MSHSL+Sections+2012

toc = = =Section 6 - Round 1= Meghna -- 2AC was a mix of incomprehensible and awesome. I occasionally had trouble determining when one argument ended and the other began, but you were outstanding on the case debate. Good work.
 * WayzataBS || Points || Ranks ||  || EdinaMY || Points || Ranks ||
 * Meghna Sohoni || 29.3 || 1 ||  || Jon Yang || 29.1 || 3 ||
 * Alex Bahls || 28.9 || 4 ||  || Dustin Meyers-Levy || 29.2 || 2 ||

This is the first substantive debate I've had to resolve all year. Mostly I've been judging debates where "drops" guide my decision. I really liked this debate because there is sufficient clash that I need to resolve on arguments rather than technique issues.

RFD:

The nexus question of this debate is uniqueness on the space militarization DA. The affirmative proposes that we invest in space based solar power (SPS) because (a) SPS will boost our hegemony; and (b) SPS will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels thus stopping runaway warming. The negative says that if the U.S. unilaterally pursued SPS it would destroy international cooperation and lead to a space-based arms race. The affirmative has a number of responses to the space militarization argument, including that other countries such as Russia already perceive that the U.S. is unilaterally militarizing space because we have deployed the X-37B space plane. In response, the negative says that the X-37B is not a space weapon, and even if it was, it would not be perceived as a space weapon. Alternatively they read a piece of evidence that the X-37B has yet to be deployed. In the 1AR the affirmative extends the original piece of evidence and says that the X-37B has "pissed off" Russia and that the X-37B should have caused the link. In the 2NR Jon takes the "Pepsi Challenge" on this piece of evidence and asserts that the aff evidence does not say anything about Russia. Further, and this is curious, he says that unless their evidence says we have put a weapon into space, there is no reason that Russia would perceive it as such. Well, Meghna re-reads this evidence in the 2AR and it says that Russia perceives this as a weapon in space. Given the link threshold that Jon establishes, and the fact that his argument fails the Pepsi challenge, I conclude that Russia does perceive that we have already weaponized space and that it should be sufficient to cause the disadvantage. Once the link is short-circuited, Jon's impact overview, which is conceded by the affirmative, becomes a non-issue.

The affirmative wins their warming advantage. The negative reads two defensive arguments that would be good enough to cause the disad to outweigh the warming advantage, but do not present an offensive reason not to vote affirmative. FIrst, they win that the plan does not take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Second, the negative wins that we are "post-brink" and already on the way to runaway warming. In the 2AR, Meghna extends the Shubert (?) evidnece which says we need to act in the face of warming, so that even if we are post brink, I should probably vote affirmative.

The negative wins that the affirmative will not accure the hegemony advantage because Obama won't capitalize on whatever increase in hegemony would occur. However, there is again, no offensive argument as to why we should not adopt SPS.

I think that the 2NR made the right choice in this debate. The critical error, as I stated above, was misconstruing the affirmative's evidence. The better choice would be to set the link threshold a litter further out, and say that the X-37B just pushed us to the brink and the plan is what would tip us over the brink.

= Section 6 - Round 2 =


 * EdenPriaireCL || Points || Ranks ||  || EdinaSS || Points || Ranks ||
 * He Li || 28.5 || 4 ||  || Mimi Sergent-Slaughter || 29.6 || 1 ||
 * Clayton Carlson || 28.8 || 3 ||  || Erin Seilaff || 29.4 || 2 ||

As I mentioned after the end of this debate, this was a very close round and I think that another judge could decide this debate going to the other way. The critical pro-tip for this debate, is the affirnative can't put Jackson-Vanick on the bottom of both the 2AC and the 1AR against Edina.

The negative goes for essentially two strategies in the 2NR. The first strategy is the counterplan & the disadvantage. The second strategy is to argue that the plan is non-inherent because the affirmative has not articulated a structural or attitudinal barrier to the status quo doing the plan. Addressing the second strategy first, I decline the invitation to impose this antiquated burden on the affirmative. It was a bad standard for inherency when I debated and it has not improved with age.

