Saturday, September 21, 2013
Aff Round Reports
Please use the comments section of this entry to enter round reports for Affirmative rounds. The 2A should do the round report. You should include tournament name, division, round #, opponent's team code (like Army BS), judge's name, affirmative we used (most often this weekend standard WVU Novice aff), the negative's advocacy (what they ran), what the 2NR went for, other pertinent arguments, and the judge's reason for decision. Feel free to also comment on the reports of teammates. Coaches will also be commenting, with the goal of developing an agenda for improvement that moves us toward our goals and tries to ensure that we (almost) never lose to the same argument twice. Round reports for Binghamton should be recorded here by noon on Monday, September 23 (you can do them at the tournament on Sunday morning, or compose in the van on Sunday evening and upload later).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tournament: Binghamton
ReplyDeleteDivision: Open
Round 2: Aff vs Rochester AW
Judge: Kate Ortiz
Our Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Biopolitics
2NR: Biopolitics
Won because epistemology is the focal point of how we break down sovereignty. The 1AC also does not link to the critique because we are not endorsing state action.
Round 3: Aff vs USMA HM
Judge: Robert Glass
Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Cuomo K (War is not a singular event), FW, Case (Realism Inevitable, Heg key to promote democracy)
2NR: Case, FW
Won because there were no offensive reasons/arguments to vote neg. Rob Glass recommended that we add more Ahmed to our Aff because it is more strategic (everyone has answers to Spanos).
Round 6: Aff vs Binghamton ES
Judge: Willie Johnson
Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Agamben
2NR: Agamben
Lost because I let them get away with making up competition. This allowed them to win the root cause debate, which turned the case. I allowed it to turn into a debate of competing methodologies which I should have ended from the beginning with the perm debate being stronger, and that a discussion of functionality move us past a debate of methodologies.
(Shout out to Nina in this round for being told her 1AR was the best speech of the debate round)
Thanks, Andrew. Looks like you learned a lot from the dropped round. OK, so which Novices are going to step up with round reports?
DeleteTournament: Binghamton
ReplyDeleteDivision: JV
Round 1: Aff vs Rutgers
Judge: Danes Singh
Our Advocacy: Addressing the sacrificial genocide and marginalization of the rural portions of our population by solving for ruralism.
Neg Advocacy: Anthro centrism
Team: WJ
Lost because we failed to make extent our impacts. Also, a good strategy for winning could have been to argue that by them bringing athro centrism up as the real issue, we could have brought up that by doing this they were creating a hierarchal structure in society that was what we were trying to solve for by solving for ruralism - that they're strategy would only make ruralism and its impacts worse.
Round 3: Aff vs Wilkes
Judge: Kevin Cenac
Our Advocacy: Addressing the sacrificial genocide and marginalization of the rural portions of our population by solving for ruralism.
Neg Advocacy: Cyber DA and Economic Collapse DA
Team: NW
We won because we did a better job of extending our impacts, which outweighed. Their Cyber DA didn't link, and we proved that economic DA was not strong enough. Our impacts were occurring in the status quo, and that their predictions were less likely to occur while ours were already occurring. Risk won us the debate - our impacts outweighed.
Round 6: Aff vs USMA
Judge: Trevo Reddick
Our Advocacy: Addressing the sacrificial genocide and marginalization of the rural portions of our population by solving for ruralism.
Neg Advocacy: Heg DA and Cyber DA
Team: HH
We lost because they were super intimidating (arguing for decrease in the military against the military is a little scary on your first try). But we mostly lost because their DA's were very strong. In their cyber DA they argued that the decrease in military that our plan was advocating would lead to a military completely focused on OCO's. With no military abroad, the military would become the "domestic police" and begin targeting the domestic population. We should have argued much harder that this was already occurring in the status quo - due to the fact that ruralism is literally the military targeting rural populations to needlessly die in wars. Their heg DA won them the debate because they argued that decreased heg and withdraw of troops abroad would lead to a "power vacuum" and ultimately nuclear war that would destroy the world, therefore their impact outweighed and won them the debate. This should have been an easy win but we didn't realize some key winning arguments that would have won us the debate until after it was already over.
Excellent round reports. A few comments, questions:
Delete1. Please indicate school of opponent as well.
2. Looks like Risk worked well in Round 3. A good question would be why it didn't work as well in round 6, though I think you answer some of that question. Excellent analysis.
3. If either you or Zach wants to do a rebuttal redo for round 6, I'd be happy to hear it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRound 1:
ReplyDeleteWest Virginia FP is AFF vs George Mason HL
Judge: Kauschinger, Kevin
Aff: Ruralism
Neg: CP, DA, T violation
We lost for a couple reasons. First, we did not understand their CP and really didn't use cross ex time in the best way to understand their CP. We did not explain our perm do both and why it would have worked better than their CP. We also did not have a good answer to their T violation because we didn't have another definition to use for resolution in our T section of the playbook.
