Humboldt+2011

= = toc = = =Humboldt Round 1= Dai-Quan -- Ozone is a topic specific da. You need a better explaination of why you need spending disads, especially when most spending disads are either non-unique or have bad link stories. Your “dark matter” da is also topic specific.
 * Wayzata BJ || Pts || Rks ||  || Como RT || Pts || Rks ||
 * Thor Bates || 27.4 || 3 ||  || Dai-Quan Robinson || 28.2 || 1 ||
 * Andy Johnson || 27.2 || 4 ||  || Stryker Thompson || 28.1 || 2 ||

Thor – The permutation on the counterplan is intrinsic in that it adds a cooperation element to the plan. Your “perm solves the link” argument proves this, because you are getting out of the position, based on the cooperation, and saying tht the neg needs to read a link to cooperation. That cooperation element wasn’t in the plan as of the 1ac. Unless you have evidence that says cooperation with the EU is normal means, the perm is illigetimate. Also, you need more cards on the politics disads either answering the impact, or having some top-level non-uniques along with a link turn (e.g., winners-win).

Stryker – You need to answer all the arguments on T if you are going to spend time extending it in the 2NC. You dropped a carded argument that your interpretation is arbitrary. I suppose you do argue that we have to set a limit even if it is arbitrary. Think about that for a second. It is better for the debate to set an arbitrary limit? Then how about an interp that spends 50 Trillion? or 500 Trillion?

1NR prep?

Dai-quan – Good 1NR. Offense oriented and put a lot of pressure on the 1AR. You do overuse the phrase “functionally conceded.” In fact you overuse the word “conceded.” They don’t concede a lot of points, and if you think that they are non-responsive you need to explain why they are non-responsive. Explain the nuance of your argument and why they did not address it.

Andy – you have some breathing issues, in that you always sound out of breath but you are not talking that fast. You also need to provide more explanation of why your arguments are better. It is not enough to just say that your arguments are better. Good job reading new impact turns to the new 2NC impact. That is why it is dangerous to read new impacts in the 2NR.

Stryker – when you go for T in the 2NR, just go for T and when you are done sit down. Your rambling at the end does not add anything. Otherwise, you do a good job The only argument that they can win on T is that your interpretation is arbitrary. I think that you could do a better job of explaining how you came up with the threshold of $1Billion, to link out of this

Thor – Your 2AR is a rambling dissertation. You are talking randomly about the flow, making it difficult to track all your arguments.

RFD

The negative challenges the affirmative is non topical because they are not a “substantial” increase in space exploration. The negative says that in order to be a substantial increase in space exploration the affirmative must spend $ 5 billion dollars. The affirmative claims that this is necessary to limit out small affirmatives which launch single satellites, which would make the topic unmanageable. In the 2NC, neg reads a card which says big projects are key to small projects, which, as leveraged by the 2NC means I get the most topic specific education from the neg interpretation.

The affirmative responds with a counter-interpreation that substantially means “important” and that DSCOVR is important because it was important to the scientific community. They also argue that numerical definitions of “substantially” are arbitrary because they can vary from context to context.

While I have sympathy for this arbitrariness argument, it is not extended in the 1AR. He only extends the claim that it is arbitrary, but he does not impact this argument. Thor does impact this argument in the 2AR but all these impacts are new. Additionally, these impacts are not supported by the Colon 97 evidence read in the 2AC. This evidence is a fairly weak claim that a specific statute and its legislative history does not define what “substantial means.” Also, it is talking about a substantial __ reduction in taxes __ not an increase in space exploration. The negative interpretation is talking about space exploration. Without an impact to arbitrariness, or really a real explanation of the link to arbitrariness, I default to the topic education and limited topic arguments that also go conceded in the 1AR.

1AR argues that I do not have the jurisidiction to vote on potential abuse. However, the negative side-steps this argument by arguing specific abuse, in that you linked out of the ozone disad. Here you need to argue that is not specific abuse, because the neg is not entitled to an ozone disadvantage.

