Midwestern+N&JV+2012

=Round 4= 1NC was difficult to flow. I did not understand the off case arguments other than T. I figured out you were running the coercion da, and I think it is Karl Rove like to read coercion against a privatization aff.
 * BarstowBN || Points || Ranks ||  || GBN SL || Points || Ranks ||
 * Iqraz Nanji || 27.9 || 1 ||  || Julie Scott || 27.8 || 2 ||
 * Austin Bachar || 27.6 || 3 ||  || Subin Lee || 27.5 || 4 ||

2AC spent 2:20 on topicality. Frankly, if you can't answer a T argument in just a few answers, you are not topical. You might win on T, but you will be undercovering something else. Like the warming da you dropped on the econ advantage.

2NC was a tale of two speeches. Her extension of the case argument was spot on, and really smart. The extension of the coercion da is hard. There needs to be a better explanation of the link, because, right now it is just "state bad judge." The plan is less coercive than the status quo because they do not use tax dollars, and they shift from a model of space exploration that would result in more coercion. Government exploration of space will require tax dollars.

1NR did a decent job on topicality. I think you did a good job of providing a case list of cases the aff interp would allow. You probably need a case list of cases that you allow.

1AR could be more efficient on topicality. Your grammar argument is going to trump their limits arguments, and the 1NR did not answer that effect is inevitable. Initially it appeared you were going to be far more surgical on T, but then you kept making arguments you don't need. You only need your grammar argument in this debate, because they didn't really do a good enough job in the block of answering this card.

2NR needed to make choices. You are going for too much in the 2NR. You are trying to win on coercion, a warming da, a space mil da, and some case defense. Frankly, the Coercion DA is your worst bet in this debate because of the link issues referenced above. The warming da is not viable because you did not extend the impact in the 2NC. Your best bet was to go for the dropped space mil da, but you need to compare that impact to the case. They claim to have a mechanism for solving space mil but you did a nice job in the 2nc of explaining why the OST treaty is not necessary.

2AR needs to be more efficient and do a better job of issue identification.

RFD -- This round ends with a whimper rather a bang. The negative probably gives the round away by going for too much in the 2NR. It is more likley than not that the aff solves the link to the coercion da, because a) they don't use tax dollars; and b) they would lead to less coercion and private exploitation of space. This better accesses all the impacts decision rules. The 2AR needs to make the impact a bigger issue, because it would be game over for the neg. Aff wins that extinction is inevitable in the status quo unless we get off the rock. Neg wins some mitigation, but nothing of an absolute takeout. Aff solves for the impact of weaponization. I vote aff.

= Round 5 =
 * NilesWestPL || Points || Ranks ||  || GlenbrookNorthHM || Points || Ranks ||
 * Vinay Patel || 28.3 || 4 ||  || Daniel Hensel || 28.4 || 3 ||
 * Emma Lazar || 28.7 || 1 ||  || Sahar Merchant || 28.5 || 2 ||

The negative concedes the bottom of the aerospace advantage which has a Russian fusion scenario, that ends in extinction. They have been dropping this scenario throughout the entire debate, so by the 2NR they need to have something to hedge against it. The neg has two solvency arguments to the case. The first is that bureaucracy would prevent the implementation of SPS because no agency has the interest to do the plan. The affirmative argues that durable fiat would solve this problem. I agree. Also, I am not sure why this would absolutely take out solvency. There is no explanation of how bureaucratic inertia would take out 100% of the case. Second, negative argues that radition causes disruption. Again, this would have no impact on Russian brain drain.

The neg's disad is an ozone disad, and 2AC concede that this would cause extinction. However, on the interference disadvantage, the neg concedes that Japan will deploy a solar power satellite program in the status quo. The aff argues that Japan's SPS would be equivalent to the plan. In the 2NR, the negative should focus on this argument more. 2NR just says "this pushes us to the brink", but does not provide a reason why this is true The 2NR should first interrogate the evidence that the affirmative is cross-applying to see how good it is, and make an argument that the aff is overclaiming it (if possible). Second, the 2NR should, if possible, provide some spin why Japan only puts us on the brink. Third, in the 2NR you could read some unqiueness evidence to respond to the cross-application. Fourth, in hindsight, you need to make sure that you answer this argument when you have two arguments that depend on the same link.

The neg also spends about 10 seconds arguing on the K that the perm "do both" is a severance perm and a voting issue. I agree that the affimative did not answer that the perm was severance, however, neither the 1NR nor the 2NR gives a reason for me to vote on the perm as opposed to just not allowing it.

= Round 6 =


 * GBN DM || Points || Ranks ||  || ICW KM || Points || Ranks ||
 * Thomas Donovan || 28.2 ||  ||   || Hilah Kohen || 28.1 ||   ||
 * Ethan Matlin || 27.5 ||  ||   || Amelia Moser || 28.0 ||   ||

I did not understand the 2AC other than on the case flow. You were incomprehensible from the T flow onward. I twice called for you to be clear and you made no adjustment.

The lack of 2AC clarity should have more implications on this debate than it actually does. Frankly, I am not comfortable letting the affirmative have their topicality interpretations since I did not understand them in the first instance. However, the 2NR choice to "perm" the two interpretations of exploration I think puts it into the debate.

RFD

I vote affirmative on topiciality. The negative is arguing for an interpretation that affirmative's exploration must physically occur in outer space, and are relying on the phrase "beyond the earth's mesophere" for the textual basis of this interpretation. However, that phrase can only be understood in the context of the phase "increase exploration." When the aff perms the definitions of exploration to allow both human and non-human, they allow aff's interpretation of earth-based exploration. The Lester 9 evidence says that "the historical precedent [that] defines exploration in terms of human explorers who travel to new desitnations" is "woefully obsolete." This means, that if ground based lasers explore debris in space they are topical. This means that the aff meets the interpretation of "beyond the earth's mesophere" because we live in an era where teleoperation offers virtual presence on the surface of the earth.

The other violation is the new substantial violation in the 1nr. This violation has some manifest problems. Namely that it is incoherent. I agree that substantial means "material", but "substantial" modifies increase, so if photons are "insubstantial", it is not like the exploration is insubstantial. There is no risk to limits if ignoring this violation. The 2ar does a good job of explaingin how this violation is off-base.

= JV Quarters =
 * NilesWestPL ||  || GlenbrookNorthKN ||
 * Vinay Patel ||  || Jacob Kahn ||
 * Emma Lazer ||  || Daniel Newman ||

Yeah, the neg kind of biffs it by dropping the global warming add-on.

Anywho, the aff is out debating the negative on the question of the Russian economy. The Gaoouhko & Pavliva evidence from 3/6 says that Russian oil prices are already falling, and the Russian economy is shrinking. This descriptive evidence is more recent, and more specific to the current status of the Russian economy. Even the affirmative evidence on this subject is hedging itself because it claims that while the economy is improving, it is not improving very quickly. The Clover evidence is predicitive and says that the Russian economy will become a classic twin deficit economy. This makes the scenario non-unique, so that even if the timeframe on this impact is faster than the warming impact, it doesn't matter because it is inevitable either way.