in debate, that "if you go for everything you get nothing." The 2NR went for T, Heidegger, Case, Counterplan, and 2 DAs. You have to make a choice. You can't extend everything in the block. On Heidegger you need a better explanation of why not to accept new arguments in rebuttals. My favorite is that you don't get to cross-examine on the evidence. You can also argue that new arguments encourage sandbagging, which is what probably happened in this debate. Answer the arguments anyway. Their "science good" card is non responsive, and you've got cards you can apply to these new cards.

2AR - Dropping a DA is not a problem with condo, when you do not have offense on them. You need to answer their voter defense -- if they extend all the k's etc. what was in round abuse. You need to impact the potential abuse.

RFD I vote affirmative on conditionality. This is a low point win. Here is why. The 2AC did not read a conditionality argument. For the first time in the 1AR the affirmative challenged the negative because they read conditional arguments. The Jedi Mind-Trick worked, because the 1ar did not call them on this argument being new. The 1AR argues that conditionality is bad for three reasons. First, it is not reciprocal. They argue that if the negative can kick positions, then the aff should be able to as well. Second, they argue that conditionality creates time skews because the 2AC has to answer arguments, which the negative does not need to defend. Third, he says conditionality creates strategy skews, and that there was in round abuse in this debate. He then says that this is a voter for potential and actual abuse.

The 2NR, as mentioned above does not challenge this argument as being new. Instead he says "well I am going for everything in this debate." He does not explain that doing so would resolve the dispute. Further, he does not answer why I should reject conditionality for potential abuse. So I vote aff.

=Minnesota Friday, Round 2 -- Novice= 1AC - Speak louder, but overall good reading of the 1AC. You probably read too much of the Sanchez cards. You read several warrants for the same impact -- that mass transit is necessary for education. You didn't finish the Mann card. I think if you cut down how much of the Sanchez card you read can get you to the good part of the Mann card.
 * Washburn RS || Points || Ranks ||  || Wayzata HW || Points || Ranks ||
 * Virginia Rendler ||  ||   ||   || Raymond He || 27.3 ||   ||
 * Robyn Sibers ||  ||   ||   || Jessica Weng || 28.4 ||   ||

1NC -- Speak louder! I can barely hear you. During your road map you do not need to announce what your disads are going to be. Throw in some analytic arguments, to show you are thinking about the case and not wedded to your cards. yeah, you are reading a 2NC overview to elections. You should read the shell first. Your partner should read the overview in her speech (or you could read it in your 1NR). You didn't get to your second off-case argument. You should read less cards on case. For example, your partner could probably read the utilitarianism cards in the 2NC.

2AC - You need to work on specific refutation. For each point made by the 1NC on case you should (1) identify which of your opponent's point you are addressing; (2) extend your 1AC evidence that responds to this argument; (3) read additional evidence that refutes the evidnece; and (4) explain why that matters. For example, if you win the status quo transportation policy is racist, does that mean you don't need to win that the legal system is not racist? In sum, don't just read more cards on case, but you need to clash with their points. You need to respond to the following negative arguments in the 2AC: (1) legal system prevents solvency; (2) racism is impossible to solve; (3) gentrification; (4) utilitarianism and (5) the elections DA.

2NC -- Ordinarily, new arguments in the 2NC are disfavored, but I think you make them work in this case. Because your partner did not finish them I get why you did. Remember to always read cites to your cards. Good job of extending and impacting your utilitarianism args. You need to make sure your extend the cards that your partner reads, however. He did not read the Wallace evidence. You need to figure out what the uniqueness is for your gentrification turn. But you do a good job of explaining why gentrification means that the affirmative cannot solve the case.

Cross-Ex of 2NC: always use all your cross-ex time. It is prep time for your partner.

1NR Prep -- If this is your first tournament, that's cool, but you had all of the 2NC to prep. It appears that your partner is prepping you. You need to work independently so your partner has the maximum amount of prep time for the 2NR.

1NR -- Double coverage makes baby jesus cry. If your partner addresses an issue you don't need to answer it, unless you are finishing up an argument for her. Also, you need to work on refutation as well. See what I told the 2AC. How could the affirmative have conceded the oil and elections DA when they were read in the 2NC. You did not finish the argument in the 1NC. There was no link, internal link or impact evidence read until your partner read it in the 2NC.

1AR -- Good job extending the case. You do a good job of selecting unanswered warrants. But you are extending too many meaningless impacts How does winning "accidents" help you win this round? You need a better explanation of why racism outweighs extinction The 2NC's argument is that you need to exist to fight racism. You should extend your Memme card which says that racism is the root cause of violence, which means that if you solve the case, you'd solve their extinction scenarios. Use all your speech time. You have to answer the disads. If you had used more prep time, you'd probably have given a better speech.

2NR -- Good issue identification. Extending gentrification means you turn the case (because they dropped it), and why they don't solve. Segregated housing alt cause. This would be pretty sophisticated for a novice, but you should be thinking in the alternative. That is, you should be making "even if" statements. For example, you should say "even if we lose the utilitarianism debate, you'd still vote negative if we win they don't solve for their advantages, and the disads would outweigh because they can't access their moral obligation.

2AR - Your probability arguments are new. They are good though. Bring them up in the 2ac and 1ar. Your timeframe argument is new, but is good. You should make that argument in the 1ar. Use full speech time.

RFD -- I vote negative. 1AR drops why I should evaluate impacts under a util framework, and the aff drops both disads which impact in extinction. The aff argues that extinction comes first because existence is a prerequisite to solving the impacts.

=Minnesota Friday, Round 3 -- Novice= To All: There is a lot of jargon in debate. For purposes of explaining some of the jargon I have used in my ballot, I have included a link to a definition of each word. I encourage you to read through the SDI Encyclopedia to give you a sense of the "language" of debate.
 * South BM || Points || Ranks ||  || Washington Tech JR || Points || Ranks ||
 * Ayantu Berga ||  ||   ||   || Antonio Juarez ||   ||   ||
 * Annie Morales-Leon ||  ||   ||   || Stephany River ||   ||   ||

1AC -- Good reading of the 1AC.

2NC CX of 1AC -- Antonio, you have good presence. You seem authoritative. Look at the judge during cross-examination. Antonio -- If you are the 1NC, you should let Stephany cross-examine the 1AC. You had a good selection of arguments against the case, but you need to read a disadvantage to adopting the plan. Read either the elections DA or the oil DA. For your arguments you need to read (a) tag; (b) cite; and (c) the quotation. (We call the quotation a "card" in debate). You are not reading the tag or cite. This makes it difficult for the judge to track your arguments. A "tag" is the claim that you want the judge to believe. A good tag is something that the judge can write down and refer to later when making his/her decision. You should also "signpost" your arguments.

2AC -- You need to work on clash. You need to respond to each card/argument that the 1NC read. Don't just start reading more aff cards. That's not clashing.