1AR also argues that the neg interpretation solves all their offense. Again, this is a claim, not an argument. You need to explain how “importance” solves for satellite of the week type affirmatives. There are a couple of additional problems with this argument. For example, the “we meet” does not match the interpretation. The “increase” has to be important; it is irrelevant whether the advantages are important. The way the affirmative deploys this argument does not solve for the predictability arguments. Aff should reread their evidence of how DSCOVR is an important form of space exploration. This would also solve their ground arguments, because it would show that you are a core affirmative.

= Humboldt Round 2 =


 * Eden Praire DG || Pts || Ranks ||  || Washburn BP || Pts || Ranks ||
 * Yitz Deng || 26.5 ||  ||   || Brandon Bogan || 27.9 ||   ||
 * Purva Goel || 26.6 ||  ||   || Brandon Bogan ||   ||   ||

Purva – Need more clarity on the second advantage. As you got pressed for time I got fewer of the arguments you read on the second advantage.

Brandon – You probably should read a solvency card for the counterplan. Just reading a plan text delegitimizes the position, and probably hurts you if the neg goes for international fiat bad against the counterplan.

Yitz – First, I think you need to respond to the counterplan to preempt any sandbagging in the 2NC/2NR. Make some conditionality and international fiat theory arguments. I would also make a counterplan plan advocate argument. I would make some solvency deficit argumetns as well. This will skew his time in the block so he can’t spend time on the net benefit or the capitalism k.

You need to have systematic answers to the other off case positions. For example, you need a perm text before you read your perm cards. You should also answer his framework arguments so that Brandon can’t “cheat” and make the round a referendum on capitalism good or bad.

You also need more that a single non-unique argument on the china relations da.

Brandon – You need more explanation on your “the round is a referendum on capitalism” framework. Why is that a good framework? What justifies that framework other than you said it and they dropped it.

Nice extension of the hege bad flow on case. You are giving me multiple reasons to prefer your evidence to there’s and pointing out Yitz’s lack of answers to this position.

You really need a timer, especially when going maverick.

Purva – You are kind of behind the 8-ball in the 1ar because you don’t have a lot argument diversity to work with. Having said that, you do need to respond to the line-by-line or at least make some choices in how you are going to answer the 2NC. Specifically, on your hegemony flow, Brandon is making multiple argumetns about why his evidence and arguments are better than your arguments. You are letting those go conceded.

Brandon – There was no good reason not to go for the china da and case. They are dropping our reasons why your uniqueness evidence is better than their uniquenss evidence. Otherwise they concede the entirety of the story. You should just use the Layne evidence as terminal defense to the hege flow. Since 2AC drops the fusion advantage, it is not viable. Just compare the da to case, and you win.

RFD.

While I think that the disad was the better 2NR choice, negative wins the hege flow. 1NC reads hege bad. 2AC only answers that hegemony is sustainable. The 2AC drops several of the impacts to this argument including a rearmament impact and a nuclear war impact. 2AC also drops that off-shore balancing makes war impossible, that attempts to maintain hegemony makes all the affirmative's scenarios inevitable, and that there scenarios are dangerously exaggerated.

On the question of sustainability, Brandon extend's his Layne evidence, and argues that it identifies multiple reason why hegemony is not sustainable, including overstretch, economics, and poltiical constraints. 1AR needs to give me reasons to prefer the 2AC Kagen and and Pawn evidence. Also, Bradon reads 3 carded arguments about why I should prefer his evidence which all go unanswered by the affirmative.

= Humboldt Round 3 =


 * South JJ || Points || Ranks ||  || Eden Prairie CV || Points || Ranks ||
 * Mubashir Jeilani || 26.8 || 4 ||  || Susane Cho || 27.2 || 1 ||
 * Matt Johnson || 26.9 || 3 ||  || Jazz Vig || 27.0 || 2 ||

Mubashir – You are swallowing your words as you spread. This results in you gasping for air while at the same time making a swallowing noise. You need to do some breathing exercises. You should do the “chair drill” where you rest your papers on the seat of a chair, while holding the chair up by its legs while you read. This will teach you to breath from your diaphragm. Also, you are holding your 1AC script in front of your face. This is improper posture and prevents you from looking at the judge and making eye contact. It also reduces clarity because you are blocking the projection of your voice.