West Virginia FP is AFF vs Cornell WR
Judge: George, Phili
Cornell used the Agamen Biopolitics stuff against us, and Rachel and I just really did not know how to answer it because we had never seen it before. After this round Erika told us how to answer it and thats how we were able to win our next AFF round
Round 5:
West Virginia FP is AFF vs Rochester MP
Judge: Aguirre, Luis
We won this round with the Ruralism AFF. We were able to prove our impacts outweighed theirs. Their impacts included the extinction scenario and we answered with cards from the security K and expanded on how ruralism would solve for this.
Sounds like 3 good educational rounds. You used your round 3 (or 4) experience to win in round 5 (try not to lose twice to the same argument). In round 2, you also could have used the K of T, but what is the specific T violation that George Mason ran? We can prepare an answer for next time. Also, if they ran CP and DA, did they use extinction scenarios that would lend themselves to Risk or to using cards from the Security K (like you did in round 5)?
DeleteVs Wilkes
ReplyDeleteThey ran 3 disads to our Aff. Cyber warfare as a result of recent China/Pakistan cooperation coupled with decrease in US presidential powers(he will not be able to prevent cyber warfare or fight it). The economy will fail because all attention will be on pres war powers and not the budget situation. The lack of presidential powers will decrease US hedgemony and result in middle eastern wars leading to nuclear fallout. We answered. No Link with cyber warfare disad. We can still combat cyber warfare without troops on the ground in foreign hostilities. Perm do both, the congress may pass the budget first then enact our plan. In response to hedgemony, we used example of Syria. Asked them if they thought US has kept degree of hedgemony throughout this situation. They said yes. We asked them if we sent any troops into hostilities. They said no. We said exactly, US can retain hedgemony without having troops introduced into foreign hostilities.US can still use Threat of force to maintain hedgemony. Also extended the Bassett and Santos cards, bringing value of life into play. Since they were talking about nuclear war and wanting to prevent it and save Americans by not enacting out plan, we said you must first value Americans, which is what our plan will do. We won.
Lost our first Round against Binghamton. They ran a Neg using Agamben. Saying the state was what caused capitalism and neoliberalism. Said we must break from the state in order to give value back to the people. Said we wiould decrease US hedgemony and diplomatic power because a foreign official was coming to town to discuss the middleeast and if the US couldn't deploy troops the foriegn official would have wasted his time on a visit since that was the topic of dicusssion. We tried to say there is no link between us recongnizing the rural populations' struggle and wars in the middle east. We tried to say predictions are bad. We talked a little about how the state and neoliberalism were seperate. We ended up losing because the judge believed the other team showed nuclear war could happen as a result of decreased war powers. He said they provided a time frame that we couldn't really answer to. But the judge did say we had a good thing going witht he separation of the state and capitalism, and that we should have used that in more depth. Also he said we aren't giving concrete examples of how our plan will actually stop ruralism. He wanted to hear more about our plan but he never really heard it in the round.
Justin: Again, thanks for the reports. A few things:
ReplyDelete1. Your partner should be writing the reports for the side where he was the 2nd speaker.
2. Again, please number rounds and include names of judges.
3. Again, you're missing a round.
On the substance, first on the Wilkes round. I'm a little confused. I'm not sure how you permed a DA. Was there a CP in the round? And you probably should also have used the Risk position. Also, if they were claiming nuclear war, you might have been able to use elements of the Securitization K. Finally, you want to be careful about saying you "value" Americans (over others), though it sounds like they did it first.
Sounds like the other round was highly educational.
Tournament: JMU
ReplyDeleteDivision: Open
Round 1: Aff vs Mary Washington OS
Judge: Brent Brossmann
Our Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Framework, DA/Case Turn (Importance of Debating about War Powers), Case
2NR: Case and DA
Won because of the offensive arguments on framework. The majority of the 2NR was this DA/Case Turn built around an article written by Kelly Young (Wayne State's Director of Debate) that claims debates about the War Powers of the President are key to checking Presidents' abuses of power. They argued the epistemology of the public is key but would be ignored, and that the Affirmative shifts the blame of epistemology by taking no pragmatic steps. I was able to frame this in the 2AR as a unique type of framework argument, so was able to win on offensive framework arguments.
Round 4: Aff vs Wake Forest CS
Judge: Will Scott
Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Framework, Topicality, Cap K, CP (PIC of the word Colonialism), Case
2NR:Cap K
Lost because the methodology of the Cap K solved better because they were able to best orientation of ethics. Some arguments we could have made but did not: 1) Conditionality is a form of Capitalism 2) The other team telling us what to do (Framework) is a form of colonization of knowledge 3) Switch-Side debate is the tool of the master.