CX of 2ac -- Everyone look at the judge. I really liked your attitude when you asked about the apartments issue. Good job.

2NC -- You need to work on clash and refutation. By clash I mean, you need to argue specifically against the 2AC arguments. This means extending the 1NC arguments, and explaining how they did not answer those arguments. By refutation, you need to resolve the competing claims of this debate. Why are the negative arguments better than the affirmative arguments.

1NR -- Explain the impact of your gentrification argument. What does it mean? How should I evaluate it? How does it interact with the affirmative's advantage.

Both Negative Speakers -- Use your full speech time.

2NR -- You need to stop reading cards in the last rebuttal and tell the judge a story of what would happen if I voted affirmative, and why it would be bad if I voted affirmative. Also, don't question, argue. Rhetorical questions don't win debates, positive statements when arguments. They are stronger and more persuasive.

2AR -- You did a good job of taking into account the negative arguments. "Yes cars go faster, but..." That's what sophisticated debaters do. Take stock of what arguments you are behind of, and then explain why that argument does not matter in light of the arguments you are ahead of. Don't read new, irrelevant cards in the 2AR.

RFD The neg does not read a disadvantage to the plan. They make a number of arguments which reduce the case, but none takes out all of the case. There is a chance that the plan would solve for racism, and there is no negative consequence to trying the affirmative. The closest thing to a disadvantage of the plan is the gentrification turn. This is not fully explained, and even if it is true, there is still a risk that the affirmative would solve.

=Minnesota Saturday, Round 1 -- Novice= 1NC -- Good selection of cards to refute the case. You need to read cites for each card. You didn't read any for the first two cards of the Obama DA. Remember your roadmap only need to generally describe where you are going. For example, in this round you should say "one off, and case." You don't need to preview each point of your Obama DA, or even say you are reading the Obama DA. You want to keep the affirmative guessing. When you move to case, you should let the judge know you are moving on.
 * South HB || Points || Ranks ||  || Washburn CE || Points || Ranks ||
 * Simon Henderson || 27.5 ||  ||   || Haleigh Curuso || 26.1 ||   ||
 * Myles Bilbro || 27.4 ||  ||   || Alma Engerbretsen || 26.2 ||   ||

2AC -- You need to signpost. You need to clash. Don't read more cards on case unless it is to refute an argument made by the 2ac. You should extend your case cards to answer the the 1nc case arguments. On the Obama DA you need to read impact defense if you are going to read an impact turn. I suppose you could argue that hege would solve the risk of Israel striking Iran, but your card is not nearly specific enough. Otherwise that is a good strategy against this DA. Think about current events when debating uniqueness. Even though you don't have evidence, you can assert the Romney has a post-debate bounce, that is causing him to take the lead. Don't move between case and disad and back to case, especially without announcing that you are switching between those two issues. Jumping around hurts your organization.

2NC -- You need to work on signposting and clash as well. Reading cards is not debating. However, some of the new solvency cards you read are good, and should create a time trade-off for the 1ar.

1NR -- You should not be consuming a majority of the negative prep. You had all of the 2NC to prepare your speech. You used 7:30 of prep to give 1:30 long rebuttal. You need to extend the DA. This means going to each card that the 2ac read against the disad and clashing against it. You need to prove that Obama would win, and that Obama would not cause sequestration of the defense budget, or that sequestration of the defense budget is good.

Negative Block: one of you needs to extend the Obama DA.

1AR -- Good job of extending the case. You do a good job of pointing out negative drops on the case flow. You need to clash with the 2nc solvency cards. Extend your impact turns to the DA. Talk about sequestration.

2NR -- Why are you reading affirmative topicality cards in the 2NR? You didn't read topicality, and you are negative. You need to extend your disadvantage. You lose the uniqueness question, and don't talk about your impact scenario.

2AR -- Good job of extending your uniqueness cards on the Obama DA.

RFD I vote affirmative. The negative does not extend an offensive argument after the 1NC. It is difficult to win on no risk of the case. All of the negative arguments reduce the risk of an advantage, but not absolutely.

=Minnesota Day 2, Round 4 -- Novice= 1NC -- Ordering of Shells. Usually it makes the most sense to start with uniqueness then read the link. It is a less "pulp fiction"-like story. Also, you read too many link arguments on federalism and too few arguments on the oil da. You need to create shells for your off-case arguments that include your best uniqueness card, your best link card, and your best impact card. A shell should between 3-4 cards long.
 * Rosemount KS || Points || Ranks ||  || Wash Tech DV || Points || Ranks ||
 * Lauren Kirkley || 28.1 || 1 ||  || Aimee vang || 27.5 || 4 ||
 * Shreya Shankar || 28.0 || 2 ||  || Zach Damiani || 27.6 || 3 ||

2AC -- The neg didn't read any cards on case. You don't need to read responses to arguments that the 1NC didn't make. It makes sense to extend your case arguments however. Your federalism answers are smart. Always look for ways your aff can solve the disad impact. While I'm down with no prep 2ac's you probably needed to take a little prep so you can have all your cards with you when you begin to speak.

2NC -- Good job finishing the oil da. Your partner should have read what you read instead. You need to answer the 2ac arguments on the oil da as well. Also you need to tell the judge when you are moving from one position to another.

1NR -- Stand still. Don't go global. You need to signpost and refute the line by line. You have a pretty strong grasp of the issues in cross-examination, but you need to translate those arguments into speeches. You also need to be more concise. Both you and your partner need to split what arguments you are going to respond to. You are each covering the same issue.

All Debaters -- Everyone needs to work on the micro-level debating before they get to maco-level. What I mean by this is you all need to work on signposting, clash and refutation. Everyone is jumping to impact calculus before you win a position.

2NR -- Your argument about the impacts turning the case, are smart. The problem is you have to explain your link arguments.

2AR - Extend your turns on federalism. Growth leads to more democracy. They have no answer to this, but I can't weigh it if you don't bring it up.

RFD

There is no link to the oil da. Neg does not have any proof that the plan would reduce oil consumption. The Federalism disad is mis-explained by the 2NR. She says that the plan would result in states seceding from the union. There is no evidence that supports that claim. Also the affirmative reads evidence that the plan is popular. Ordinarily this would not be relevant to a federalism da, but it does take out the link as explained by the 2NR. Without a disad there is no risk to voting aff.

=Second Year Round Robin @ Cap City - Round 1=

the short answer is the 2AC dropped dedev. It was flagged on case, and the 2AC was non responsive. 2AC extends its autoimmunity scenario on warming, but does not explain the link to this argument, and it is not responsive to dedev and the aff never compares this impact to dedev. In the 2NC the neg extends dedev, reads some more impacts and compares the dedev impacts against the case. The 1ar reads some new answers. It would have been better if she had justified these answers as not "new." For example, she should say she is responding to new 2NC arguments. Also, she needs to make some analytic arguments about why the new cards are better than the negatives cards.

