MN+UDL+Championships+2012

toc

=Round 2 - Minneapolis South JT v. Patrick Henry VY=
 * MinneapolisSouthJT || Points || Ranks ||  || PatrickHenryVY || Points || Ranks ||
 * Cole Johnson-Jenson || 28.2 || 1 ||  || Charles "In Charge" Varberg || 26.5 || 4 ||
 * Oskar Tauring-Traxler || 28.1 || 2 ||  || Gaochy Yang || 27 || 3 ||

Cole - Volume. You need it.

Charles -- You need diversity in your 1NC. More arguments. You read too many cards on the china cp. Also, if the neg strategy is going to be about inherency (and I am guessing that it is since that was what the majority of 1AC cross-examination was about) you don't want to put it on the bottom.

Oskar - Minute long break in the 2ac was an ethos slayer.

Gaochy -- You need a more planned out 2NC. You ran out of steam at about 2:30, and ended the speech at 1:30. You need to extend multiple ways for you to win the round in the 2NC.

Charles -- First, answer the 2ac in the order he makes his answers. Don't jump around. Second, you need to respond to all arguments, not just read more cards.

Cole - Good 1AR. I like 1ar that makes no evidence comparisons to help me resolve micro-level issues. I think you should think about the macro level a little more (but not too much more) and point out that their case args are not offensive.

Gaochy - You need a better macro vision of the debate. Winning your case arguments won't win you the debate. They are all defensive, and none of them is truly absolute. However, you have the goods on the question of "china says yes". However, in order to exploit that question you need to specifically extend the cards that you read, and tell me why your cards are better than there card that China will say "no" because they want space weapons. Then, you need to theorhetically justify the counterplan. You need to respond to Cole's args in the 1AR, not just repeat the arguments Charles made in the 1nr.

Oskar - explain why the counterplan doesn't solve the case when extending the dropped case advantages.

RFD -- Neg has multiple attacks on solvency (reproduction, radiation, solar flare, bacteria) etc. None of these arguments are absolute or offensive. The closet offensive argument that Gaochy makes on solvency is that dead astronauts will kill the mission. First, there is no evidence for this argument, or historical examples or analysis to support it. Second, the only evidence on the question says that the lack of funding, not fear of astronaut deaths, is what prevents solvency.

Counterplan. Neg conditions the plan on China agreeing to the Paris treating. There is no net benefit to the counterplan extended in the 2ar. I don't resolve the theoretical objections to the counterplan because there is no net benefit.

= Round 3 - Minneapolis South BO v. Highland Park CS =


 * SouthBO || Points || Ranks ||  || HighlandParkCS || Points || Ranks ||
 * Jacob Boucher || 28.4 ||  ||   || Ben "Kansas" Cretsinger || 27.5 ||   ||
 * Lillie Ouelette-Howitz || 28.0 ||  ||   || Marie Sheehan || 28.1 ||   ||

Lillie -- I really enjoyed the 1ac reading.

Cross-ex of 1NC -- 1) Ben should answer a question. 2) the neg does not have the burden of forever changing my worldview just because they read a K

Jacob -- If there is just one off you can slow down just a little bit. There are a couple parts of the flow that are incomprehensible.

Marie -- You skip around the flow in a way that does not make sense. It means I am waisting time trying to find the args you are responding to in the order you answer them not the order I flow them.

Lillie -- Good work on the framework flow. You did a good job of extending key drops shutting off the k. However, keep in mind that the most you get out of framework in this debate is that you get to weigh the case. It doesn't exclude the K or the alt. You would have been better off extending vauge alternatives are bad, since Marie treated it as if it were a utopian fiat argument. Also, you need to explain how the alt is plan-inclusive if you go for "plan do the alt"

Marie -- You need to do a better job of explaining the link and impact to the "no value to life" (nv2l) argument. You need to extend the card that says that the aff would end the v2l, and then you need to talk about a world where there is no v2l and compare that to a world where an astronaut hits us.

RFD

This debate is closer than it needs to be. The affirmative says that we should put a satellite into space to detect asteroids before they hit the planet. That way we can deflect them and save everyone. The negative concedes the case. I think that the neg needs to spin the K in some way to call the case claims into question.

