Cal+2012

= = toc =Cal Doubles=
 * GreenValleyGaSt ||  ||   ||   || MillardSouthAnCa ||   ||   ||
 * Harry Garrett ||  ||   ||   || Alex Stransky ||   ||   ||
 * Matt Casas ||  ||   ||   || Max Anderson ||   ||   ||

While this round was interesting, and in many respects, fun, it was also infuriating. First, I think that their is some jargon being thrown around that doesn't make any sense to me. For example, the affirmatives' framework that the debate should be about our "ontological relationship to the resolution" does not make sense to me. My understanding of ontology is that it is a bigger concept (i.e. what is the nature of my being in the world) and not speficic to the tiny issue of the policy debate res.

Second, during the whole debate I was reminded of an issue of "Action Philosophers" about Marx. In it, Marx is taking a child on a journey through what Marxism is all about. There are two panels that come to mind when I think about how the debaters are engaging in this debate. The first is when Marx, in response to academic discussions of marxism says "if that's marxism I am not a marxist." Second, is a panel where Marx, dressed as Rambo, busts into a classroom and slaughters all of the students and teachers as part of the marxist revolution, and the professor says [|"but I taught marxist tropes in film noir."] The point is that I am not sure either method in this debate will address neoliberalism or structural violence.

Now on to my RFD. I vote negative because a) negative wins that starting from the perspective of the oppressed is the proper starting point for the debate; and b) there are some reasons why the aff is not truly an "occupy movement". First, The Henze evidence is pretty specific about why we need to start from the perspective of the oppressed. The neg wins a risk that when you prioritize academic issues such as neoliberalism you sweep the oppression under the rug. (Abu Jamal Mumia). The affirmative says that neoliberalism is the root cause of the oppression axis. However, I am not sure why that is a reason why the negative's method does not solve.

= Cal Round 4 =


 * WayzataLM || Points || Ranks ||  || RowlandHall || Points || Ranks ||
 * Haley Larson || 28.3 ||  ||   || Hope DeLap || 28.6 ||   ||
 * Faroz Mujir || 28.0 ||  ||   || Jacob Tucker || 28.5 ||   ||

2AC had some time allocation problems and was top heavy. There was no impact read to the us-sino relations turn, and there was no defense put on the 1nc impact. I suspect that if there were some efficiencies on the extension of case you'd have covered the off case better. By punting on the "low probability bad" arguments from the 1AC so soon, you have to read more cards on case to catch up on the imact level

Good use of the block. Narrowed debate, while keeping 2nr strategy options open. Really liked the extension of the japan counterplan and the politics da. This makes it clear that the 2nr is probably going for the counterplan, but forces the 1ar to guess what net benefit will be in the 2nr.

1AR should have read the prolif good arguments on the japan flow, since that is where they are responsive.

Both of the last 2 rebuttals need to compare the impacts

RFD

First, I resolve the question of whether the counterplan has a solvency deficit in favor of the negative. The affirmative does not have an offensive reason of why Japan cannot solve, and everyone seems to agree that Japan has the capability to catch up with the US, even if they do not have the technology now. The only way that the U.S. already having the tech would matter is if there was an impact to the time frame differential.

Second, I think that there is not sufficient micro-level clash on the japan soft power da by either side. The negative says that Japan must lead in order to maintain their hard power. But when I read the Oros evidence after the debate, I find that it is substantially overclaimed. What it says is the the U.S. has an incentive to undercut Japan's space leadership, but does not say that it must maintain leadership. However, I will allow the neg that extrapolation because it is a) not challenged by the the aff, and b) logically flows from that premise. In converse, I think that the affirmative Suzuki evidence is probably a better card, but it only says that "Japan must promote international cooperation." I am not sure how the perm would access that argument. I think that if Faroz sits down and compares these two pieces of evidence and spins them her way, rather than repeating claims, i could easily vote aff here. However, I prefer to reward in-round spin than intervene on what the cards say.

Third, the aff starts behind on the Jackson-Vanick da by spotting them the link and not putting any impact defense on the 1nc impacts, and then not reading an impact to their turn until the 1ar. There are multiple reasons why U.S. -- Russian relations are good that go unrefutted by the aff. The aff's only game is that there could be a border war. I think that the 2NR needs to do a better job of addressing this impact, since the 1AR reads the impact for the first time. This is where some comparision by either final rebuttalist would have been useful. Aff is probably winning the risk of a border war with china. Neg is winning a bunch or reasons why US- Russia relations are good. Please compare these two systems so I can resolve this debtae. I also resolve this debate in favor of the negative, because the 2nr says that the only reasons taht China and Russia have good realtions is if the Russian economy is good, which requires U.S. - Russian relations. The 2AR interprets this argument as a US-Sino relations argument, but that is not how I understood it.

= Cal Round 2 =


 * EastHighOgWa || Points || Ranks ||  || GreenValleyAmCo || Points || Ranks ||
 * Jessica Oglesby || 28.4 || 3 ||  || Zeina Amhaz || 28.1 || 4 ||
 * Andy Washington || 28.6 || 1 ||  || Kevin Cong || 28.5 || 2 ||

Kevin - You need a more firm distinction between your neoliberalism bad arg and the cap bad arg. Beyond the claim level, you don't seem to have a clear distinction between Neolibearlism and capitalism.

Amhaz - Your answers on the political capital debate need to be more responsive. The aff is arguing that considering political capital is bad, it is a theory argument more than a substantive response to the da. You need to present a justification for the judge to consider political capital (i.e. it is the real world reason why plans do or do not get done).

RFD

There are two alternative justifications for me to vote negative in this debate. First, the negative mishandles to "political capital da" to the politics disad. The aff is saying that considering political capital leads to bad decision-making and reduces agency. The impact of this argument is that it results in exclusionary violence. The 1nr does not address this turn, and does not justify considering political capital. The turn is extended in both speeches, and the 2NR never explains why not going for the da gets rid of the da. Most of the 2nr arguments on this are new.

Second, I vote affirmative on the neoliberalism K. The 2NC should have used the line by line more in refutting these arguments rather than just globally grouping all the turns. Aff wins that cap is sustainable and resilient because corporations are responsive to their customers. This is where the 2NC could have used specific line by line refutation.