The 2NR could have done a better job of impacting why I should not allow new 1AR arguments. Otherwise the 2NR was fine.

The real problem I have with the negative strategy is that it double turns itself, but the aff does not point this out. The neg read Fiscal Cliff in conjunction with dedev. That is a double turn. The neg feels that it is not a double turn because their impact is from defense cuts. Couple of problems. 1) defense cuts do impact the economy -- it is a driver of growth and there are spin-offs and externalities which will hurt the economy if we cut defense spending. 2) the uniquness story does not say we'll stave off defense cuts but not in any other way improve the economy. To claim otherwise would not make any sense.

=MDTA N/JV Rd 1= Ben -- good reading of 1ac. Your drugs advantage is repetitive and the tags need to be more specific. "Threaten society" is vague and there is no way to weigh it against the disad impacts.
 * Eagan PG || Points || Ranks ||  || Eden Prairie CW || Points || Ranks ||
 * Ben Portenz || 27.0 || 2 ||  || Crystral Chang || 26.8 || 4 ||
 * Sarah Cong || 27.2 || 1 ||  || Ken Wang || 26.9 || 3 ||

Crystal -- You need to read standards/voters on your topicality violation. Ken should be flowing you. The cap shell needs to be organized better as well. It seems you are just reading random cards from the file.

Sarah -- Good signposting. Ben needs to stop prompting you. Also, you need a better block to the cap k. You do read a good sustainability card, but remember the acronym: STOP (Solvency, theory, offense, perm). Reading a hege add-on to the cap K isn't useful until you win sustainability, and even then, the K answers this argument.

BEN -- STOP INTERRUPTING YOUR PARTNER. You need to let her ask and answer your own questions. Your being overbearing. And that applause sound you played at the end of prep was lame. Don't

Ken -- You need to signpost. It would be helpful for you to take some of your prep time before your speech. You are just reading cards, but aren't really contradicting or refuting the 2ac arguments. For example, your Wright 10 evidence is an answer to the affirmative Hollerand-Reed evidence. You need to think about your flow, and and specifically address that argument. You need to compare your Wright 10 evidence to their Hollerand-Reed evidence.

In cross-ex it was condescending for you to say "you ask questions and I answer them, that's how this works."

Neg -- Double-coverage makes baby jesus cry. You need to split up issues, instead of the 2nc taking everything. Double-coverage wastes your time and ruins the flow.

Crystal -- You need more work on topicality. There are three parts to any T arguments: 1. the interpretation 2. The violation and 3. the reasons to prefer. The reasons to prefer relate directly to why topicality is a voting issue. In this debate you have a good explanation of the the violation but no explanation of why your interpretation is better, and no offense on their interpretation. You need to explain how the affirmative makes being negative harder or impossible.

THE NEGATIVE REALLY NEEDS TO WORK ON FLOWING.

Ben -- The critical question on the cap K is whether or not capitalism is sustainable. You extend reasons why cap is good now, but not that it is sustainable. You need to extend your Hollerand-Reed evidence. Sarah shouldn't be prompting you.

Ken -- 2NR needs to resolve issues. Your caveman analogy is flawed. Capitalism didn't exist then because property did not exist and certainly capital did not exist. Anyway, you need to change your story here. First, you should be ahead on the sustainability question because the 1ar drops it.

Accusing the aff of engaging in "deviant behavior" by being non-topical is a misuse of the word "deviant."

RFD

1. Cap K. The affirmative has a number of carded reasons why capitalism is good that the 2NR does not address. He talks about cavemen living without capitalism, but that isn't really responsive.

2. Topicality. The neg has a pretty impassioned speech about T in the 2NR. Most of this arguments are new. For the first time, the negative catches on to the standards debate. He makes a pretty good argument about why security issues are tangential to the topic and the affirmative's interpretation kills topic education. I would have liked for him to have resolved the "we meet" argument from the counter-interpretation. Specifically, he should have said even if their interpretation is in conflict with ours, they don't meet it for the same reasons they don't meet our interpretation. The aff really does not understand the violation. It's not that they don't spend money on ports, but they spend the money tangential to ports. Building a port is topical, securing a port is not. The 2AC needs to defend why security is part of the infrastructure.

=MDTA N/JV -- Round 2= Cole -- You are mushmouthed when you read your cards.
 * Minneapolis South EW || Points || Ranks ||  || Wayzata SK || Points || Ranks ||
 * Klayton Elliot ||  ||   ||   || Ashmit Sanil ||   ||   ||
 * Cole Wallin ||  ||   ||   || David Kessler ||   ||   ||

Ashmit - You need an answer to ocean acidification on the co2 flow.

Klayton -- Good extension of the ocean acidification arg to the counterplan. Your T answers are super bad however. Your indict of their T card is that there is no intent to define. I am not entirely sure that is correct, but your don't even read a T card for your counter-interpretation. The rest of your answers are off the top of your head, random, generic T cards. I doubt that the neg will go for it in this debate, however. On your case extension, you need greater familiarity with your own evidence. Extend specific authors to show you know what of your cards are making which claims.

RFD Negative goes for topicality. The affirmative increases electric vehicle charging stations. The negative says that internet and energy are excluded from the definition of transportation infrastructure. Things go a little south (excuse the pun) for the aff when the 2AC does not make a we meet argument, and does not have a carded counter-interpretation. Instead, there are some presses about the voter.

This should have been a devastating block for the negative. The 1nr has a very top level understanding of why the 2ac was not good on T but is unable to execute. The negative needed a better story about either a) why there was in round abuse; or b) why in round abuse is not a necessary requirement for a T debate. (Option b is a winner).

=MDTA N/JV - Round 5= the 1nc was so unclear that I didn't realize there was a disad. The 2NC didn't debate, she read briefs. I don't understand any of the warrants for this suffering argument.
 * Wayzata SZ || Points || Ranks ||  || Bloomington KZ || Points || Ranks ||
 * Kirthna Subash || 26.5 ||  ||   || Jeremy Koch || 26.1 ||   ||
 * Orien Zeng || 26.4 ||  ||   || JingJing Zeng || 26.0 ||   ||

The condo debate might be one of the worst theory debates I've ever judged. The 1nc ran their two arguments conditionally. The affirmative says that conditionality is bad, and dispositionality is better. In the block the 2NC reads her "dispositionality good" block. Then the 1NR, read a conditionality good block. Think about this for a second. On the issue of whether a team can read contradictory arguments, the negative read contradictory arguments. At this point the 1ar should not get bogged down in the minutia of the line-by-line, but should bask in the performative proof of why conditionality is bad.

The hurried nature of the 2NR really hurts the negative in this speech. There was never a point in this debate where there was a "judge moment" where I got what the negative was saying. The aff solves for extinction The negative says that extinction is good because it ends suffering. The problem is I am not processing a single warrant for why extinction is the best way to end suffering.