Round 6: Aff vs Wayne State BS
Judge: Ben Hagwood
Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Counter-Advocacy (Their Affirmative)
2NR: Counter-Advocacy
Lost because they were slightly better on the methodology debate and on the Role of the Ballot (they were ahead on how we should begin to think about the way that issues are structured against bodies of color). They stand resolved in the resolution to use the state as a correctional institution for the undercommons. The debate came down to competing methodologies with a critique of imperialism on our side and a critique of anti-blackness on their side. Arguments we should have made but did not: 1) Against their state collapse is inevitable argument we should have made the argument that they still don't articulate their way out of colonial thought, or how Southwest Asia is able too 2)That their arguments are based off modernity which is based off of colonialism 3) Should have extended a perm that was made in the 1AR (Ben Hagwood was the only one in the room that framed Nina's argument as a perm) 4) Respond to their fugitism bad arguments by saying they don't know what the world looks like and their shiftiness is the reason we are allowed the perm.
Andrew: Thanks. I'm thinking we may hear more about the Kelly Young article all year long. It's probably worth reading. And it sounds like round 6 with Ben Hagwood was highly educational.
DeleteRound 1: Aff vs Wayne State CD
ReplyDeleteJudge: Krist Cramer
Aff: Ruralism aff
Neg strategy : My flows were sort of bad for this one, but from what I remember they ran a framework on our use of the word should in our plan text.
We lost this round, I had a lot of trouble arranging my speeches and keeping my flows in order (Andrew took some time that night and helped me get some of that worked out and my next day flows mildly improved). One thing I do remember from this round was that I kept dropping arguments either because I didnt have enough time (work on speed) or didnt realize it was made (work on org\flow)
Round 4 VS JMU MY
Judge: Dan Bagwell
Aff: Ruralism
Neg strat: They had a counter plan that involved shifting from a rural bias to an urban bias
We lost this round. My cross x and speeches were pretty terrible and most of what they were saying didnt sink in until late in the round. We originally offered a perm to the judge but then I realized that that was a mistake (Marilyn let me make this mistake, and im glad she did because I realized my error) because the perm would mean we were advocating exploitation identical to the kind we were advocating against. The other team actually pointed this out in the round after our perm and I brought it up that they had voted against themselves, but I dropped all sorts of arguments and we really didnt stand a chance.
Round 6: Liberty MW
Judge: Alec Opperman
Aff: Ruralism
Neg strat: Cap K
In this round I learned how awful I am at speaking about capitalism. By this round I was pretty mentally exhausted and it was our worst loss of the day. We tried to say that we could break down capitalism from within capitalism (which I was cross x'd about and had no idea how to explain) and they advocated for a revolution. I remember marilyn making the comment "Break down the masters house with the masters tools" and in the following speech the Liberty guy offered "Kill the master with the masters gun". They also criticized our claim of using pedagogy to solve ruralism and had a lot of things to say as to how "useless" it was. The judge pointed out to me that I should have asked the neg why they were participating in debate instead of tossing tables and starting the revolution they advocated for if they had no value for pedagogy. Again, a mistake I will try to not make again.
Let me know if I didnt include enough, I am looking over my flows and realize that I have some grade A organizational issues.
John: Those are very helpful (and show some excellent self-awareness). Please make an appointment with Erika or me to go over flows and talk about ways to improve them (we'll also do a little flowing practice on Friday at the hotel).
ReplyDeleteJames Madison Tournament
ReplyDeleteJunior Varsity
Round 4
vs George Mason HU
Sean Lowry
Affirmative Plan: The Plan: The USFG should substantially increase restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States by eliminating the ability of the President of the United States to introduce armed forces into hostilities outside the US
Neg: They ran a counter plan that included our plan but did not apply to Japan and South Korea.
We did not know how to really argue against a counter plan like this. We struggled during rebuttals due to our poor flowing. Also, I would like to take the time to thank Andrew for his help in flowing. He took the time to really show us how to flow properly. We understood what a perm was, but did not know how to go about including it in our plan. This did hurt us, but the judge really helped us understand how to execute a perm. The judge did mention that we needed to spend more time on prioritizing Ruralism.
Decision: Negative
Round five
vs Georgia JM
Jackie Poapst
Affirmative Plan: The USFG should substantially increase restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States by eliminating the ability of the President of the United States to introduce armed forces into hostilities outside the US
Neg: They really focused on neoliberalism and ignored ruralism for the most part.
We won this debate mainly because we focused on the harms of ruralism and how our opponents did not solve for ruralism.
