UMN+2011

toc = = =Round 1 - Eden Prairie LV v. Rosemount JK=
 * EdenPraireLV || Pts || Rks ||  || RosemounJK || Pts || Rks ||
 * Vasanth Lsakshmipathy || 25.1 || 4 ||  || Wesley Just || 27.1 || 2 ||
 * Raghav Vadhul || 25.2 || 3 ||  || Ryan Kirkley || 27.4 || 1 ||

1AC -- I would skip some of the impact preempts and finish your solvency cards.

Ryan -- There is no contradiction in the 1AC. The aff's argument is there won't be an // intentional // nuclear war, not no nuclear war whatsoever. Otherwise, good cross-examination of 1AC. Good use of closed-ended questions.

2AC -- Before speaking, make sure you have my attention. Like saying "are you ready?" Also, you read too many cards on case. Just extend and cross-apply the cards that you read in the 1ac. if you need to read a few extensions, make sure that they are quick and don not take too much time. You read way too many cards on the nanotech advantage. You drop the counterplan, a procedural, and both disads. Also, don't ignore the line-by-line when responding to case. For example, you dropped the Ozone DA that Ryan read on case.

Ryan -- good impact calculus on the dropped arguments. The Method-spec argument is pretty dumb, but I understand why you extend it in this debate.

Wesley -- The new framework you read in the 1NR probably hurts Ryan's ability to go for the K. They dropped the K, which makes it an auto-ballot for you. However, if you read a new framework in the 1NR then the aff get's to answer it, which means they could debate you on this issue, and make the K not matter.

Affirmative -- I suspect that you have some flowing problems. You are routinely dropping the method spec and Heidegger K in this debate. Also you are completely ignoring the line-by-line on each flow. Even if the answers would be new, you should at least make them in the 1ar. also, you can use the new arguments that Romont reads in the block to justify new arguments.


 * RFD **

The affirmative drops the M-Spec argument in the 2AC. M-Spec says that the affirmative must specify their methodology in the 1AC. If the affirmative would have breathed on this arguments, I would have probably not voted on it. First, I think that the affirmative's method is pretty clear in the 1AC -- we should vote to preserve life versus catastrophe. This argument is probably useful against some K aff's, who are shifty or cheat, but this affirmative is not that. However, the affirmative drops this arguments in both the 2AC and the 1AR. This is a pretty quick decision for the affirmative.


 * Update: ** It turns out that I totally misapprehended the m-spec argument. The "method" that the neg refers to is the method of exploring for asteroids. However, it is still conceded by the affirmatives. Therefore, I am still comfortable with my decision. However, in the future the Neg might want to explain their args better so I don't have to guess.

= Round 3 - Eagan HT v. Eden Prairie KS =


 * EaganHT || pts || rks ||  || EdenPraireKS || pts || rks ||
 * Patrick Hancock || 26.1 || 3 ||  || Shikha Kambil || 26.5 || 2 ||
 * Dan Thomas-Commins || 26.0 || 4 ||  || Lisa Shmulyan || 27.0 || 1 ||

Shika -- You need to have more complete shells. For example a counterplan text that says "the prc will do the plan" is often insufficient. Second, your SKFTA DA, you don't need to read 5 uniqueness cards in the 1NC. You shoudl read 1, a link card, and internal link card, and an impact.

Eden Praire -- Not cool that you jumped the wrong 1NC to Eagan.

Patrick -- You need to say more to cap than it contradicts SKFTA. You are putting all your eggs in the condo basket, and the condo basket is weak. First, condo is a hard position to win. Second, the neg could say that cap is a gateway issue, and if you don't prove that cap is good, you can't win. The alternative essentially solves the contradiction. Also, you could use 2AC frontlines and more recent evidence on SKFTA. You need to be more offense minded in the 2AC. You could lose on either the NNI tradeoff da or cap, depending on what the 2nr chooses to go for.

Lisa -- You need to have a more coherent speech. I don't mind that you go for cap and and SKFTA in the same speech, but you need to frame this as an alternative statement. For example, you should say that cap is a gateway issue. If you prove that cap is bad, you win, but if they prove that cap is good, that doesn't mean that they win, just that cap is good. In a world where cap is good, plan is still bad because of the spending trade-offs.