=MDTA N/JV Round 6= 1NC -- Yes.
 * Edina ML || Points || Ranks ||  || Eden Prairie GH || Points || Ranks ||
 * Adi Mittal ||  ||   ||   || Katherine Gao ||   ||   ||
 * Patrick LeChance ||  ||   ||   || Alexander Ham ||   ||   ||

2AC -- Mention that miscalc is a solvency deficit to the counterplan.

2NC -- Couple of problems. 1. You do not have an answer to miscalc. Solving terrorism does not solve for that. 2. You dropped that Fiscal Cliff does not cause recession and you did not extend and of your impact. 3. You also dropped fiat solves the link on politics. There is now very little risk of your net benefit.

1NR -- Good job. You answered all the argumetns, and I like that you extended all parts of the flow. Good job on framework.

1AR -- Need to work on efficiency and issue identification. The best chance for the neg to win in on the cap k, so you need to get to it with more time. You have a conceded miscalc argument, you don't need to slog thru the rest of your case, and there is a huge solvency deficit that the counterplan does not solve for miscalculation.

2NR -- Little more dynamic. You need to work on looking like you are winning and that you are comfortbale going for your partner's arguments.

RFD 2NR goes for the right issue and frames the issue in the proper way. First, the negative is ahead on the framework question. The negative's framework is that epistemological questions come first. They have a more nuanced framework with better evidence supporting their framework. The affirmative says "we get to weigh our impacts." This is not really responsive to the negative framework because if the negative is correct then weighing the advantages doesn't matter if those advantages only exist in the frame of capitalism. The negative has two pieces of evidence on this question. The first is the Zizek 02 which says, in part, "the only way to really remain open to a revolutionary opportunity is to renounce calls to direct action. " This means that the debate should focus on capitalism and it's causes and benefits and how it produces knowledge rather than just going ahead, like a bull in a china shop by saying "yeah, but extinction."

The second question is the permutation. The affirmative extends do both and the Coverstone "Double-bind" that if the alt is so freaking good it should be able to withstand the the plan. I think that the Zizek 02 evidence that neg reads answers this argument pretty well. It says that the "third way" acts as "global capital in sheep's clothing." This means that the perm is not net beneficial because it still links. The only way for the aff to win the double bind is to win that the plan can be combined and not be "capital in sheep's clothing." Unfortunately, the Carroll 10 evidence is unavailing. I think this is more of a negative card if anything. It says that we can have "solidarity work" involving "grass roots initiatites" which will lead to greater likelihood that will work together to get transnational counter-hegemony to gain a foothold.

=UDL Champs -- Round 1= 1AC -- I dig this aff. It is heart of the topic.
 * South Trace || points || ranks ||  || Washburn JP || Points || Ranks ||
 * Trace Thompson || 28.9 ||  ||   || Ella Johnson || 28.5 ||   ||
 * Trace 2: Return of the Killer Trace || 1 ||  ||   || Anna Parshall || 28.4 ||   ||

Anna -- I really dig they way you read cards. Clear, loud flowable. Good job. However, you have a double turn, it's not multiple worlds. Reading fiscal cliff with dedev is a double-turn, not multiple worlds.

Negs -- Flow!!!. You are asking questions in cross-ex that would easily be answered if you flowed.

Trace -- Good 2AC.

Ella - Mostly good 2nc. I like how you use the overview in the line-by-line instead of using it as a filler for the speech. Don't let Trace push you around in cross-ex with cheap shots about "analytics Jay Frank wrote in college." You should answer that questions with "nice ad hom."

The Block Generally -- Your division of the cap flow hurts you in the debate b/c you are forcing me to search my flow for what argument you are addressing. It would hve been better to go top down, and divide the flow between the two speeches.

Anna -- What is your "psychoanalytic understanding of capitalism?" This is a distinction that needs explanation.

Trace -- Great 1ar. Proquality issue identification and digging in on the framing questions. Good extension of the sustainability debate. You could work on your extension of your other external impacts, but you should also pre-empt the 2NR on the space exploration turn. She is going to try to cross-apply some arguments here, and you should identify those arguments, answer them, and explain why the cross-application would not be fair/new.

RFD The first issue to resolve is framework. The affirmative says that the neg gets their K, but the aff gets to weigh its case against the K. The negative says that the neg gets a conditional test of the affirmative's methodology. Neither side uses this debate on the macro-level in the final rebuttals. Instead, they focus on the microlevel of winning the framework, without much discussion of what winning this argument means to my decision making. I think that no matter how I resolve this debate, if the aff wins a warrant for capitalism being net beneficial, I vote aff.

There is one conceded warrant for capitalism, external to the affirmative, and that's the space turn. The negative drops this thoughout the debate. The closest they come to answering this argument specifically is the epistemology argument. The negative argues that capitalism uses threats to scare us into accepting capitalism. There are specific cards out there that apply to the space turn. I think I would vote negative if they had either a) read them, or b) talked about this threat specifically in relation to the cards.

=UDL Champs Round 3= Connor --- throw some of your personality into the reading of the 1ac.
 * Washburn DM || Points || Ranks ||  || South EO || Points || Ranks ||
 * Ellen Dymit ||  ||   ||   || Klayton Elliot ||   ||   ||
 * Conor McClun ||  ||   ||   || Lillie ouelette-Howitz ||   ||   ||

Ellen -- On case there was a structural problem. First, I am not a big fan of pre-written overviews. They do not take into account the actual strategy of the previous speech. Second, you dropped a lot of carded turns on the case flow. I think you would be better off weaving these arguments into the line by line, and covering everything. You answer the Laclau card before either of the Robinson cards that the 1nc reads. Answer the 1NC in order.

Lilly -- there is a surprisingly bad organizational problem to the case debate. You are not answering in 1nc order, and you are randomly picking cards to extend. Conversely, your extension of the the Nietzsche flow is pretty good. I like that you spent extra time extending the link even though it was not contested (other than the perm).

Klayton -- There are too substantive problems with your 1nr. First, extending apsec is a waste of time. Most judges are not going to vote on it, no matter how well you extend it. The 2ac spent time on it, you got your time tradeoff. Further extension is a waste of your time. Second, you need to answer the 2ac's responses to the DA. Your Kaminsky evidence does not answer the Zizek argument, and therefore the case is an impact turn to the DA. If they win that your form of util (which is inevitable, whatever) is bad, than you don't access your Kaminsky evidence.

Connor - -Not speed drills. You need issue identification. You let them get too great of a time trade off on aspec. The only 2 ways you have to lose the debate are 1) Nietzsche and 2) counterplan DA. However, case is an impact turn to counterplan and DA. You should make sure you extend the solvency deficit the the counterplan, namely that it's net benefit is capitalist. You had good extension of the util flow.

Lilly -- You have to, have to, have to answer the advantage flow. The aff is an impact turn to your net benefit. Yes they dropped the counterplan in the 1ar. But, you have to win a net benefit for the counterplan to matter. If they win that the aff solves the internal link to violence, they would better solve your disad link.