Decision: Affirmative
Tournament: USMA
ReplyDeleteDivision: Open
Round 2: Aff vs Binghamton CP
Judge: Kevin Diamond
Our Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Anna Spoke in Russian
2NR: English Language Bad
Lost because they won their Role of the Ballot which was whoever best broke down mono-linguistics, and the Role of the Judge was to be a Linguistic Academic. Ultimately they won that language forms our knowledge production. I had problems in this round on how to respond to the negative's performance because the 1NC was completely in Russian. Arguments that the judge recommended I should have included in the 2AC:
1)Having language in a sense is always colonizing because it assimilates two entities into a community.
2) That language is reflective of colonization.
3) That Raul is using the language of the colonizers (Spanish).
4) Link of Omission because there is nothing problematic with the 1AC (Leverage Spanos).
Also, later when I was talking to Ignacio Evans he suggested that whenever a team sandbags clash/arguments into the block that I should make the argument that this is the tool of colonization because the colonizers would always promise a perfect world and countries would accept their help. By the time countries would figure out the harms of the colonizers plan/advocacy it would be to late (already being exterminated/assimilated). Essentially the negative team have become colonizers within the round.
Round 4: Aff vs GMU BW
Judge: David Merkle
Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Framework, Whiteness K
2NR: Whiteness K
Lost because they were ahead on the root cause debate. Could have won with the framework unconditional argument if I would have expanded on why we have to be accountable for what we say in round, and that is because the arguments made in the round are the only impacts in the debate absent any "fiat." On the critique I needed to articulate how it is a question of discourse in the cross-ex not the 1AC. On the root cause debate we needed to go farther than just argue a historical analysis of how colonization came before racism. Needed to make the argument that colonialism is an actual justification for racism.
Round 5: Aff vs Binghamton CE
Judge: Ignacio Evans
Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Queering Non/humans and Case
2NR: Queering the Non/human and Identities are Fluid
Lost because of the fundamental disadvantage that we conceptualize the East. We needed to take the root cause debate a step further by arguing that we are winning how oppression is managed because it is not species over species but country over country, that all we need is a management tool, that the colonizer believes they are the dominant mother fucker, and that non-human animals have no access to knowledge production. Needed to make the argument that the negative has no internal links without the affirmative. He also thinks that in the 2AC I need to spin the thesis of the Affirmative in a more global context. Against the case argument (about identities being fluid) I needed to be making the argument that even if you are from the East, if you have accepted the Western Narrative than you should be rejected.
Congrats to Andrew for being first!
ReplyDeleteThey ran a weak Tea party disad that led to the downfall of economy through a snowball win? They didnt even understand it and our cross ex revealed this. Also a fem K that was brought up too late. We kept extending our cards and I gave an overview in the 2ac while warranting our cards. I talked about our inherency and impacts and how we would solve with the 3 giroux cards. I read risk shell about how predictions are bad and how this one policy won't result in the downfall of the economy. We attacked their links on everything too. Then they brought up ontology and we ate that up because our plan is pretty much an ontological argument. The judge said I should warrant he cards more, saying "this is girouxs argument" then explain it. She said the step from policy to solving ruralism is the role of the ballott because the ballott needs to recognize in the debate space this is a problem. She said we are asking the judge to make an intellectual investment and begin conversation that precedes policy implementation. More to come
ReplyDeleteThat all sounds good. I'm guessing by your use of the female pronoun for the judge that this was round 6, with Kate Ortiz (who may not be the biggest fan of ruralism). Please take note (everyone) of how to frame the argument in front of her. I look forward to reading your other round reports (please number the round; that will let us identify the judge even if you can't).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRound 1
ReplyDeleteAffirmative
United States Military Academy BN
Ben Hagwood
Our plan: The USFG should substantially increase restrictions on the war powers authority of the POTUS by eliminating the ability of the POTUS to introduce armed forces into hostilities outside the U.S. – Ruralism
CP: The Executive branch of the United States federal government should restrict the war powers authority of of the President in the area of introducing Armed Forces into hostilities with the Islamic Republic of Iran and implement this through self-binding mechanisms including, but not limited to independent commissions to review and ensure compliance with the order and transparency measures that gives journalists access to White House decisionmaking.
We really pounded the fact our impacts outweighed theirs. It expanded to a much wider audience (the world.) Also, they heavily relied on the moral standards of the POTUS to keep him/herself in “check” without the need of passing physically limiting laws. We then proceeded to pound many instances in which the president made new boundaries from what our forefathers set. (Our main point was FDR and his four terms and how it was only stopped by his death, and then an amendment.)
Decision: Affirmative
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Round 3
Affirmative
NYU MV
Christopher Demundo
Ruralism
They were sort of passive and gave up on some arguments. They were persistent on extinction and followed it up with funding space exploration as a means to solve. We pointed out that the nearly immediate extinction risk as they often portrayed it, couldn’t be solved by a costly and timely space exploration plan.