Shika - 1NR prep? What's up with that? Specifically the 4 minutes of prep you took.

1AR -- For a guy who is so worried about time skews you spent an awful lot of time answering new arguments from the 1NR. I think you need to spend more time answering cap, and the cp and the NNI DA. You undercover them, so if they win condo, you lose.

2NR - Good 2NR choice in this debate. When the 1AR drops CP and NNI DA, that's an easy choice, and you did a good job with it. You could have done a better job of explaining your disads from the first link to the last impact.

2AR - You need better impact calc. Also, the only way for you to win this debate is condo, you do need to go all in on it. Otherwise you come off as whining. The #1 thing you need to address if you are not going for condo, is you need to answer the immortality impact on the NNI DA. It is a the largest impact in the debate. Also, you need to spend more time on hegemony. Be more professional as well. Ignore that your phone rang, and don't answer the call.

RFD

Neg wins some minor mitigation of case, but the affirmative drops the NNI DA. The plan could tradeoff with the National Nanotechnology Institute, which hurts the development of nanotechnology. The neg reads cards that nanotechnology could solve for all death. The aff says that seems unlikely but did not answer any of the warrants in their cards.

Post-Round Discussion: Do not answer your phone during a post-round discussion, Eagan. It is rude, and there is no call that you could possibly receive that can't wait 5 minutes until you are done listening. Also, do not interrupt the judge to give your own advice to your opponents.

= Round 1 (Day 2) - Washburn JJ v. Wayzata AE =


 * WashburnJJ || Pts || Rks ||  || WayzataAE || Pts || Rks ||
 * Logan Jones || 28.3 || 1 ||  || Emil Ebrahimi || 27.4 || 3 ||
 * Ella Johnson || 28.2 || 2 ||  || Aubrianna Ackarman || 27.3 || 4 ||

Logan - You do not need to give a roadmap for the 1ac. Good presentation of 1AC, but you need to work on pronouncing all the words properly. You struggled with pronouncing "inoperablity."

Emil -- you need to read offensive arguments (i.e., disads, counterplans, kritiks) in the 1NC. Also your cards on the economy is resilient are old.

Logan - good cross-examination. you asked smart closed-ended question, and kept the issues focused early on,

Ella - You need to work on refutation and clash. You are reading really good cards that support your case. However, you need to use them to clash with what the 1NC did. That means (1) identfying the card you are responding to; (2) providing your counter-evidence; and (3) explaining why your card is better than there card. You also should point out that there are no offensive arguments in the 1NC. You should argue that there is only a risk of the affirmative at this point. Don't re-read cards that were read in the 1AC.

Emil and Ella -- You both read a lot of redundant cards. you need to diversify your warrants. reading different cards that they the same thing is not helpful to building your arguments. Instead, you should give different reasons for your claim.

Aubrianna -- You also need to work on clash. You all are just reading cards which might contradict what your opponent is saying, but you are not clashing. You need to 1. identify the argument you are responding to; 2. explain how the evidnece you've already read is better than the evidence that your opponent read; and 3. explain why that matters. Also, you need an offensive reason to vote negative like a disad or a case turn. If I give full weight to everything that you said, I'd still vote affirmative because there is at least a risk I could improve the economy.

Emil -- 1NR needs to expand on previously read positions, not read new disads. This earth science trade-off disad is new, and you didn't read an impact to it in the 1NC. Also you need to read an impact that outweighs the affirmative's impact.

ALL -- Here is a tip on refutation.