RFD The ethics/util debate becomes entirely useless since the neg drops the case in the 2NR. The affirmative makes a couple of case arguments that are devastating to the 2NR strat. First, the disadvantage does not solve the affirmatives ethics argument. The problem with the fiscal cliff disad is that it supports the unilateral accumulation of wealth. The fiscal cliff legislation is designed for the benefit the rich white dudes in Congress and ignores the structural violence of capitalism. Second, the negative's conception of utilitarianism does not account for those left out of capitalism (i.e., the poor). This is devastating to the util flow, since the fiscal cliff legislation does not actually do the greatest good for the greatest number. Third, the negative's conception of the greatest good is a tunnel vision for what helps the elites. This means, that the negative is winning a conceded impact turn to the disad. Even if the negative were to win the counterplan (which they do because it is conceded) there is no net benefit. The importance of answering the counterplan goes away when the 1AC is an impact turn to the DA. The 2NR needed to answer that impact turn, not just say "we solve case 100%." There is a built in solvency deficit. Also, the 2NR drops that the aff can solve for all violence which means, I can vote for the affirmative without any risk of the residual net benefit.

= Section 6 - Round 1 = Wayzata Priyanka & Haley v. Edina Sam & Madeline

1AC - I have a difficult time distinguishing between your tags and cards. You need to answer cross-examination questions.

1NC -- Good speech.

2AC -- Mechanically you need to work on breathing. You run out of gas by the topicality flows. Also your cards are very short, and I am not sure you are capturing all the warrants, or at least I am not getting a lot of the warrants. I think you need fewer answers on T substantial. Finally on case, give some historical examples, current event examples etc.

2NC -- you answered some arguments that were on the speech doc, but were not made in the 2AC on the counterplan. Fundamentally it didn't hurt you in this debate, because the cards you read can be used in the 2NR. Good extension of the case arguments. You kept the extension clean, and used good examples, and analysis of their cards.

1NR -- You are probably too quick on the signposting on the disad. Also, I am pretty sure you dropped winners win, but it was an uncarded assertion and did not rise to the level of a warrant. The plan flaw argument took too much time for the importance that argument is going to play in my decision. It's not an absolute take out, but I agree that it definitely mitigates the solvency. You would have been better off shortening the extension of this plan flaw argument and slowing down a bit on the politics flow.

1AR -- Good answer on the "plan flaw." By and large you need to give your own speech. The prompting that Madeline is doing slows you down and kills your ethos. I understand a) this is a new aff for you; and b) "just win baby" but I think you get this aff sufficeintly that you can give a credible 1ar on your own. However, even with the prompting you aren't doing enough "debating." Explain more about why your argument that the immigration won't be on the docket until June is correct in light of the cards that Haley is reading. Is there something wrong with her cards? If so, point that out. You are just extending the claim.

2NR -- You need to talk about the impacts to the two DA's on the counterplan. Specifically, your handling of the "perception" DA was not sufficient. First, you treated it like it was a new argument and it was not. Second, you need to talk about why you solve for the perception da, or why it does not function as a real solvency deficit. Also, you need to have a judge moment about why devolution is the better way to solve the case.

RFD The last two rebuttals are good but each have their flaws. I think that the 2AR choose the wrong disad to the counterplan (read "solvency deficit"). Using an offense-defense framework, if the neg wins counterplan solves the case, they win because there is a risk of the da. Conversely, if aff wins a solvency deficit, then then they win because 2nr drops the case.

The "delay" solvency deficit does not make sense. First, the counterplan devolves, removing the federal regulations that the affirmative is talking about. In the first instance, the counterplan would solve the delay. Second, the affirmative does not answer the Yabar evidence that the privates are already engaged, so there would not be any delay.

The second solvency deficit extended in the 2ar is that private won't invest on their own because it is expensive. I read both cards that the 2AR might have been extending on this point and neither is specific to the plan or the ports in general.

The aff also extends that the politics disad links to the counterplan. First, this argument is new in the 1ar. Second, it is never expressly fleshed out in that the warrant of "counterplan takes federal action" does not express why devolution is unpopular in congress or would cost Obama political capital. I think in order to win this argument the aff needs a warrant that devolution costs capital. Just saying that it is federal action, or even controversial, is not sufficient.

On the disad flow, all the arguments are defensive. First, the impact comparison in the 2AR is great, but not relevant given the lack of a meaningful solvency deficit. Second, the winners-win argument is defeated by neg's more recent, more specific evidence. Their evidence is post-fiscal cliff, and specific to domestic wins. The 1ar card (which was sandbagged, btw) talks about foreign policy wins can help on domestic issues. The aff is not a foreign policy win. Third, while it may be true there won't be a piece of legislation on immigration reform until June, the neg's evidence says that Obama is going to push for it now, and that there is nothing on the docket between now and June which will drain capital. If the 2ar would have said "look debt ceiling is 2 months away, that will drain his capital making the disad absolutely non-unique" that would have been a better 2AR.

=Section 6 - Round 2= Eden Prairie TV v. Washburn DP

1AC -- Good job. The transition between the cap preempts and solvency was too abrupt

2AC -- Pretty outstanding speech. I like that you challenge the K on multiple levels, and point out the synergy between your arguments.

2NC - There is a Doppler effect to your voice. Talk to judge not laptop screen. What is the value of your case arguments in this debate? Good substructure on framework, but you have too many other parts of the flow that you concede, and I don't think that Anna can get through it all in a 5 minute speech. Even if yo win your framework argument, if you drop disads to the alt, or no link arguments, you'll be behind in the debate.

RFD The negative spreads themselves out of this debate by reading 1 off. Really the case debate is unnecessary if the negative is going to read this aesthetics argument about what impacts we prefer are biopoltically constructed. You should go all in on the K.

First, I evaluate the framework debate differently than the negative. Basically, the block drops a number of turns to the alt, which means, even I accept the negative's framework, there are external reasons (not just the aff advantages) to reject the alt. For example, the anti-politcs/cede the political argument is a reason that the negative's method if flawed, and a conceded disad to the interpretation.

=Section 3, Round 3= Eagan SS v. Jefferson DG

1AC -- Very monotone. Work on vocal variety, volume. Your voice could be very authoritative if you put some personality into the 1ac. Also I think your solvency author is the General Accounting Office (GAO) not a person named Gao. I'm not sure about that.

2AC -- 1. On the case, you should specifically reference your cards (authors name and date) for the evidence you are cross-applying. It is more efficient and more specific. It makes you look like you don't know your own case when you generally cross-apply cards. 2. Your T answers need answers to the limits debate. You make some pretty weak voting issue arguments (clash checks, lit checks), but no arguments about why your interpretation is superior for limits. 3. Time allocation. You get to the disad with only 1 impact answer. They now have the block to prove that protectionism is bad. I like their chances. 4. On the counterplan, when you make a solvency deficit argument you need to impact that disad.

