MDTA+N&JV+2012

=Round 1=
 * RosevilleAreaWG || Pts || Rks ||  || WayzataGM || Pts || Rks ||
 * Nahtalia Woods || 28.1 || 2 ||  || Samantha Gilmore ||   ||   ||
 * Eli Gumnit || 28.4 || 1 ||  || Madison Marko ||   ||   ||

Nahtalia -- Decent job reading the 1AC. You need to figure out if you want to spread or not. I liked your speech more when you gave up on trying to spread. Make sure you have the case timed out. You didn't finish your third advantage.

1NC -- On spending you only need to read 1 impact card. It is redundant to read both Mead 9 and Beardon. You had 1:41 left when you ran out of stuff to say. You could read an additional disad. Also, if you are going to read case defense, you might want to read some warming defense on the STEM advantage. The aff claims that STEM is necessary to create new green technology.

Eli -- Overall pretty solid 2AC. However you need to have better answers to spending. I think your no link evidence is good, but you want to attack the da from multiple aspects. You need to attack uniquness, impact uniqueness, and other aspects of the DA.

2N -- Your uniqueness evidence on spending is stale. It is 3 months old. It doesn't really matter in this debate since the 2AC didn't challenge uniqueness.

1NR -- While I am not a fan of Substantial T, you probably need it in this debate to get your spending link. 1NR underviews are free prep time for the affirmative.

The negative knows that they shouldn't double cover in the block, but did anyway. Each speaker should take discrete positions.

Nahtalia -- Overall good job. You need to focus on the line by line more in the 1ar but you made good choices, and I really like that you re-read the 2AC spending link card back at them when they pimped it. I would liked to have seen you extend the warming impact, since they have no game on it.

RFD -

Topicality is not a viable option for the negative. The 2NC dropped the "we meet" arguments, and the 1AR extends them. You need to answer each 2AC argument if you want to go for T in the 2NR. The negative says that human presence is required for exploration and "beyond the earth's mesophere" means not on this planet. Affirmative says that the plan does not meet this interpretation because the plan does not physically put us in outer space. In response the 2AC says that the plan does place human presence in space, just not its physical presence. 2AC also argues that the plan puts human presence in space through technology. The 2NC does not address either of these we meet arguments. The 1AR extends it, and the 2NR again ignores these arguments. The 2N instead focuses on the source of the interpretation. The source of a topicality definition is usually the least important issue on T, and limits is the more important issue. The neg could have won this round on T, however, if they would have answered the "we meet" arguments and if they would have talked talked about the limits issue.

Neg also goes for the spending DA. This was the more viable position for the neg due to the lack of 2AC diversity on this question. However, the lack of spin on the link question by the negative makes it impossible for them to win on spending. The negative argues that the Super Committee will ensure that there is no new federal spending in the status quo. (Query: is this true, or does it really just mean that they will solve deficit spending?) They argue that deficit spending will collapse the economy and that will lead to extinction. The aff's single argument against spending is that a) the plan does not spend that much money, and b) that the plan net saves money. The block needs to address this issue offensively. It is not enough to say that the card is not specific to the affirmative plan. First, it is not true that the 2AC evidence is not specific. Nahtalia does a good job of addressing this issue in the 1AR. Second, the neg needs to explain how the aff does spend more than a mere $5million. Third, the neg needs to argue that $5 million would meet the threshold to cause deficit spending.

With no other offense, I vote affirmative.

= Round 2 =


 * MinneapolisSouthBR || Pts || Rks ||  || EdenPraireFS || pts || Rks ||
 * Sam Bonaime || 26.6 || 3 ||  || Jack Frazzini || 27.1 || 2 ||
 * Cayla Roberts || 26.5 || 4 ||  || Shreyas Sonbarse || 27.2 || 1 ||

1AC -- Good 1AC.

Shreyas -- Don't leave the debate during your partners speech.

Jack -- Too much time on case in the 1nc reading cards that say the same thing.

2AC - Give a road map and ask the judge if he or she is ready before you begin speaking. Also, clearing signpost. You need to clash with the cards they read. Just reading counter-evidence does not constitute clash. You need to compare your cards to their cards. You also need to think about issue identification and time allocation. You spent all 8 minutes of the speech on case. You need to spend at more time on the off case positions. You would be better off spending only 2:00 on case.

2NC -- Good extension of the dropped positions.

1NR - SHENANIGANS -- YOU ARE STEALING PREP!!! The double coverage on nanotech does not help you. Also, you should preempt some of the arguments that the aff made in cross-ex. specifically that nanotech could be used to terraform Mars, thus solving the case. You need to show how the aff can't access nanotech. That should be the only argument you make on nanotech. Stand still in your speech. You are pacing back and forth and not looking at me.

Neg -- While you are ahead in this debate you should flow your partners and opponents speeches.

1AR -- You really need to address the off case positions. The neg has given two speeches in a row now about nanotechnology. You need to respond to that disad. You finished with 1:30 left. When answering a disad you should have attacks on the uniquness, the link, the internal link(s) and the impact. You can either link turn or impact turn the da. But you need to answer it.

2NR -- Road map. and make sure that the judge is following you.

2AR -- You should start your speech on reasons to vote for you, not reasons why they don't win their argument.

RFD

I vote negative on the nanotechnology disadvantage. The negative argues that the plan would take budget away from nanotechnology reseach which is bad, because of all the cool stuff that nanotechnology will be able to do when its invented. The affirmative drops this argument throughout each of their speeches. The neg reads a whole host of impacts, like nanotechnology will solve global warming, starvation and (my favorite) immortality. These impacts outweigh the case. It might even turn the case because it will solve the impacts of overpopulation.