Decision: Affirmative
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Round 6
Affirmative
Vanderbilt JR
Heather Hall
Ruralism
Close debate, the best John and I felt we did the entire tournament together with the exception of me dropping Specicism (their arg) in the 2AC. I just extended ours without perming theirs. There was a pretty great highlight where after the 2NC explained how awful the evils of killing animals were and how it is the equivalent of murder, that John pointed out her leather Sperry’s making her take them off if “she truly believed in what she was debating.” And I poking at her ham sandwich. But we also had too much fun with it, making it seem as if we weren’t taking her lack of authenticity, seriously. We should have capitalized on that.
Decision: Negative
Some excellent comments. I think you're right about round 6 (and dropping speciesism was probably key). In round 1, what was the neg's rationale for only acting on Iran? Couldn't you claim to have better solvency because you go beyond just Iran, or am I missing something?
DeleteOh, we certainly did boast that we had better solvency, although I can't recall their reasoning. They weren't as clear on it, and it really became a debate on the self-restraint part after we tied up the other loose ends. I'll ask John if he can recall, or has better flows.
ReplyDeleteRound 2:
ReplyDeleteAffirmitive
Vanderbilt
Joseph Oxpheny
Ruralism
On the Neg they ran a Courts CP, Presidential DA, and a terror DA. We won this round. The judge advised us to CX apply the DA information on the CP and say that the internal and external net benefits cannot function in the Affirmative. The judge also said we should make the argument that we manufacture terrorist threats in the first place. He also said that we should always answer and K first, then CPs, then DAs, because we addressed DAs first.
Round 4:
Affirmitive
Miami
Park
Ruralism
We lost this round. The judge said we should say that we do not defend the effects of implementing the plan. We should have extended the FW of the round. There are no internal mechanics. The neg ran a constitutional convention CP and the judge said even if we didn't have cards, we should say the last time we had one is the 1700s and there were no amendments that really passed. We should have really questioned whether the CP solves and force the CP to access critical pedagogy. We should have also better explained the role of the ballot, how it funtions, and why it is more preferable. The judge also said that since the Giroux evidence is so important , we need to do better at explaining what it is, how it functions, does it matter, are the other team engaging in the critical pedagogy needed. We also need better answers to cede the political. I asked him to explain it to me again so in case if anyone else wants to know, it is when you focus on critical discussions and not engaging in the political process, the super right wing will come in. He said that we can use our Giroux evidence to answer this and say that our AFF is not an application of the political sphere. The judge also said that we need to avoid a turn on ourselves when using the Coviello 100 evidence and make sure to explain that Coviello is not talking about structural violence but of apocalyptic rhetoric.
Round 2
ReplyDeleteWV AF vs Bing MS
We were the ruralism Aff the Binghamton crew of course ran the agamben and spanos American exceptionalism Neg. Binghamton said they linked through a stereotypes link and talked about a city on a hill and American exceptionalism. Come tothink of it we never really challenged their link. They said roll of the ballot was who has best approach to challenging pedagogy and combating ruralism. We said we are challenging pedagogy and since that is what your CP wants to do we should perm do both. we said that our 3 Giroux cards are trying to do what your whole kritik is doing. In my The judge said we were anwering what they say too much in our speeches and not concentrating on offense enough. We ended up losing the roll of the ballot on the CP because there was doubt as to the perm being capable of challenging American exceptionalism. We also lost on the stereotype link, The judge said it was a very impressive novice round, and a low point win because we didn't answer their colwell card that identity is fixated.
