MSHSL+State+2012

toc

=State Round 2 -- Como RT v. Edina SS=
 * Como Park RT || Points || Ranks ||  || Edina SS || Points || Ranks ||
 * Stryker Thompson || 27.9 ||  ||   || Mimi Sergent-Leventhal || 28.6 ||   ||
 * Dai’Quan Robinson || 28.2 ||  ||   || Erin Sielaff || 28.8 ||   ||

Aff - The cacophony of the 1ac, where Dai’Quan sings “This Land Is Your Land” while Stryker reads a card makes it hard to follow what is probably an important argument. Also in cross-ex you should have a better idea of what constitutes a “policymaker.”

Mimi – Too fast. Also, you have an uphill battle winning that Stryker’s language ** before ** the debate is a link to G-Lang. Not that “guys” isn’t gendered, but that you should win a debate because of stuff that is said before debates.

Dai’Quan -- The reason western knowledge production is bad is we see a bunch of dead Native American Indians which we trace to western epistemology. It is OK to answer questions in cross-ex in a straightforward manner. Good start to the cross-ex of 2NC.

Dai’Quan, your interruptions of Stryker’s speech made following him hard. I don’t give credit for what you say during the 1ar, and it just interrupts the flow of the speech. I think it is necessary, occasionally, to help out your partner, but by and large it is a terrible idea.

Stryker – You mishandle the counterplan. You need to explain how your permutation accounts for the net benefits of the counterplan. Frankly, I do not think that there is a link to the net benefits, but you have to say that in the 1ar.

RFD

Affirmative says that we should launch the USFG, on a slingshot, into the sun. The reason is the USFG has treated native American Indians poorly, leading to genocide and other bad things. The negative says that instead we should give the land back to native American Indians. The 1AR only extends two arguments: the permutation, and “law bad.” First, the permutation is not net beneficial because the aff concedes the net benefits to the counterplan. Second, there is no impact to law bad articulated in the 1ar, or really the 2ar. The counterplan solves all of the aff and avoids the risks associated with space exploration.

= Round 3 -- Eagan BM v Jefferson DG =


 * Eagan BM || Points || Ranks ||  || Jefferson DG || Ponts || Ranks ||
 * Katherine Bulanek || 28.1 ||  ||   || Alexa Groenke || 28.2 ||   ||
 * Kelcey Maher || 28.3 ||  ||   || Ruby DeBellis || 28.4 ||   ||

1AR needs to improve her issue identification. You are ahead on the collision advantage, and kicking the hege advantage would make the K go away.

Ruby – Wrong 2NR choice. If you win security, you don’t have to win the case. If you go for the DA, you have to win the case because you don’t have a counterplan and not much offense on case.

RFD

This round is a story of two teams trying to give away the ballot. The key nexus question of the debate is the timeframe of the impacts, since both teams probably win their impacts. The affirmative wins that there is a risk the status quo won’t be able to detect an asteroid collision which has two different extinctions. The negative wins that the plan would cause a cut to nanotechnology. The 1AR drops a long impact overview which has a homeland security extinction, and environmental degradation extinction and also turns the case because nanotechnology is a “prerequisite to get to space”. I would have probably allowed the 2ar to make new arguments against these impacts because the timeframe question is so crucial in this debate. However, the 2ar is vague, at best, in addressing these impacts.

The link debate is close, because I think that the aff is correct, but from a debate judging perspective, the affirmative didn’t have a carded or specific reason of new spending which would trigger the da. The aff never challenged the uniqueness of the DA.

=Round 4 - Wayzata JS v. Minneapolis South BO=
 * Wayzata JS || Points || Ranks ||  || South BO || Points || Ranks ||
 * Naveen “ Sweet ” Jain || 28.4 ||  ||   || Jacob Boucher || 28.5 ||   ||
 * Catherine “ Here Comes The ” Sun || 28.2 ||  ||   || Lillie Ouellette-Howitz || 28.3 ||   ||

RFD:

I liked the 1AR, because Naveen is making new distinctions, which is something that I appreciate in a 1ar. Unfortunately, the distinctions made by the 1AR are inapposite. First, the 2AC makes no arguments about the presidential powers net benefit. This means that they are starting behind on this issue when the first arguments are in the 1AR. Second, the 1AR evidence about terorrists not getting fissile material is not on point. The neg’s story is agnostic on the question of whether the terrorist attack will be nuclear, it is that the U.S. response to a terrorist attack would be nuclear. This is how I have the story flowed in Cupcake’s 1nr overview, and it is how Lillie explains it in the 2NR.