The first strategy is where I vote negative. The negative says that instead of the affiramtive plan, the European Union should fully fund Galileo, the European global positioning system, and then Europe would share that information with the the United States. The negative say that this would solve all the of the case advantages since it is essentially the same thing. The affirmative has a number of objections to this counterplan, but the only relevant objection extended in the 2AR is that the fiating of an international actor is illegitimate. In the 2AC the affirmative makes a stock objection to international fiat -- that there is no decisionmaker who decides between the US and the EU acting; that international fiat is not reciprocal; and, that it is infinitely regressive because there is no limit on the number of actors that the negative could choose from. In the 2NC, the negative states that the negative should only be allowed to fiat the actions of space-faring nations, which limits the number of potential actors down. The negative also says that international fiat is necessary because the topic has an international flare, and that literature would check abuse.

This debate starts to get close in the 1AR. The 1AR says that the negative does not have a "plan advocate" for their counterplan, and therefore the "literature checks abuse" argument does not apply. The 1AR also extends there is no decisionmaker who gets to decide between EU and the US doing the plan. The 1AR also asserts that this is a voting issue, but does not support this claim with evidence or explanation. In the 2NR, Erin says that the burden of a counterplan advocate would be bad, because the neg needs counterplans to overcome or keep up with "squirrelly" affirmatives. In the alternative she suggests that in the event I conclude the that the negative must have a plan advocate, that I should reject international fiat but not teams who read international fiat.

The 2AR makes a passioned and, frankly, persuasive argument against international fiat where the affirmative does not have a plan advocate. More specifically, he argues that the negative defenses of international fiat do not assume that they have added a plan spike to the counterplan to get out of the the obvious solvency deficit to the counterplan. In this case, there is no evidence which says that the EU should fully fund Galileo ** and share the data with the US military. ** Clay argues that this is especially bad since the negative can always write a counterplan to solve the case and not have any solvency evidence for the affirmative. He asks me to decide the round on this issue. His warrant for that is because it would send a meaningful deterrent message to negative teams that they cannot get away with a bad debate practice. However, that warrant is not in the 1AR. Therefore, I decide that the affirmative is correct that international fiat is only legitimate when the affirmative has a literature based advocate for the plan, but the appropriate remedy is reject internationally fiated arguments.

However, the affirmative drops their case, so there is no advantage to voting affirmative articulated in the 2AR. The affirmative is also behind on the Jackson-Vanick DA. As mentioned above this issue is severely under-covered by the both the 2AC and the 1AR. The affirmative says that Obama has blown his political capital with Congress by virtue of his recess appointments. However, this evidence is not conclusive, nor is it issue specific. The negative is the only team reading any evidence on the question of whether Jackosn-Vanick will pass in the status quo, and therefore there only a risk of the disadvantage. The affirmative also says that the budget has been submitted, and therefore, Congress will do the plan and Obama would not get blame. However, there is a risk of a link. The affirmative does not contest the impact, which a) is extinction, and b) turns the case.

= Section 5 - Round 2 =


 * WashburnBP || Point || Ranks ||  || BlakeSW || Point || Ranks ||
 * Brandon Bogan ||  ||   ||   || Adele Watkins ||   ||   ||
 * Anna Parshall ||  ||   ||   || Hannah Stafford ||   ||   ||

Brandon -- You do not need to spread cards in cross-examination. In fact you probably should not.

Adele -- having two disads which impact in China war is probably not a wise decision.

Brandon -- My biggest pet peeve in debate is when one partner is constantly interrupting his partner to tell her what arguments to make. Obviously it is OK to do this once in a while, but you are doing it to the point where you destroy the fluidity of Anna's speech. Either do the 2AC, or let your partner give her own speech.

Anna -- When judges ask for the order a couple of times, it could mean that you are going to drop something, like a disad. Which you did. I think you need to have a set block to the space mil da.

Adele -- Outstanding extension of topicality. Your extension of space mil could have been better since you answered arguments that were not in the 2ac. Also, you answer arguments out of order. For example, on topicality, you skipped the "we meet" (which was the first answer) and then answered it last. You also did this on space mil. It was not a big deal in this debate, but if you are doing that frequently it could hurt in a tighter debate.