judge was Michael Barlou
DeleteWV AF vs Monmouth PR
ReplyDeleteWe were the ruralism Aff and they were the Neg. They ran as many arguments as they could against us, saying that is how debate is you must argue many arguments to attack your opponent. They said this because we kept extending our case and they thought we weren't replying to them. But we cam They tried to run Securtization but that didn't lead anywhere because they talked about soft power and hedge. We turned that on them. They talked about ontology, and we answered with thank you for thinking like our Aff wants you to think extending the 3 Giroux cards. They said we didn't have a legitimate actor, and their CP was to have the judicial courts implement the policy. We responded that simply having the Judiciary implement policy won't actually solve because the policy won't challenge pedagogy. We need to challenge pedagogy in this round by voting Aff and recognizing their is a problem and asking why that is. Therefore we can't perm do both, since your CP is just policy implementation. We backed up our argument (and time frame arguments) for why we can't perm by looking at civil rights, womens rights, and the Indians. Simply passing laws that respect these people and recognize discrimination against them doesn't wholly solve. We need to ask ourselves why we think these things in the first place, and by voting AFF we can do that. We also said the judicial branch has no implementation or executive power to see the policy acted out. To this they replied our discussion won't leave the room and that just talking about it won't solve. To this we came back with YOU are the ones that would be responsible for this round not leaving the room. You are throwing arguments at us just for the sake of arguing and have not responded to our case at all. That is uneducational. we are here trying to have intellectual and education discussions while you're coming up with as many arguments as possible in order to waste our time and confuse us. We won. The judge was evans Ignacio. He liked our time frame of solving now by recognizing the rural pop within the round. He said the neg didn't give value to the rural people. His suggestions were that we give more concrete examples of what its like to be rural and discriminated against
I am confused....did you perm? You should always perm when you are aff....I don't know why you would argue you cant perm...You should say perm do the aff and the counter plan, we can challenge ruralism within this round and pass laws that help shift/eliminate ruralist policies etc. You then add on even if the judge doesn't buy the perm, to still prefer the aff bc of things like timeframe and impact calc
DeleteEjimofor - Lawer-Yolar West Point
ReplyDeleteRound 1 Aff (Loss)
Neg challenged the lack of specificity of the plan text in that we didn’t specify which state actor would be restricting the PWP nor which action would be taken. They said that the judge should vote negative on presumption and they called for possible abuse during the round of us changing the plan text to get around their objections to our plan (which we did do). It was our first round and we wasted a lot of time not responding adequately to this argument. This was the reason we lost
Round 3 Aff (Win)
Neg challenged with a politics DA and another DA and we ran risk shell and securitization. We won very easily.
Round 6 Aff (Win)
The negative ran a politics DA and a Civilian-Military relations DA. We ran securitization on them along with the risk shell to deconstruct their impact calculus. Once we established that their predictions weren’t guaranteed to happen, we used the nuclear war cards as links to the security K. We also ran Framework with representations precede policy, visions are more important than policy, and securitization as a speech act. They dropped the Callahan turn and framework arguments altogether. They brought out heg and imperialism good arguments late in the 2NR. We found cards that answered those arguments with cards in our imperialism aff and connected that back to all of our impacts. This was easily our nest round. We won easily.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSounds like: a) a good learning experience; b) you've got a pretty good handle on what you're doing on the aff. We will work on response to agent specification (the answers you gave in the hallway after the round were pretty good).
DeleteOur first round was the Affirmative round vs. NYU AL and Brown, Whitney was the judge. The judge told us we won because we cross applied the Bassett 03 evidence and brought a light to the rural people. We also won NYUs topicality argument because we brought a voice to the rural people through the affirmative. One thing the judge told Rachel and I to work on was not just reading more and more evidence but applying the evidence we have already read to the argument and being more analytically oriented.
ReplyDeleteThe 4th round we went against CUNY HF and Taylor Brough was the judge. We won this round because we applied critical pedagogy to our argument better than the other team. The other team also did not know what ruralism was, nor how to answer it. The judge told us we need to really harp on using critical pedagogy and our Giroux cards more. I personally need some help on the Giroux cards, I do not particular understand them.
Round 7 vs. Cornell. This was our final outround. We lost in this round mainly because we brought out arguments too late. We definitely had potential to win because they argued restricting President Obama's powers would lead to nuclear war and we all know that is just a stupid argument. The judge told us we should have developed the idea restricting Presidential war power doesn't cause nuclear war in the 2AC (we really didn't bring it up till rebuttal speeches). They also said we need to develop our argument on using the debate space more (again this has to do with the Giroux cards which I really need help with)
Giroux, Giroux, Giroux (please be at Wednesday's meeting!). And, as on the other side, more explanation and application of evidence, less reading of evidence in the round is a good thing (this is a lesson for all Novices)
Delete2nd Round vs NYU.
ReplyDeleteThey ran disads like Hedge good and analyticals saying these rural people fought because they wanted to. The ended up talking about the counterplan being a whole draft and capitalism in their rebuttal speeches. Everything was introduced too late and we kept extending our case. The judge voted for the Aff sating the neg had no central focus of argumentation against the 1ac and that everything in the the negs arguments was reiterated in 1ac. The judges advice to us was that the purpose of the 1ac is to challenge fundamental discrimination. The roll of the ballot is to address ruralism and identify a methodology to change it.
The next round was vs NYU but this time it was a better debate.