Ò Step 1: “They say…” Ò Step 2: “But I disagree…” Ò Step 3: “Because….” É Try to show that your argument is better because…. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #3891a7; display: block; font-family: 'Wingdings 2'; font-size: 9px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 40%;">Ð <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #4b2203; display: block; font-family: 'Franklin Gothic Book'; font-size: 25pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 40%;">It’s better reasoned <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #3891a7; display: block; font-family: 'Wingdings 2'; font-size: 9px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 40%;">Ð <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #4b2203; display: block; font-family: 'Franklin Gothic Book'; font-size: 25pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 40%;">It’s better evidenced <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #3891a7; display: block; font-family: 'Wingdings 2'; font-size: 9px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 40%;">Ð <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #4b2203; display: block; font-family: 'Franklin Gothic Book'; font-size: 25pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 40%;">It has historical or empirical support <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #3891a7; display: block; font-family: 'Wingdings 2'; font-size: 9px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 40%;">Ð <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #4b2203; display: block; font-family: 'Franklin Gothic Book'; font-size: 25pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 40%;">It has greater significance <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #3891a7; display: block; font-family: 'Wingdings 2'; font-size: 9px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 40%;">Ò <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #4b2203; display: block; font-family: 'Franklin Gothic Book'; font-size: 28pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 40%;">Step 4: “Therefore….” See __ [|REFUTATION POWERPOINT (1) submitted by Jenny Heidt, Westminster Schools (GA)] __

Logan, because they do not have an offensive argument to the 1AC you need to begin doing impact comparision. Why are your impacts better than their impacts?

Ella - Best speech in the round.

RFD.

Ella is correct the the negative have concede the debris advantage, focusing almost exclusively onthe = Round 2 (Day 2) -- Wayzata BK v. Eagan PU = 1NC -- Overall good job. However, I think you need to work on fluency so that you don't have so many breaks in your speech.
 * WayzataBK || pts || Rks ||  || EaganPU || pts || Rks ||
 * Aryik Bhattacharya || 27.1 || 2 ||  || Roshni Pandey || 26.8 || 3 ||
 * Nikhil Krishnan || 27.3 || 1 ||  || Rayyaan Usmani || 26.7 || 4 ||

1AC -- Make sure you use all of your cross-ex of the 1NC. That is free prep time for your partner.

2AC -- You dropped the space weaponization DA. Before reading your mining add-on you should answer the disadvantage. In addition, you read a lot of cards that say the same thing. It is more efficient for you to read one link card, one impact card, one solvency card on the mining advantage. You don't need 5 link cards. Finally, you need to work on clash and line-by-line debating. See __<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #666666; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|REFUTATION POWERPOINT (1) submitted by Jenny Heidt, Westminster Schools (GA)] __

2NC - You are reading hege the wrong way. Their mining add-on link turns hege good. You need to say hege bad. Even if the aff had not linked turn this in the 2AC you would not have a link to the aff. You need to read a link that you can at least say is more important than their asteroid mining advantage. Because the 2AC dropped the space militarization da, you should spend time extending that position and make it outweigh the affirmative.

1NR -- Oh dear, you also dropped the space militarization DA. You talked about a non-existent budget DA in your 1NR. When a 2AC drops one of your disadvantages you need to extend that position and make impact arguments about why it is more important than the aff.

1AR -- Probably the best speech so far in the debate, in that you specifically answered some of the cards that the 2NC read. Also you mentioned impact calculus which is good. However, you need to be more detailed or specific when comparing your impacts to theirs. You mention certain metrics, like timeframe and magnitude, but you need to compare your impacts to the neg's impacts using that metric. Also, you link turn their hege good arguments because you fix the economy. You should say that.

2NR -- Good use of the impact comparison metrics, but before you make that comparison, you need to win an impact first. You don't make an offensive argument in the 2NC, you are just making defensive arguments. Just saying that an asteroid collision is not going to happen doesn't win you the round in the face of the dropped mining advantage. You have indicts of their timeframe and probability of their collision advantage, but you don't have an impact to weigh against that. If I believed 100% everything you said in the 2NR I'd still vote affirmative because their isn't an opportunity cost to the plan.

2AR -- Good 2AR. You seem to get your case. You need to be more focused and strucuture your arguments, rather than just going from issue to issue and talking about them.

RFD --

I vote affirmative because there is no offensive argument extended in the 2AR. The negative could have won this round pretty easily if, during the negative block, they would have at least mentioned the dropped space weapons DA. However, both sides dropped it. The only impact the negative extends in the rebuttals is that the plan would be a "waste of money" but that impact is outweighed by the existential risks that the affirmative is winning.

= Round 3 (Day 2) - Wayzata CM v. Eden Prairie CN =


 * WayzataCM || Points || Ranks ||  || EdenPrairieCN || Points || Ranks ||
 * Jakob Cornell || 27.5 || 4 ||  || Katherine Gao || 29.5 || 1 ||
 * Allie Macdonald || 28.2 || 3 ||  || Victor Niu || 29 || 2 ||

Katherine -- That 1NC was outstanding! Varsity level.