I did like your rate of delivery. Easy to flow. Good organization.

2NC -- On Heidegger you need to explain the link better, and talk about both advantages. First, you do your link analysis late in the 2NC. The link is really important in Heidegger debates, and it is where you are going to look smartest. Specifically, you need to talk about how the aff is an instance of managerialism. Also, on the alt, you should be a floating PiK. You will solve for the environment harms better than the aff.

1NR -- You spend too much time extending conceded uniquness and link turns. Your only way to lose is to let them get ahead on the protectionism impact debate. Focus more of your attention there.

2NR -- Good 2NR choice, but you need to have better arguments on the environment flow. You are dropping an air pollution impact that they'd save 70K lives.

2AR -- Issue identification. You have to compare the environment advantage to the disad.

RFD This is a hard debate for me to judge, and I am trying my best to not intervene for the affirmative. Frankly, there was an easy 2ar. The negative has some non-absolute defense on the warming advantage, but completely dropped the air pollution impact. Even if the aff is all wet on the warming debate, the plan saves 70K lives (per year?) by solving for air pollution. A crafty 2AR could set on that, and explain why it is the more probable, faster time frame impact compared to protectionism. The 2AR also needs to use the card he read on protectionism to compare it to their cards, and find reasons why it is better. You need to be specific. This card makes some pretty sweet arguments that the 2AR is not pulling out. First, it says that the reason the U.S. economy did better under free trade is it kept wages up. Wages are what drives economic growth, because it means that workers can afford to purchase the goods they produce. Second, it says that the benefits only go toward multinational corporations. This would short-circuit all the free trade good arguments. Third, this card says that it stimulates smaller economies. If you win your growth impacts, which are being conceded, then that would solve for the wars that their Panzer evidence is talkiing about.

Unfortunately for the aff, the 2ar does not pull out these speficic warrants and gets bogged down in the minutiae of the debate. The counterplan solves the first advantage, and the aff never answers that protectionism leads to shooting wars. They only extend the incomplete argument that the U.S. economy did better under protectionism but does not extend the reason WHY that is true, which is pretty important.

=Section 3, Round 4= Rosemount HJ v. Highland Park PW

1AC - Louder.

1NC -- ALNkfnkjfkjdshfkjhskjhdsffdkjhincomprehensibleldFdhfkjdshkfjsdjfh

2NC -- Your link analysis on apocalyptic rhetoric is weird. You are arguing that the link is fiat means Obama uses apocalyptic rhetoric. That interpretation of fiat is new, and not particularly persuasive. Rosemount says we should do the plan. Not Obama. Fiat says let the plan be. Your better route is to talk about their rhetoric and what it does to me the listener. This is not a politics disad. It's a K.

1NR -- Good extension on T. I like how you handled the framers intent and reasonabiliyt debate. i think that you should say "look, they don't have a counter-interpretation of the term in the resolution, so they don't meet any interpretation of the resolution, they can't be reasonably topical."

1AR -- What perm? You are extending a perm on apocalyptic rhetoric, but I am certain you did not read a perm in the 2AC.

2NR -- Waaaaay better explanation of the link than in the 2nc.

2AR -- You don't need to spend more than 20 second on case. The debate comes down to the K. Focus there. A dropped econ advantage ensures an aff ballot of you justify your rhetoric.

RFD In the tradition of all great Rosemount 2AR's, Andrew makes a real compelling argument for voting affirmative, but, unlike an Ian Cero or a Matt Little, he does not convince me that his arguments are not new.

There are a couple of unanswered arguments in the 2NR. First, the 1ar does not address the predictions debate. The 2AR is 100% correct here, that it makes no logical sense of the neg to say predictions bad, but then in the face of evidenced scenarios just say "not necessarily." However, this argument is not anywhere in the 1ar. So I don't think it is fair to give it any weight.

Second, the 1ar does not answer Haffinger (sp?) which says that allowing elites to use apocalyptic rhetoric leads to bad things like genocide and the Iraq war. This is an external impact to their K. The 1AR should extend the Bostrom evidence here, because it is a justification of the representation.

Third, both the 1ar and the 2ar drop the alternative solvency. Means voting negative solves for a bigger impact than the aff since their scenarios are all suspect.

=Section 3, Round 5= Jefferson DG v. Rosemount HJ

2AC -- While i generally abhor these debates, you need to have an argument against textual competition. You read two illegitimate perms. (e.g., cross out investment, reject euphemisms other instances . Cross ex of 2nc -- Alexa, let Wesley answer. I think you are correct on the threshold question. The thing is, you need offense for why you use a word in your plan text.

2NR - Wrong choice. Unless there is offense in a pics debate, you should always go for it.

RFD On the criticism, the 2ar begins with a teq-framing argument that the 2NR did not mention the alternative at all in his 2nr. As a pro-tip, I think it would be good for the 2nr to talk about the alt, but since the 2ar and 1ar did not extend or articulate either a solvency argument or disad to the alt, I am not sure that it matters.

The 2ar goes for the permutation. Both teams need to do a better job in the final rebuttal debating the perm. The negative did not impact their disad to the perm. The Idhe 10 evidence does not expressly state an impact to the MIC. If the aff is right on their hege advantage, I think that they impact turn this disad. Secondly, the 2nr needs to say "perm still links."

Conversely, the 2ar needs to explain how the text of the perm functions. What is the net benefit to the perm? My default is to treat perms as "no link" arguments. I think that the aff does a slightly better job of spinning the Delanty 6 evidence. Specifically, she pulls out the warrant that cosmopolitanism opens space for discourse. This means I can probably vote aff and think about technology/meditative thought in other instances, which solves the residual link. The 2NR answering these arguments is far more important than extending a disad without an impact.

The 2NR also goes for some case turns. This is an instance of the 2NR spreading himself out. If you plan on going for the K, go for the K. Unless you have some synergy between your case arguments and K arguments, it is not worth going for both. In this case, because he goes for both, he does not have time to compare the impacts he is extending to the aff, or resolve these arguments. Here the 2nr is not advocating, so much as pointing out "hey, we read a case turn." Because there is no resolution of these arguments, I give them very little weight, and decide that the aff is net better than the squo.

=Section 3, Round 6= Highland Park ST v. Eagan SS

2AC - On the counteradvocacy, other than the perm, most of your arguments are non-starters. The counter-advocacy accesses all the same arguments. Fortunately for you, as of right now, I see it as "plan" plus (or rather "demand plus").

1AR -- I would not kick the perm. You are winning on it, and the counteradvocacy is plan plus. You are not explaining the source of the solvency deficit at all.

RFD The counter advocacy is 1/2 of an argument. The 2NR makes a critical point, but exposes the major flaw of the counter-advocacy. The affirmative demands that the USFG

The problem is, there is no evidence in this debate that the counter-advocacy solves. Namely, there is no evidence that shunning Huffy solves for the human rights abuses. I know there is evidence for shunning (See Gordon & Gordon). But it is not read in this debate. This means that the aff's advocacy which reclaims the streets around Huffy has a better shot of solving for human rights abuses than the counter-advocacy.