= Round 4 =


 * EdinaWS || Points || Ranks ||  || RosemountSA || Points || Ranks ||
 * Ashab Alanger || 28.4 ||  ||   || Jacob Sweitzer || N/A ||   ||
 * Drew Sposeep || 28.3 ||  ||   || Jacob Alex || 27.9 ||   ||

Jacob -- explaining cards is not useful in the first speech. You should save the explanations for rebuttals.

Alex - That was a good 2AC. I am not sure summarizing your cards is efficient, but you covered the 1NC and read a lot of good diverse arguments.

Jacob -- That was a solid 2NC. At the end you kind of went off the beam and read random cards, without telling a story. This is a speech where you should be fleshing out a story as to what happens if I vote affirmative.

However, double coverage when you are going maverick is not wise. You are dropping arguments from the 2AC on the nasa trade-off da. You jump between the counterplan and china da intermittently which makes you hard to flow. It also hurts your story since you are inconsistent in what you are talking about.

Drew - You did a good job of pointing out the drops. This is why flowing is good. Keep up the good work! However, you could improve on extending the drops. FIrst, point out the card (you are doing that). Second explain the warrant (you are not doing that). Third, impact the drop on my decision. (You are only kind of doing that).

Jacob - You have to make choices in the 2NR. You cannot go for everything. You are not telling a consistent story, rather you are spreading yourself out.

RFD

Topicality -- The negative argues that the plan is not space exploration because it is not a colonization plan. Affirmative responds that they meet, and with a counter interpretation. 2AC also says that I should judge topicality on the basis of reasonability. The 2NC/1NR does not answer the reasonability argument. This makes topicality an unviable position for the neg.

NASA Trade-off DA. This is an issue that the negative should have kicked in rebuttals. The negative's argument is that spending on asteroid satellites trade off with NASA's Earth Science studies, which solves warming. (Query, how do satellites stop the use of fossil fuels?). The affirmative have a number of attacks on this disadvantage, the most relevant is that other countries would fill in if NASA stopped monitoring climate. The neg drops this argument in the 2NC and the constructives. Neg also drops that we are "post-brink" because we have put too much carbon into the air.

Case -- Neg mitigates case, but there is still a comparative advantage.

China Counterplan and DA. This is where the negative's lack of flowing really hurt him in this debate. First, the negative drops a lot of the 2AC on the China DA. On the China DA, 2AC reads a card that says that Chinese soft power decline is inevitable and irreversible. 2NC does read a ton of cards on this position, but he does not clash with this piece of evidence and does not explain how he responds to this position. This takes out the net benefit to the counterplan. Even if that were not the case, the negative does not address that perm solves the counterplan.

= Round 5 =


 * WayzataMM || Points || Rks ||  || ComoParkDK || Points || Rks ||
 * Allie McDonald || 27.2 ||  ||   || Drew David-Johnson || 27.1 ||   ||
 * Ananya Mishra || 27.3 ||  ||   || Zach Llinkenborg || 27.0 ||   ||

1AC - Good volume, but you need to differentiate your tags, cites and cards.

2AC -- You virtually dropped the deflection DA. Saying that there is no uniqueness, impact or link barely rises to the level of a claim. You would be better off making arguments about the link, since it is straight out of an episode of Justice League.

2NC -- Additional cards about the probability of an asteroid collision is not useful. You have already read a bunch of cards that say the same thing. You should be comparing your evidence to their evidence. You need to improve your flowing as well. You are not debating the aff on the line by line.

1AR -- Good catch on dropping the scientific diplomacy advantage. I think that you need to explain the scenario, however when you are extending it. Also, you need to explain how it would solve asteroid deflection.

2NR - They dropped your deflection DA. You should talk about that more than the last 20 seconds of your speech. You should also address the scientific diplomacy da.

2AR -- Good job starting on science diplomacy. You need to explain how it would solve for the deflection DA, but since the 2NR didn't I will spot you that argument.

RFD --

This round is difficult to resolve. The neg drops the scientific diplomacy advantage which says the search for asteroids will increase our leadership in the scientific community, which solves a host of problems. The aff drops the deflection da. Both the 2NR and the 2AR need to take stock of the fact that they actually dropped these arguments. 2AR does claim that that advantage solves "everything", and they have some weak mitigation to this disad and that the 2NR barely extended it in the 2NR I vote aff.

= Quarterfinals (Novice) =
 * MinneapolisSouthEW ||  || WayzataKB ||
 * Klayton Elliot ||  || Nikhil Krishnan ||
 * Cole Wallin ||  || Aryik Bhattacharya ||

1AC and 1NC -- you both have an off-putting reading style. 1AC swallows syllables making it hard to understand the second half of his words. 1NC reads text of cards at a lower volume than the tags. Why?

Cole - You are overly and unnecessarily aggressive in cross-ex.

I wanted to just stop the cross-ex of the 2nc. Everyone was shouting.

RFD

The 1AR makes a critical mistake on the K flow. Neg says Frontierism K, and the 2AC has a bunch of offense about why the frontier mindset is good. The 1NR drops all of these arguments. The 1AR, for reasons that are unclear to me, decides to extend the no link. The link question is the one area where the neg is ahead. They specifically identify a 2AC claim, that extinction is inevitable if we don't colonize Mars, that makes a "dying planet claim" which is a link. Aff does not contest whether dying planet would be a link in the first instance. The 2NR extends two impacts which are not addressed by the 2AR. The first is a racism impact, with a cross-application of the Barndt 91 evidence read on the Launch DA. The second is that it would kill future space travel, thus taking out the case. Obviously, these impacts were not extended at a varsity level, but they were extended. Neither the 1AR or the 2AR either responded or weighed the case against these impacts. Therefore, i vote neg.