Allie - If international fiat is bad, what do you want the judge to do about it? You should make it a voting issue, but you could also use it to make the CP go away. You should also make a solvency deficit argument to the counterplan. I don't know what all the additional impact cards are doing for you. You need to answer the probability arguments that the 1NC read.

Neg -- You are so dominant in cross-examination, I am beginning to wonder if you are ringers. Also, it is not cool that you don't have a viewing computer.

Katherine -- another outstanding speech. Good extension of the frontier K. Good overview, impact comparison and answering of the "cooperation solve the K" argument. I would be careful reading framework in the 1NR, because it gives the aff an opportunity to make a new framework argument in the 1ar which would make the K not matter.

Victor -- good extension of the nanotech DA, but I think that you don't need to read an asteroids collision impact, since that is what the aff is about. Also you don't want to read too many impacts to the NNI DA, because it gives the aff a chance to make new arguments in the 1AR. (I don't think that it would happen in a novice debate, but it could). Also, remember to answer the 2AC's argument about how plan would trade-off with other things and that NNI could trade-off with other spending.

Jakob -- never put T on the bottom of the 1ar. You need to fill your time in the 1AR, and make sure you win an argument on each flow that you can take out their offensive position. You are dropping a number of new impacts on the nanotech da, and you are not really making any winning arguments, you are just pointing out some stuff that your partner said.

Victor -- When kicking a position you need to answer any argument that could be used against you. The 1AR dropped international fiat bad. But what you should do is say "counterplan, not going for it. Concede that international fiat is bad. they drop that you should reject the argument not the team. There is no offense here." Then move on. Also, you need to pick an issue and go for it. They have conceded a lot on either the K or T. You should pick one of them, and use that as your voter.

Allie -- Valiant effort in the 2AR. Your arguments about how the nanotech da is functionally a counterplan is new, and doesn't really have an impact but it was a nice try. It is good that you are talking about your case. You should extend the argument that Jakob made on case in the 1ar that because asteroids come irregularly they could hit anytime, which short-circuits the negative's probability and timeframe arguments.

RFD

While I think that the 2NR goes for too much in this round, the aff dropped the Frontier K and Topicality. I vote negative on topicality, because aff doesn't have a counter-interpretation and the plan does not meet the aff's interpretation I could also vote neg on Frontier K because the aff's mindset sees life as disposable, and there is no answer to this link or impact. The aff has no answer to the alt, either.

= Round 4 (Day 2) - Edina CW v. Washburn AC =


 * EdinaCW || Pts || Rks ||  || WashburnCA || Pts || Rks ||
 * Asef Chouwdhury || 27.2 || 2 ||  || Clarice Anderson || 27.1 || 1 ||
 * Alex Wu || 27.3 || 3 ||  || Clarice Anderson ||   ||   ||

Clarice -- You need offensive arguments in the 1NC.

Asef -- You need to clash with Clairce on the line by line level. You have blocks that answer each argument she made but you need to read them in response to the specific arguments that she made. For example if she says "no risk of extinction" that is where you read your answers to that point. You need to signpost by saying which argument you are responding to, and what your arguments you are going to respond to. Also, it is good that you are summarizing your arguments but you should do them in response to specific pieces of evidence.

Clarice -- Roadmaps shouldn't be too editorial. Just give the name of the position you are reading. If it is a new argument, just tell me how many new arguments. Also, you need to read more than just links to disads. You have to read uniqueness and, most importantly, and impact.

Alex -- you should exploit the lack of an offensive argument against your affirmative. point out that there is no risk of voting against you. If I give full weight to everything that Clarice says, I would still vote affirmative, because there is no reason not to detect and deflect asteroids. Good job talking about how you do access an extinction impact. Don't forget to refer to your cards that you read on this question.

Clarice - You have a good presence about you. However, you need to articulate a disadvantage to voting aff.

Asef -- More passion or enthusiasm in the 2AR

RFD

I vote affirmative. There is no cost of voting aff, and only a risk of averting a massive collision.