All – There is a distinction between “technology” and “technological thought.” Technological thought is, according to Heidegger, when we think of the world and everything and everyone in it as an object for our consumption (“standing reserve”). Technology is just the stuff we invent. The neg seems to get this explanation in cross-ex of the 1NC but the explanation could be tighter. Susane should refer to the warrants in the Jeurgens 9 evidence that talks about how colonizing Mars sees the planet as “standing reserve” and how it relates to the methodology of the 1AC.

Matt – You need a consistent volume. I think it is ok to have vocal variety but you randomly start shouting during your speech. It shows a lack of control of your voice. Additionally, you need to work on time allocation. You spent nearly half your speech extending the case. You should be able to respond to their case arguments in about 90 seconds. Rather than reading new cards on your advantages, you should be referencing the cards you already read that answer their arguments. If they read an argument that your 1AC did not answer, only then should you read new cards on the case flow. Good catch on the contradiction between diplomatic capital and their soft power advantage. However, you either need to respond line-by-line to the 1NC case attacks, or use embedded clash. You are not clashing with their case arguments, so much as you are just reading additional arguments.

Jazz – You need to project your voice. This means speaking louder. It will also help if you place your computer so that it is not blocking your face, and you are speaking in my direction. Good extension of the counterplan, however your perm answers could be better. I agree that the perm probably doesn’t solve for privates, however, the counterplan is not mutually exclusive with the plan. The counterplan competes because it is net beneficial. Therefore you need to explain the net benefit.

The 2AC on Heidegger has only 2 arguments, only 1 of which is responsive. You need to a) point that out and b) clash with the one responsive argument that the 2ac makes. They read an answer to the “value to life” argument, which preempts the argument you make in your overview. You need to answer this card specifically.

Susane – The framework you read in the block did not add anything to the debate. If the aff does not challenge framework in the 2AC they are spotting you the argument. However, if you read a new framework in the 2NC/1NR you allow the 1AR to make new arguments on framework.

You have a good macro sense of how your arguments are supposed to work in this debate. However, you need to work on the micro-level of how to win the arguments. You are leaving arguments unanswered on each flow, that the 1AR could exploit.

Mubashir – You need to do a better job of flowing your partners arguments. For example, you extend a “permutation” on the K that the 2AC did not make. For some reason the 2NC answered the “perm” but that does not mean there is one on Heidegger.

Jazz --- You need better prep time management in this round. I think that if you had more prep for the 2NR you could have written a round overview which would have helped focus your 2NR choices. You should have gone for counterplan and disad, not disad and case. They concede that counterplan solves the case in the 1AR. If you win any risk of your disad (and they don’t have an offensive argument on the disad) you would win the debate. You just have to beat the perm, which you can by explaining that the counterplan does not expend any diplomatic capital.

Matt – 2NR did not extend the counterplan. They extended the case args.

RFD

This round is hard to decide because essentially nobody has any links for any argument that they read. I will first address the “severance perm” on the K. The 2AC did not read a permutation on Heidegger! I am not going to decide this issue because there is no need.

In the first instance there is no link to the diplomatic capital da, since the affirmative does not spend diplomatic capital. However, the 2AC has to say “no link.” The affirmative concedes the entirety of this position, but makes a link turn argument that case would increase “soft power” thus solving for the disadvantage. First, this link turn is non-unique since we are already using diplomacy to solve for north korea. The 2AC or 1AR needs to say that the diplomatic talks are failing in the status quo. Second, the aff does not challenge that foreign policy is zero-sum. The act of going to Mars, means we cannot address North Korea. Thus, before the diplomacy and soft power that comes from STEM, the disadvantage happens. Third, not until the 2AR does the affirmative address the “distinction” between diplomacy and soft power. This disad has 2 extinction scenarios so I vote neg.

= Humboldt Round 4 =


 * Patrick Henry BK || Points || Ranks ||  || Wayzata DG || Points || Ranks ||
 * Josiah Bender || 26.5 || 4 ||  || Blaize DePass || 27 || 1 ||
 * Windy Kinsman || 26.6 || 3 ||  || Josh Grosser || 26.9 || 2 ||

Josiah – You are not responding to the nuance of the “whole res” position. There are two ways to prove a claim – inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The neg says that when you use inductive reasoning, you risk making a hasty generalization if your example is atypical and unrepresentative. For example, if I find a black swan, and I say that all swans are black, I will risk being wrong because black swans are atypical and unrepresentative of all swans. Likewise, a SETI aff is atypical and unrepresentative of the resolutions. You need to challenge the paradigm that the round is a question of resolution focus, as opposed to plan focus.