They first ran a topicality framework saying we don't have a specific actor and it is uneducational to have a plan like this. They said a weak CMR and lack of readiness puts US at a disadvantage. Then they said cap is good in stat quo, saying it solved for war and was necessary for space travel in order to stop extinction. We had great answers to all these while extending our case. We said fiat allows for our plan to pass and turning the debate into a framework debate surely is uneducational. We should be debating about wether this plan is a good or bad idea not about who will pass the plan. We said there was no link between our plan and the impacts of supposedly lost hedge while saying we could retain hedge in light of the plan. Also ran risk cards. We said their worshipping of cap is what leads to the ousting of minority voice and read cards about how it exists bc of the beliefs in it. And that is where we messed up. We lost because 1. we made it sound like we were trying to get rid of cap when answering their arguments. We aren't trying to get rid of cap, just the neoliberal aspect that perpetuates ruralism. 2. We didn't extend impacts enough. We talked a lot about solveny and the three Giroux cards but not about what would happen if we didn't solve. We needed to say who the rural people where. give examples.
Our next Aff round 4 was against VMU.
They wanted a referendum and ran a statism kritik. They wanted the people to implement our plan action. We said they wont solve as well as our three Giroux cards but what we should have done was just permed. To the statism kritik we said we were trying to reduce the power of the state and thus stop ruralism. The judge voted neg because we didn't perm and he like the statism kritik. His advice for us was that we perm and answer the statism kritik by saying Giroux thinks the state and democracy are a good thing in order to challenge spheres of learning.
Here are the round 2 judge's comments for you (an expansion of what you put above): "The aff needs to work on portraying ethos in the debate round. Your argument is that the recruitment strategies of the US Army is uniquely messed up towards the rural population. That is something that should be felt and articulated. The 2AC was okay, however there should be more time devoted to clearing up the mischaracterization of your arguments and talking about key terms and concepts that are going to win you the round. As a result, your arguments become very clear and they take on a level of nuance that forces the negative to argue why these arguments are not true"
DeleteThe key here is brining passion to the argument.
Round 4: Good judge, good advice. Always perm! Round 5 (the other one vs. NYU): first, good advice again. Second, we will talk further at Wednesday's meeting about using the Giroux cards and also about agent counterplans (why it's best that Congress solves). Finally, you should try a rebuttal redo for either round 4 or round 5.
DeleteTournament: Vermont
ReplyDeleteDivision: Open
Round 2: Aff vs Rutgers KW
Judge: Simran Maker
Our Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Baudrillard K and Case
2NR: Baudrillard and Case
Won because changing the way five people think in the round is better than doing nothing. Ultimately their alternative was too weak to win them the round. Simran recommended that we write a counter-critique for Baudrillard.
Round 4: Aff vs Rutgers HS
Judge: Ben Morgan
Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: "Debater Hater"; FW; Counter-Advocacy
2NR: "Debater Hater"
Lost because I mishandled how the "debater hater" argument and how it functions in the 2AC. Their argument ends up being that debate needs to collapse, and the AFF prohibits that by talking about colonialism. The framework ends up just being a net-benefit to the "debater hater" argument because by excluding people from debate they will be more likely to quit which will allow debate to collapse. I needed to start comparing their argument about needing colonialism to happen in debate to allow it to collapse vs. the harms of colonialism to happen at all that are shown out in the 1AC. Also, needed to make non-uniqueness arguments earlier about how debate is not collapsing now, and no link arguments that even if debate is collapsing us talking about colonialism in one debate round is not going to stop debate from collapsing.
Round 6: Aff vs NYU KW
Judge: Kate Ortiz
Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Fem IR K; Case; FW
2NR: Fem IR K
Won because we were ahead on the link debate. Since our AFF solvency is rethinking the thinking that is behind current foreign policy, their link of IR relations being deeply gendered did not apply. We also accessed the Role of the Ballot better.
Tournament: Monmouth
ReplyDeleteRnd 2 vs Bingha\Wilkes MS
Judge: Patrice, Joe
They ran the spagamben stuff. Saying we want people to be able to go in and out of the state of exception. We said this won't solve and reiterated our case. We said we want to get people out of the state of exception by giving them a voice. They talked a lot about language and ontology and how we must not accept everything the gov says. We agreed and cross applied the qiroux evidence. We permed because we could solve best. The judge said it came down to the impacts and how impacts outweigh eachother. He said explaining why impacts differ or outweigh really does a lot in a round. We won and he gave us some important advice or later in the tournament. We can attack neg strats by pointing out they overlook the rural population that is located in an area deemed unimportant by the elite and thus don't solve as well as we do.
Rnd 3 vs NEG UniSta BS
Judge: Dellamore, John
They WP team (that eventually won the tourney) only ran a terror DA and a Hedge DA about national unity. And some on case stuff. We never answered them well enough. We didn't read cards saying hedge is bad and that terror talk is bad. The judge said all we had to do was those two things. We answered their on case stuff about numbers of rural people vs minority numbers by square mile being skewed to show such a drastic negative impact on the rural people by saying we aren't concerned with that. We are concerned about the opressive NEo lib policy tool that targets certain groups. He said he just barely voted for the NEG.
