Saturday, September 21, 2013
Neg Round Reports
Please use the comments section of this entry to enter round reports for Negative rounds. The 2N should do the round report. You should include tournament name, division, round #, opponent's team code (like Army BS), judge's name, the affirmative's advocacy (plan, advantages, or equivalents), the negative's advocacy (what we 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 One: Neg v Binghamton CP
Judge: John Clarke
Advocacy: (insert entire resolution here in Spanish and Russian)
1NC Strat: Capitalism, Anthro
2NR: Capitalism
Lost because I didn't give enough textual evidence that capitalism created and perpetuated racial binaries. (I don't know that I agree with this, considering a large portion of the 2nc was spent on this kind of analysis; judge also said that he would never buy that capitalism causes racism.) Judge claimed that anthro was a better choice for the 2nr.
Round 3: Neg v Rochester PW
Judge: Kathryn Rubino
Advocacy: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing; indefinite detention; offensive cyber operations; or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities. (It's a Deleuze aff that doesn't defend anything.)
1NC: Framework, Anthro
2NR: Framework
Won because the affirmative was behind on the "debate is a game" and "argumentative stasis key to topic specific education" questions. The impacts on our framework outweighed theirs.
Round 5: Neg v GMU BW
Judge: Jen Sweeney
Advocacy: The United States Federal Government should amend the Authorization to Use Military Force act to eliminate all provisions on Indefinite Detention. (with Heg, Terrorism, and Civil-Military Relations advantages)
1NC Strat: Fem IR with Terror Talk, Heg Bad, and Risk on case
2NR: Fem IR and Terror Talk
Won on K framework. Judge warned that she did not intend to vote neg until the 2ar, but the 2ar went all in on Vague Alts Bad on the K flow even though no abuse occurred throughout the entire round.
Thanks for being the first to take the plunge! Sounds like we need to be talking about different strategies for different kinds of nontopical affirmatives (and that we're off to a good start against topical affs).
DeleteForgot about Quarterfinals.
ReplyDeleteNeg v Cornell PW
Panel: Brent Brossman, Janna White, Jen Sweeny
Advocacy:
1NC Strat: Cap, Anthro, Foucault case indicts
2nr: Case and Anthro
Lost on a 3-0. Got out-teched. Was ahead on the link question, but didn't describe how the impacts interacted with the affirmative adequately enough in the 2nr.
What was the aff advocacy?
DeleteThe United States Supreme Court should rule that all people indefinitely detained under executive war powers have full habeas corpus access.
DeleteTournament: Binghamton
ReplyDeleteDivision: Open
Round Two: Neg v Bard College CK
Judge: Trevor Reddick
Advocacy: The United States Congress Should Create a Court System with Direct Legal Oversight of Persons Detained by the USFG pursuant with the precedent set in Rasul v. Bush (Advantages Soft Power/Hegemony)
1NC Strat: Securitization K
2NR: State is Bad *
*Lost because we (1NC) read the ‘A2 State Bad’, instead of the other way around by accident. Therefore that evidence helped their case. Also, we did not extend our arguments very well and didn’t concentrate on the Securitization K as much as we should have (so said the judge).
Round Four: Neg v New TD
Judge: Maneo Choudhury
Advocacy: The U.S Supreme Court should rule to restrict the deployment of Offensive Cyber Operations to congressional declarations of war or authorizations of military action under the War Powers Resolution.(Advantages: Antihumanism (with capitalism) and Citizenship)
1NC: Capitalism
2NR: Capitalism
Lost because every piece of evidence we had helped them. Also, we do not know enough about capitalism to make analytical arguments. Plus, we realized too late in the game of what we did wrong. It was easily the worst round.
Round Six: Neg v Wilkes NW
Judge: Robert Glass
Advocacy: Set up drone courts (Advantages: China, Pakistan) (Don’t have the exact plan anymore)
1NC Strat: Securitization K and Risk Shell
2NR: Securitization and Risk Shell extended
Won because the other team did not know what Securitization was, therefore they kept trying to perm which we pointed out was impossible. Our impacts outweighed theirs, too.
Sounds like you and Carty learned a lot! Not much to say about Round 2. Hopefully, lessons learned. Round 6 sounds just like how it's supposed to go. And round 4 was going to be a challenge no matter what. They didn't link to the Securitzation K, and they weren't an especially good fit for the Cap K either. That's one reason we'll need to come up with something else for future tournaments.
ReplyDeleteYou should include tournament name, division, round #, opponent's team code (like Army BS), judge's name, the affirmative's advocacy (plan, advantages, or equivalents), the negative's advocacy (what we 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.
ReplyDeleteTournament: Binghamton
Division: JV
Round #: 2
Oppon. Team Code: George Mason HU
Judge: Daniel Friedman
Aff: Advoc.:
Plan: USFG should restrict war powers of the president by preventing his use of Offensive Cyber Operations.