You do not have to say there are links to your aff. It is the neg’s job to win a link.

Blaize – You are not debating, you are reading blocks. On Hasty G you didn’t respond to a single 2AC argument. Your overview does not answer their args. Also, you do not answer the 2AC explanation of the perm to the K. He says that they do not reject the friend-enemy distinction, so they can do both. Likewise you need to explain your link story before you get to the impact.

Josh – One of my biggest pet peeves is poor organization. A corollary to that is putting the wrong arguments on the wrong flow. When you say you are going to T – Its, but you are answering T – Presence, it is frustrating.

RFD

I think it would be useful for the affirmative to read Scott Phillips recent post on the3nr regarding offense/defense in this round. I vote negative on substantial T. The negative does not meet the interpretation, and does not argue that they meet the interpretation. Further, they do not provide a counter-interpretation. In the 2NR Blaize makes an impassioned speech on why topicality is a voting issue. The 2AR does not answer this argument.

Aff argues that substantial violations are subjective. However, the evidence they deploy does not support that claim. “Subjective” means that it varies depending on the subjectivity of the judge. However, their evidence says that it can only be understood contextually. The negative solves this problem by defining a substantial increase in the context of the resolution.

= Humboldt Round 5 =


 * Como Park AB || Pts || Rks ||  || Eden Praire GN || Pts || Rks ||
 * Guleed Ali ||  ||   ||   || Katherine Gao ||   ||   ||
 * Maci Bekele ||  ||   ||   || Victor Niu ||   ||   ||

Guleed – while you are not particularly fast, it is still hard to follow the 1AC. Because you lower your volume when you read tags and cites, it is hard to track your arguments, since I am not getting the claims in the first instance.

Maci – you need a warrant for why the counterplan cannot solve the case. I also agree that the counterplan is probably artificially competitive, but you need a better explanation of why you can do both. I think that you should say that the counterplan is plan +. They do the plan after the implement the treaty. Be wary if this is a condition counterplan – does the plan only happen if the other countries say yes to the treaty? If so then there is a disad to the counterplan unless they read “say yes.”

Aff – Cede the political means that when you have an alternative that withdraws from the system you open up space for conservative politics to fill-in the political and take over.

Victor – Engage the link debate more on the nanotech disad. They read a card that says that plan does not trade-off with other budgets. You read a card that says tight budgets requires trade-offs between agencies. You need to resolve, at least by the 2NR, why one of these cards is true and the other is false. The sooner you engage that debate the better. If you wait until the 2NR, the 1AR can preempt your arguments making it harder for you to win his argument later in the debate. Read their evidence and explain why yours is better. Create a metric by which I would prefer your evidence to their evidence.

Katherine – You need to pay more attention to the flow on the fronterisim K. You dropped a couple of key arguments which makes fronterism an unviable argument. First, you drop “cede the right” which is a disadvantage to the alt, and probably takes out solvency for the alternative as well. Also you do not answer their card which says that there is no “root cause of violence.” This takes out your external impact to frontierism. You probably could afford to do some more time explaining the link to this argument as well.

RFD

I have a baby on my lap as I type this. Forgive me if it goes astray. Neg’s counterplan is plan plus. Either the text needs to be changed to condition the plan on passing the treaty first, or the neg needs a better explanation of how the counterplan competes. In the 2nr Victor says the permutation is “incoherent” but that’s, at best a claim. There is no explanation of how the counterplan competes on a net benefit level, and it is clearly not mutually exclusive.

As far as the net benefit goes, the 2NR lacks explanation of these args, and only really explains that spending is a net benefit to the counterplan. However, the aff also wins that the plan won’t tradeoff with nanotech. Specifically there “no link” evidence (the author escapes me), says that the trade off will come from the justice department. There is no answer to this evidence in the 2NC or the 2NR.