Hannah -- Why not go for the da that was dropped in both the 2ac and the 1ar? That should have been at the top of the flow. Also, you should call more shenanigans on all of the new arguments made in the 1ar.

RFD

While the negative could have more easily won by going for the Chinese soft power DA, I still vote negative. The nexus question for me is that the negative can't solve. The 2AC drops solvency, and the 1AR just extend's tags, not warrants out of the arguments. And those arguments are new. The fact that sps won't be deployed for a long time means that the advantages occur after the weaponization disadvantage. The disadvantage impact turns all the the case advantages, so I vote negative.

= Section 3 - Round 3 =


 * Rosemount BS || Points || Ranks ||  || Jefferson GH || Points || Ranks ||
 * Lisa Beard || 27.5 || 4 ||  || Arthur Harris || 27.9 || 3 ||
 * Matthew Stefanko || 28.4 || 1 ||  || Brenna Gibbs || 28.0 || 2 ||

Arthur - I had a hard time flowing you despite that you were generally clear. First, you need to use inflection when you speak. Inflection helps distinguish between tags, cites and card. Furthermore, inflection just makes you more interesting to listen to. Second, your cards are too short, and hard to flow. For example, your T argument was hard for me to comprehend because you were reading short cards, and just when I was digesting your first card, you were on to the next.

Matt – While I think that Sagen DA on case is monumentally stupid, you treat it rather glibly. That was a pretty effective cross-examination of Brenna.

RFD

Neither the 2NR nor the 2AR does a good job of identifying nexus questions for the debate. Both last rebuttals assume that their side is winning every argument, and not taking an honest assessment of what arguments you are winning and what arguments you are losing.

The negative goes for a patriarchy criticism which says that patriarchy (i.e., domination) is the root cause of all the problems in the world including the affirmative harms. First, the negative says that the alternative should not be considered because it is not a policy option. Pro-tip: If your judge coaches at St. Paul Central, framework is not they way to go. Neg says that the aff get’s to weigh their impacts against the K, and I think that is a better model of debate. Specifically, because the neg argues that the alternative is good education, and their framework does not moot the 1ac, or put the affirmative behind the 8-ball.

Here is where the neg goes off the beam. Brenna engages in tag-line debate in the 2NR, that borders on feminist sloganeering as a substitute for critical analysis. Frankly I do not have a clear understanding of what the alternative does or how it is competitive with the affirmative. The 2AR extends a “cede the political” net benefit to the perm, but I have no idea where that came from. However, he also explains how the treaty making explained on advantage 1 can occur in the world of the alternative, and how we can stop an asteroid collision in the world of the alt to using the plan.

As I mentioned after the round Brenna should have capitalized on the conceded “Sagen DA.”

= Section 3 - Round 4 =


 * EaganDW || Points || Ranks ||  || RosemountJK || Points || Ranks ||
 * Justin Dietz || 27.2 ||  ||   || Wesley Just || 27.5 ||   ||
 * Kevin Wei || 27.0 ||  ||   || Ryan Kirkley || 27.7 ||   ||

Wesley -- You speak too softly. I can't understand a lot of what you are saying in the 1NC.

I cannot understand most of the 1NR. It is mush mouth and too slurred to process what you are saying.

Ryan -- While you made a good macro choice, they only had one argument on the K. You should answer that first, or at least not in the last 20 seconds.

Reason for decision.

The round comes down to conditionality. After the negative block, the 1AR has major time allocation issues, and get's to the Heidegger K with very little time. Ironically, this is the position that had the most 2ac answers on it. While the permutation was still a viable argument since Ryan did not get to it until there was only 20 seconds left in the 2NR. Instead, Justin goes for conditionality. The gravamen of the conditionality argument is that it is unfair for the negative to be able to advocate two contradictory positions. First, the affirmative does not explain their internal links to their two impacts: critical thinking and education. Second, while the 2ar does address the negative flex argument from the block and the 2nr, the 1ar was incomprehensible on this issue. I do not mean he was not clear, I mean he was so rushed he did not make much sense. Third, from an abuse perspective, Ryan rightly points out that he did not take advantage for any contradiction. The negative did not use the contradictory positions to get a link. Ironically, the negative went for the position that the 2ac spent the most time on in the debate.