Central+MN+NFL+2012

=Central NFL Round 1= toc trace -- It is cool to answer cross-ex questions during prep. It is uncool not too. These answers aren't binding but if they want you to explain something you should answer the question just to be the cool.
 * ComoPark || Points || Ranks ||  || SouthGT || Points || Ranks ||
 * Dai'Quan Robinson || 27.8 ||  ||   || Payton Gerick || 26.1 ||   ||
 * Stryker Thompson || 27.9 ||  ||   || Trace Thompson || 26.9 ||   ||

Dai'Quan --You spend too much time extending the dropped case in the 2AC. You don't need to extend the whole 1AC. Only cards you are going to use in the rest of this particular speech. You would be better off using your 1ar cards against the two K's they read.

Trace -- a) you completely lost your cool in cross-examination. It was uncalled for. b) you need to signpost and clash with the 2ac.

Payton - You need to cover each argument that the 2ac made on the position you are extending in the block.

Styrker -- You don't need to spend time in the 1ar extending a conceded case. You need to be responding to the K's. Also, Dai'quan should either do the insides or stop interrupting your speech. Anyway, back to the case. I think you should just reference specific cards from the 1ac in response to the 2nc args.

RFD

I think that the negative has a couple of issues in the 1NC that would probably win them this debate but they are not able to capitalize in this debate.

First, the framework question is irrelevant since both the aff and the K's are directed to knowledge systems. The negative is saying that the affirmative's knowledge systems is wrong because a) it romanticizes native americans as being better for the ecology; and b) the aff appeals to the experience of others rather than examining the specific circumstances that lead to their oppression. The problem with voting neg is the neg is not signposting, or referring to specific claims or arguments. Specifically, the neg does not do a good job of explaining how their K's compete against the affirmative.

= Central NFL Round 2 =


 * SouthJT || Points || Ranks ||  || WashburnBM || Points || Ranks ||
 * Oskar || 28.3 ||  ||   || Micheala || 26.0 ||   ||
 * Cole || 28.4 ||  ||   || Conor || 27.0 ||   ||

The 1NC was a mess. Michela jumped from one position to another without warning, reading extraneous cards in each shell, and there really wasn't a coherent strategy.

Oskar - Why aren't you double turning yourself when you say "plan solves for disarm" and "space weapons good"?

Conor - you need to answer the solvency deficit arguments to the counterplan, because they have extintion impacts, and you have no case defense.

RFD

The neg needed to have case defense in this debate. The affirmative says we should have staffed missions to mars, and that would accrue a number of advantages. First, they say that it will create jobs and boost economic growth to solve for terrorism. Second, a mission to mars will spur STEM education, which is critical to U.S. leadership. U.S. scientific leadership will spur on disarmament. Third, space exploration is good because it gets us off the rock, and gets us fusion energy. The 2NR says that we should have the U.S. pursue full employment, and have China pursue a mission to Mars. These are two separat strategies in the 2NR. The 2NR needs to pick one strategy.

First, the employment counterplan has a lot of problems. Not the least of which is that it lacks any solvency evidence and does not have a specific mechanism for achieving full employment. However, that is not an issue in this debate since the affirmative did not address this issue. However, the counterplan has a number of solvency deficits. FIrst, it does not solve for the growth advantage. The 1ar extends evidence from Zubrin which says that the plan is necessary for long-term growth because, like the Apollo missions, we need a long-term program to get long-term growth. Second, the jobs counterplan does not solve for the STEM education, because those jobs are not STEM jobs, which is necessary for disarmament. Regardless of the weaponization net benefit, both of these impacts outweigh that impact. Also, the counterplan does not get the human race "off the rock."

Second, the China counterplan does not solve the warrants for U.S. action mentioned above. These impacts outweigh the weaponization net benefit.

Finally, the neg drops conditionality bad in the 2NR.

= Central MN NFL Round 3 =


 * Minneapolis SouthBO || Points || Ranks ||  || HighlandParkCS || Points || Ranks ||
 * Jacob Boucher ||  ||   ||   || Ben Cretsinger ||   ||   ||
 * Lillian Oullette-Howitz ||  ||   ||   || Marie Sheehan ||   ||   ||

Jacob -- Please, please, please stop answering arguments for Lillie and prompting her. You prompted her during the 1AC. Frankly, > 50% of the time you interrupt her it is unnecessary (i.e., "get to the aff choice stuff"). If you want to debate maverick do that, otherwise let your partner debate. She is pretty good. Your transhumanism arguments are incomprehensible.

Marie -- look up. If you paid any attention to me during this debate you would notice that i was not sure where you were on the flow -- you are skipping whole swaths of 2AC arguments, and I am having trouble flowing you as a result.

The block was a total mess. I had real trouble figuring out what arguments were being responded to and not responded to. Your argument is complex enough, do you really want your judge to be looking at his computer screen and thinking "what is she responding to" rather than processing the argument itself?

RFD

I am inclined to vote affirmative because I do not think that the neg has read any evidence which supports its link arguments it is making. These link arguments are about instances where we try to order the world to end human suffering, and is separate and distinct from the issue of a giant fireball coming and hitting our planet. The Paterson 3 evidence says that death is an evil because it destorys the subject. That makes it the truly "ontological evil" independent of "calculations about better or worse possible lives." This creates a framing argument that places the affirmative impacts well above value to life considerations.