The negative criticism is Nietzshe. They say I should "forget" the harms of the 1ac, since that will avoid the guilt and the drive to control which underscores the politics of the affirmative. The aff has a couple of framework questions that go their way. First, the neg concedes that the aff is allowed to weigh their case. Ordinarily this would not be a problem since the affirmative has some "no v2l" action going on. However, Marie does not explain this impact, or the link to this impact in the 2NR. Second, the neg concedes the Davidson evidence which says "mass exterminations of human beings, however, does not produce foam, but dust and ashes; and it is here that questioning must stop." This sets up a decision rule that questions about v2l come second to questions of extinction.

= Novice Quarters =


 * WashburnAP ||  || SouthLP ||
 * Clarice Anderson ||  || Etta Lynch-bealy ||
 * Noah Posey ||  || Grace Palmer ||

Clarice -- a) you don't need to provide a round overview in the 1ac. that is a last rebuttal type thing. b) you don't need to raise your pitch on cards. Speakers do not speak faster because they have a higher pitch. Speakers pitch can go up when they speak fast.

Etta -- You shouldn't read two disads with the same impact (U.S.-China).

Noah -- In the 2AC you need to specifically respond to each offcase argument. Just extending case cards won't necessarily respond to each off-case argument. For example, you need to respond to the disads. You can challenge the link, the impact, the uniqueness, the internal link. However, just reading more cards does not really clash with the neg position. You should write frontlines to each of the major negative positions.

Grace -- Good 2NC. I really like your impact debating skills. Good job of using the politics disad to turn the case.

Etta -- I think you need to be more aggressive in pointing out drops and the aff's general failure to respond to arguments. Point out that they have conceded the argument and then make impact framing arguments.

Clarice -- Like Noah you need to address and refute each off case argument specifically. The 1ar shoudl not be a speech where the affiramtive gives global overviews. Rather, yo should focus on the micro-level of each sheet of paper.

Noah -- You should be flowing the entire debate. Sitting with your feet up during the 1ar demonstates that you are not fully engaged in this debate.

South -- While you are ahead in this debate, you need to win classy. Laughing during the 1ar is rude. Also, Etta's comment where she advises Clarice that "you realize this isn't the 2ar" was unnecessary. Just let your opponent give the speech they are going to give.

Grace -- Good 2nr. Good macro level analysis good choice making.

Aff -- You need to clash.

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; font-family: 'Wingdings 2'; font-size: 9px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 30%;">Ð

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #4b2203; font-family: 'Franklin Gothic Book'; font-size: 25pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 30%;">It’s better reasoned

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #3891a7; font-family: 'Wingdings 2'; font-size: 9px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 30%;">Ð

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #4b2203; font-family: 'Franklin Gothic Book'; font-size: 25pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 30%;">It’s better evidenced

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #3891a7; font-family: 'Wingdings 2'; font-size: 9px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 30%;">Ð

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #4b2203; font-family: 'Franklin Gothic Book'; font-size: 25pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 30%;">It has historical or empirical support

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #3891a7; font-family: 'Wingdings 2'; font-size: 9px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 30%;">Ð

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #4b2203; font-family: 'Franklin Gothic Book'; font-size: 25pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 30%;">It has greater significance

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #3891a7; font-family: 'Wingdings 2'; font-size: 9px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 30%;">Ò

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #4b2203; font-family: 'Franklin Gothic Book'; font-size: 28pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 30%;">Step 4: “Therefore….”

See __ [|REFUTATION POWERPOINT (1) submitted by Jenny Heidt, Westminster Schools (GA)] __

RFD

The affirmative suffers from a lack of flowing and a lack of organization to the speech. The affirmative drops the politics da. The neg argues that unemployment benefits are going to be extended now in the status quo. However, the plan costs Obama the political capital necessary to get unemployment benefits passed. Unemployment benefits prevent protectionism and war. The affirmative concedes this disadvantage entirely. This is bad, because the neg reads a number of external war impacts which at least match the magnitude of the case impacts. The closest thing that the affirmative has to an answer to this disadvantage is that cooperation solves the impact. However, this is asserted, and the neg reads evidence the protectionist trade wars kill our hegemony which would undermine cooperation and space leadership. This takes out the case.