Second, the solvency deficit argument that the aff is making may, or may not, be supported by the evidence. I would really have liked if either final rebuttalist would have reread a key warrant from the card for me, since I cannot call the evidence. Two things: A. The solvency deficit argument is new in the 1AR, and Lillie calls Naveen on this in the 2NR. I am okay with the newness, but I think that the Catherine should at least say something on this question. B. The Flieshman evidence is extended to say that executive order’s sidestep congressional opposition, which means that the plan would not i) link to politics; and ii) would not upset the bandwagon. C. 2AR claims that their Suh evidence says that Congressional action is necessary. i) I am not sure that this argument was in any previous speech; ii) 2ar does not read a warrant for this claim from the Suh evidence. I conclude that the Counterplan solves the case, and avoids the presidential powers net benefit. There is no offense on the disad flow, so I vote neg.

= Quarters -- Blake MM v. Eden Prairie CL =


 * Blake MM || Points || Ranks ||  || Eden Prairie CL || Points || Ranks ||
 * McGrath ||  ||   ||   || Carlson ||   ||   ||
 * Morrow ||  ||   ||   || Li ||   ||   ||

Kentucky – I have no idea what the second advantage is. However, your cross-examination of Clay was A+

RFD

This debate starts to go south for the negative when Kentucky gave a stand up 1ar. He Li probably had 46 seconds of prep for the 2NR, and probably needed to draft off the aff prep to get ready.

As a framing question, both sides agree that the debate should be about justifying the affiramtive’s “method.” The aff articulates two justications for its method. First, they say that humanity is “interconnected” and this interconnectedness is proven by recent advances in neuroscience (Rivkin ev). The impact of this evidence is that it takes out uniqueness for the negative’s “no value to life impact.” I think that this argument would have also gone well with the existence precedes essence argument extended in the 1ar, however the 2AR does not extend this piece of evidence.

Second, the affirmative says their “deterrence ontology” (aka “hegemony ontology”) is justifies their methodology. The act of keeping the world safe provides both psychological and physical security to people living in the world, which ensures a value to life. The affirmative argues that the alternative cannot solve for this because it rejects all management, which is a necessary for a “deterrence ontology.”

The 2NR does not answer or preempt either of these justifications. I think that the 2AR does a suprerior job of painting a picture of what the world would look like post-plan than the 2NR does. 2NR makes hay out of the claim that “suffering is inevitable.” However, this argument does not address the Rivkin evidence which says that there is interconnectedness, and Michael points out, that when Nietzsche first made that claim, he did not know as much as Rivkin did when he made his findings.

Second, the 2NR says that there is a “Fear politics” disadvantage to the affirmative’s method. I think he needs to do a better job of comparing this argument to the “hegemony ontology.”

=Finals -- Edina SS v. Blake MM= Congratulations to both teams on advancing to the final round. Both teams have had a lot of success over the year that they can certainly be proud of, but frankly, finals of state is probably one of the top 3 rounds you will remember most 20 years from now.

RFD

The gateway issue for my decision is whether the steal funding counterplans are allowable in debate. If I decide that the counterplan is legitimate I will vote negative because there is no solvency deficit to the counterplan. Conversely, if I find that the counterplan is bad for debate, I think I can vote affirmative for two reasons. A) Case out outweigh the DA, and B) I think Mimi is right that i) I have to universalize the practice; and ii) voting against them is the only way to make bad strategy risky.

Aff has three reasons for why the counterplan is illegitimate. First, they say these counterplans are infinitely regressive, and provide no limits for aff preparation. In response, Neg defends that the presence of a solvency advocate solves this infinite regression problem. I am not sure that the affirmative has a solvency advocate. I am not sure that a “Say yes” card is the same as advocating the text of the counterplan. Also, Mimi rereads the neg’s “Say yes card” and indicates that the counterplan is not normal, which means I doubt that it is advocating the counterplan. Kentucuky should have reread what he though the key parts were for this argument.

Second, the affirmative says that these counterplans steal affirmative ground, and that the negative would still have international counterplans and other generics. The neg seems to rely on the “solvency advocate” argument here, and that their concession that cooperation is key ground solves this problem. I agree that international counterplans would solve this better than stealing funding counterplans, but I am not sure why one is better than the other. However, as I said above, neg does not win that they have an actual solvency advocate.

Third, the affirmative says the rejecting the counterplan would preserve topic eductation. The fact that cooperation is part of the topic does not justify the counterplan, it only justifies the plan. I will get that education by allowing the aff, not that I need the counterplan.