Round 6 vs NEG Monmou NR
Judge: Weddington, Tommy
This was the civil disobedience and ontology framework NEG. We permed and said we solved best while attacking their solvency and kritik in general. we agreed with their ontology by extending our Giroux cards and the role of the ballot to start solving within this round. We won and the judge told us we should have kept with our Boggs and Mclean cards that said disengaging allows for the elites to thrive and that attacking political procedures reults in paralysis. He said we could have won just by extending those. It prepared us for the next round when we faced the exact same NEG.
Round 7 OCTS vs NEG Monmou DS
Judges: Johnson, Willi - Keenan, Vik - Weddington, Tommy
These girls ran the same thing against us and we responded even better this time, making analytics about them overlooking the rural pop who is already somewhat disengaged from institutions. We said we are trying to give a voice to the individual as well and we do it better within this round so we can perm. We made analyticals about why we are the necessary conversation that proceeds policy, extending the role of the ballot. We used the Boggs and Mclean cards as another voter saying they are halting political procedure which is terrible and perpetuates harms. They didn't understand our case at all and couldn't grasp the 3 Giroux solvency cards. So we hammered them with out case while pointing out faults in the NEG. We won.
Tournament: Monmouth
ReplyDeleteDivision: JV
Round 1: Aff vs Boston College CT
Judge: Lauren Cameron
Our Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: FW; Switch-Side Good K; Case
2NR: FW (Mainly the Switch Side Good Arguments)
Won because they didn't have a real good answer to our We Meet argument that policy-making is a process, and the advocacy is a pre-req to ethical policy making. Also, they didn't answer the FW turns.
Round 4: Aff vs Binghamton LS
Judge: Willie Johnson
Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Anthro K; Case
2NR: Anthro K
Won because there was no link to the Anthro K (Their only link all debate was a Link of Omission).
Round 5: Aff vs Monmouth BR
Judge: Elijah Smith
Advocacy: Andrew and I reject the Western Narrative of Domination.
1NC Strat: Cap K; FW; Case (Cede the Political)
2NR: Cap K
Won because of the Link Turn and the Perm. Elijah told me if I would have spent more time on the perf-con arguments in the 2AR he could have voted on it.
Texas Tournament
ReplyDeleteVs Nevada Las Vegas SJ
Judge Ryan, Cheek
Ruralism answered by framework, Neo lib good, hedge loss, util, and some anti policy stuff. They didn't have a cp or alt. We lost because we didn't answer a lot of their stuff. We extended our case throughout the round but didn't specifically warrant the risk cards that they didn't answer. We should have elaborated on how they link to the risk cards and what they really mean aka their impacts. On framework the judge said we should have just asked them, what do you mean? For the anti policy stuff that said we choke off solutions we answered by saying their disad comes form a perspective at the top which is exactly what suppresses the rural voice. And we said that we don't hate policy implementation but in order to make it effective we need to start in an educational space like debate, extending the roll of the ballot and our giroux cards.
Vs Trinity DU
Judge Rodriguez, Jean
Ruralism answered by MIlitarism and Cap K. We lost on the militarism link since we are using the fed gov. We tried to answer it by saying we are reducing the presidents powers and this will not cause more military action. And we tried to turn their K because they said our AFF will lead to other forms of violence like drones. We said by saying this you are engaging in exactly what you are critiquing. Didn't work. We should have permed. On the cap stuff we permed saying do ours then theirs because neo liberalist policies are causing the immediate harms. They ended up dropping the Cap K but i still spent about a minute on it in the 2ar which i shouldn't have. The judge said we had weight with our suppressing political action cards bad and that in the future we can perm use our solvency to access the alt.
Vs Clarion PS
Judge Marionetti, Jadon
Ruralism answered by framework, Hedge, and politics/economy disads. This was an 0 and 5 novice team. It was a pretty straightforward debate with clash but we lost on the Politics DA. The judge said all we needed to do was challenge its uniqueness off the bat. And use an Econ takeout saying how we don't link to politics (Someone please elaborate on how to answer politics DA and what cards to read).
Vs Indiana HF
Judge Butler, Tia
Ruralism answered by a cp saying all 4 yr college applicants must serve, a blackness K, politics DA, and hedge. We permed the counter plan doing our plan then theirs. We permed the blackness K saying slavery was earliest form of neo lib and are challenging its cause. We also said that by focusing just on black people and not on neo lib the rural pop will continue to be disenfranchised . We lost. The judge saying, we needed to answer the politics DA and the case turn, elaborate on our risk cards, and that we need to say their is a solvency deficit while perming saying the alt or cp doesn't solve.