Springer says public space is key. See also the Talsman evidence. This is the solvency deficit to the counter-advocacy because it is less public space than the aff advocacy. There is less politicization of space under the counter-advocacy. Without evidence that shunning solves, this means that the affirmative accesses Abu-Jamal better than the counter-advocacy.

=State Round 2= 1NC - You finished with a minute left. Read defense on the oil spill advantages. I think it is a non-capitalist reason to do the plan, that makes your case defense irrelevant.
 * Wayzata LN || Points || Ranks ||  || Patrick Henry YV || Points || Ranks ||
 * Narayan || 28.5 ||  ||   || Yang || 26 ||   ||
 * Larson || 28.7 ||  ||   || Varberg || 26 ||   ||

2AC - Case extension was a bit of a blur on hege. You could slow down here, and read 1 fewer cards on cap.

2NC -- Work on line-by-line debating. Answer each of the 2ac answers if you are going to go for the cap k. Also, you need to be more comparative on both the cap K and case. Debate is about resolving arguments, not just reading cards.

The block -- You are debating Wayzata. Somebody's got to defend conditionality.

1AR - On the perms, you should also explain that the perms aren't severance. Cuz they aren't. Also, answer the sustainability debate. You need it for your turns to have uniqueness.

2NR - Answer condo. There are pieces in this debate for you to give a winning 2nr, but you need to capitalize on them. First, you need to make a big deal that the 1ar dropped the sustainability debate. You need to point out the drop; make sure they don't read new answers; and impact the drop. In this instance, it makes all their turns non-unique. Then you need to explain what the failure to extend the perms (althought 1ar did extend do both) means that the round is a choice of the collapse now, versus collapse later. Collapse later ensures that their oilspills advantage is inevitable, or at least the loss of biodiversity is inevitable. Also, you need to answer conditionality, because it is above the game board and makes all of the rest of the cap K moot.

2AR -- Wait, you said judge choice? I thought you just raced to the middle.

RFD The neg drops conditionality in the block and the 2nr. It is labeled as a voting issue.

=State Round 3= RFD The 2NR choses to go for T - In the United States against a Guam Aff. In the 1N they read a card that says the U.S. is the 50 states and DC. The 2AC says that this interpretation is not exclusive so the plan meets. The 1NR reads a card that says that US is exclusive of the territory. The evidence cites a Supreme Court case talking about how Puerto Rico was not within the U.S. before it was a territory. The 1AR reads an Encarta card which says that the term U.S. does include the territories. The 2NR says that I should not consider the Encarta card because it was new. The 2AR points out that a) it was a response to a new 1NR evidence, and b) supports the 2AC argument that "U.S." does not exclude the territories. I agree with the 2AR on both counts. Further, the 2AR out-debates the 2NR on the quality of these cards. I conclude the aff is T under the negative interpretation.
 * Eden Prairie || Points || Ranks ||  || Jefferson || Points || Ranks ||
 * Tan ||  ||   ||   || Groenke ||   ||   ||
 * Venkatraman ||  ||   ||   || DeBellis ||   ||   ||

=State Round 4= 2AC -- answer arguments on the flow, not the speech doc.
 * Blake WW || Points ||  || Highland Park PW || Points ||
 * Adele || 28 ||  || Ben || 27.8 ||
 * Allen || 27.5 ||  || Joe || 27.6 ||

2NC - Extension of the K was bad. First, answer the speech on the line-by-line in the 2ac order. Second, your breathing is interfering with your tags. I missed a ton of your tags. Breath from your diaphragm

CX of 2NC -- Your editorial questions in cross-examination are off-putting.

RFD The plan text reads "P lan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure in the United States that supports the export of Liquefied Natural Gas."

The negative says that this plan is vague because it does not specify what infrastructure the plan increases. They say this is bad because it destroys their pre-round preparation.

The affirmative says that there is no abuse because they didn't run a strategy and then re-interpret in the 2ac to say "not our transportation infrastructure." The neg, in fact, seems to know what transportation infrastructure the aff could be talking about (i.e., port dredging, railroads, pipelines). This supports the affirmative's contention because they could have read a strategy against these techs, and didn't.

The negative wins that the aff does not meet the negative interpretation. The aff also does not have a clear counter-interpretation. However, the affirmative is ahead on the voting issue arguments. There is no abuse. There is no potential abuse. The pre-round abuse claim does not make sense since the negative seems to understand what tech is applicable in this situation. =State Quarters=
 * South BH || Points ||  || Highland Park ST || Points ||   ||
 * Lilly Oulette-Horwitz ||  ||   || Ellen Taube ||   ||   ||
 * Cupcake ||  ||   || Marie Sheehan ||   ||   ||

The best possible panel for this round would be Steve Appleget, Pete Gokey and myself since we were all hypo-testers at some point.

Ideas for strategies against this aff: hasty g (Trains are an atypical non-representative example of TI), da's to each cas on the topic, topic disads, states counterplan, international counterplans, consult.

Idea for responding to the 2AC: kick right to the city. Kick the alt to anthro (it's conditional), concede that human life is important, and extend the link cards about how trains and TI are bad for the environment. Explain why the environmental impact outweighs the case (which has no impact). Game over. The block should be 3 minutes long, at most.

The fundamental problem with the 2NC is the aff said "non-intrinsic" on Right to the City, and there is no answer to that argument. WIthin the paradigm, intrinsic perms are legitimate.

The block split is backwards. The 2NC has more time and can cover more of the turns. As it is, the 1NR leaves a number of turns conceded. If they win their ethics argument, that might come first, but she didn't directly engage/clash on the util debate. It's not enough to read a card at this point on util, you need to be comparing warrants. You are letting the 1ar have the first opportunity to engage those warrants.

The 1AR is very good on the case flow and the Right to the City flow. She does a good job of making the neg's "truth claims impossible" argument irrelevant. Also, Right to the City is either non-intrinsic (i.e., the perm solves), or bike paths are a topical warrant for the resolution. Conversely, the 1ar leaves the 2NR open for the strategy that I suggested above. 1AR also needed to engage in the util/ethics debate. If the neg wins that framing, then perhaps the turns don't matter.

Damn fine 2NR. I would have extended the links as independent warrants for why the res is bad, separate and apart from the antro debate. See above.

=State Semis= Haley, Priyanka is right, slow down. I think I missed an off case.
 * Blake MS || points ||  || Wayzata LN ||   ||
 * Hirsh ||  ||   || Haley ||   ||
 * Kentucky ||  ||   || Priyanka ||   ||

I can't wait for the cross-ex portion of the debate to be over.

The 2nc would benefit from a clearer explanation of how the counterplan works and a substantive reason why it competes.

RFD

My inability under tournament rules to call cards makes this round difficult to evaluate. I begin my decision with whether the counterplan, to devolve authority of the siting of the plan to the states is legitimate. The 2AC says these types of arguments are bad for debate because they steal the aff, which functionally gets implemented either way I vote, and there is no way the aff could read disads to the counterplan.

In the block the 2NC says that "normal means counterplans" are educational (citing Elmore 80), and key to topic education (citing Ostrom). The 2nc provides a counter-interpretation that the neg needs to read a solvency advocate. The neg argues that a solvency advocate solves all the disads to "normal means" counterplans. During cross-examination, however, the 2AC questions the negative on this question, and asks for a line about a solvency advocate. Ordinarily, cross-examination is not a vital part of my decision making process, but the negative fails here to cite a specific piece of evidence which references the counterplan. The 1ar then points out that the counterplan does not meet the aff's own interpretation. The 2NR could recover here, by reading lines of the cards that advocate the counterplan. Instead, I only have her saying that a solvency advocate resolves this issue. I don't have her explaining how they meet the interpretation. So I don't think that the negative gets the counterplan. They do not meet their interpretation, and definitely don't meet the aff's. Since the counteprlan meets no interpretation of a legitimate counterplan, I can't find a way to vote neg here.

The aff probably outweighs the the disad, standing alone because teh case is conceded, and the trade advantage solves the the impacts on politics. However, Wayzata does a better job on the "thumper" debate on the politics flow. The 2NR analysis is that Obama knows he can't win guns by spending capital on guns, and is "leading from behind" on it. The Waller evidnece concedes that Obama realizes he can't win gun control by pursuing it in COngress, but needs the public to get behind the legislation. This means, Obama is spending his capital, immediately, on Hagel. The remaining 2ar arguments are undeveloped. But it does not matter, as I think that the trade impact that Kentucky extends is independnat and our hard power, and short circuits the hard power.

=Woodward Round 1= Yuna -- You need to know how long your 1ac is. You shouldn't have to be prompted and have better time allocation on your links, impacts, and solvency. You didn't get to solvency of the 1ac until you had 15 seconds left, and didn't finish the card, or really even get to the warrant.
 * Roswell (GA) CR || Points || Rank ||  || Georgetown Day WZ || Points || Ranks ||
 * Yuna CHoi || 27.8 || 1 ||  || Adam White || 27.2 || 3 ||
 * Nathan Rice || 27.7 || 2 ||  || Duke Zhang || 27.1 || 4 ||

Nathan -- Let your partner answer. I am glad you did, but don't be so quick to intervene in her cross-examination.

Duke - I am not sure libertarianism is consistent with dedev. Also, if free trade doesn't solve war because humans are naturally aggressive, doesn't that mean we need a state to stop aggressors?

Nathan -- You read too many cards on framework. When the neg double turns themselves, you should exploit that, not double-turn yourself. If you concede that plan collapses the economy you would not solve your case. There is no trade if there is nothing to trade.

Adam -- It sounds to me like you are plagiarizing cards. You say a bunch of stuff (without citation) that sounds like cards. You need to cite sources to support your claims.

Duke -- you are unclear. There are too many new argumetns in the 1nr. You are extending dedev which was specifically kicked.

The block dropped conditionality.

Nathan -- You need to let your partner give her own speech. She is smart and capable. She was giving a better speech before you interrupted her. I would have given you .3 more speaker points if you would not have interrupted her as often and as needlessly as you did.

Adam - You need to address conditionality. It was not new in the 1ar. You dropped it. You need to give me a reason not to want to care about it.

RFD. 2AC said conditionality was bad. The block dropped it. The aff flagged it as a voting issue, and extended it in their last two speechs. The neg's only rational why I should not vote on it was that it was "new" in the 1ar. That's not true.

Let's assume that conditionality was not dropped. The negative was ahead on the case debate. I think they are doing a better job of explaining historically why trade does not solve case. The aff is just extending taglines.

=Woodward Round 5=
 * Woodward GP || Points || Ranks ||  || Damien LL || Points || Ranks ||
 * Meera Gorjala || 28.2 ||  ||   || Christian Lansang || 28.4 ||   ||
 * Sahil Patel || 28.3 ||  ||   || Matthew Luevano || 28.5 ||   ||

1AC -- I love this aff. Heart of the topic.

1NC -- Good job. The link card on the K is too long. It is hard to track and is making a number of arguments that might get lost. If you split it up into multiple cards it would be easier to flow.

2AC -- Good time allocation. There was a lot on the K that I did not understand. You should work on inflection and arguing more naturally than reading a block. Also the tags should be front-loaded with the what the type of argument you are making and backloaded with an impact. Especially on the K.

Cross-x of 2nc: Impacts that are not nuclear war are not "ethics" You could say unemployment is bad.

1AR - On judge choice you need a crisper explanation of what advantage doesn't link. You also need to answer their argument that judge choice is net worse (than rejecting the team) because it hurts education. Also for time allocation, think about the possible 2NR choices. Is there a realistic opportunity for the neg either (a) to go for case defense by itself; or (b) win in that? You can get through the extension of the case faster. Also, the 1NR put the hammer down on the china advantage, it and links to the security K You should extend Silk, and the good things (that are non-nuclear) that Silk says are good about growth.

2NR -- You should spend more time on the K less on the case.

RFD. There is a disconnect between what is extended in the 1ar and what is articulated in the 2ar. The 1ar makes essentially 4 arguments. First, I should focus on plan versus a competitive option. Second, perm do both -- with the "Coverstone" double bind. Third, judge choice. Fourth, I should vote for their reps because they are based on empirics.

First, on framework there is not a meaningful explanation of why I should prefer the "competative policy option" framework over the the neg's framework over the neg's framwork of whether the discussion of nuclear weapons should be legitimate in the debate space. The 2NC articulates that their framwork will lead to better decision-making because debate will be more policy relevant. He also extends this Churness card that says framework debates (and the aff's framework in particular) always defers discussions of the appropriateness of nuclear imagery and that is bad. The 1ar does not really answer this framwork. So I conclude that the aff needs to win a defense of nuclear imagery.

Second, the perm is shadow extended by the aff. However, the 2nc says that the perm is not relevant since there is nothing to perm the plan with. I agree with this, and functioonally, I think this is really about judge choice. The aff keeps saying that judge choice is dropped but it is not. The negative says that the problem with judge choice is that it is net worse, because it allows the bad reps to keep going on. The alternative expressly states that wins and losses are the coins of the realm of policy debate and only wins and losses can correct fear-based politics. I think that the aff could have won here if they had addressed that argument. I am a mark for judge choice and I think that the Silk evidence gives the aff room for me to reject the reps but still vote aff. However, they need to answer this voting issue argument, rather than wish it away.

Fourth, there is a discussion of the empirics of the aff's reps. This does not really respond to the link work done by the 2nc. Even if they Royal evidence is emprically based, the China scenario does not have that much going for it.