Advtgs: Heg; Grid; Proflif
Neg: Cap K
Impacts: poverty, racism
We lost because we were too defensive during this round. Time management with splitting the block was an issue when I should have addressed the aff's perm better and explained (with RISK) how their impact of extinction through nuclear prolif. would be an inconclusive bad prediction. So because the aff was able to have a plan which solved for extinction and our critique just criticized their destruction through capitalism, they won. We later realized a security K would have been good to debate.
Round #:4
Oppon. Team Code: Rochester MP
Judge: Philip George
Aff. Advoc.: The USSC should overturn the ruling in Koretmatsu vs. US.
Advatgs.: Indefinite Detension
Neg: Cap K
Impacts: poverty; racism
Won because we were able to show that when they wanted to perm, it couldnt work since they were too entrenched in the neolib mindset and structure they could never get out of it. Since we broke the neg block up well this round, it was easier to explain on case during the 2NC that they can't escape their link to cap. Then the 1NR pushed through that we access our solvency by providing a better alternative to cap. We also made the arguement that even if they (the aff) was to pass, it would only help a small group of prejudiced people; whereas we broke down poverty and racism for all.
Round #: 5
Oppon. Team Code: Cornell WR
Judge: Kevin Kauschinger
Aff. Advoc.: Congress should restrict targeted killing...by narrowing criteria to imminent threats. (We have the right to clarify "imminent").
Advantgs.: Int'l Law;
Neg.: Cap K; Executive Action CP
Impacts: Poverty; Racism: Extinction
Lost the round because the judge preferred the aff's perm, in that they were able to explain how doing the plan, then the counter plan would work out. We could have had an advantage by explaining the net benefits to our counter plan, instead of allowing the aff to pick it up and use it. We also should have pushed our alternative for the K and really weighed the advantages against our impacts to say that the harms of cap are happening now and we provide a better alternative.
Thanks for detailed report. Let me emphasize what you said in round 2: any time you hear dead bodies, etc., that links to Securitization K. As for round 5, adding a CP might be a good idea. We should talk about which CPs are best fit, especially if you're also running Cap K.
ReplyDeleteFurther question: what are the net benefits to the CP? You didn't run a DA, did you?
DeleteVs Cornell Aff that encouraged a more transparent drone policy with congress overseeing drone strikes instead of the president.
ReplyDeleteRan the securitization Neg. They answered that they are not securitizing because they want to decrease drone strikes. Asked us about self defense in the cross ex and we accidentaly gave a wrong answer and made it look like we were securitizing with our answer. Can't remember what our counterplan was but they wanted to perm do both. We said we can't because that doesn't fully adress problem of securitization. We ended up saying later in the round that either they were imperialistic because drone strikes caused refugees and disbanded cultural communities (they had a card that said this) or securitizing because the targets were threats to the US. They said we brought up that Imperialism K too late and it was unfair, said we dropped alot of their arguments against securitization, and furthered why they were not securitizaing. We lost on the basis that we didn't adress the self defense issue and that we didn't make it clear enough that the perm do both wouldn't work. The judge said we didn't put it in the k.
We were the Neg against an Agamben based affirmative that started with a man who turned half man half goat. (binghamton). Couldn't really understand it. We ran a K that said that in order to even begin to consider their plan we must first adress its root problem, Capitalism. They argued that capitalism wasn't the root cause. The zone of distinction was the root cause. We argued that their plan didn't have any actual action in it, and read a card on that. They turned it, saying we essentially are doing the same thing by just realizing capitalism is the problem, and doing that won't solve either. I said the debate about this doesnt really matter because we (the Neg) believe you can't even begin your (the Aff) thought process or policy implementation unless you realize capitalism is the root cause. I don't know if that was the right thing to say. In the end, we only really ran the K, and lost because we didn't go into enough detail about how capitalism was the real problem.
Thanks for the round reports. You should also include round numbers and judge names. Also, what about your third neg round. In Cornell round, you didn't have a counterplan; you did have an alt on the K that they probably tried to perm. Late answers will become less of a problem with better flowing.
ReplyDeleteIn the Agamben-based round, it sounds like you made good arguments (we'll try to have a better strategy there). We will also provide you with some anti-Agamben cards.
Not sure who the team or judge was because I don't have access to Tabroom yet. They ran a plan with the premise being 'let's take back our identities from the state'. We said that they were not topical and that it wasn't fair and it hindered our education. Then, we ran our aff as a counterplan with all the things that go with that. We focused on the idea that neoliberalism is the cause of their problem (state-given identities) and by not being topical they could never actually solve for their problem. Our plan on the other hand took care of all forms structural violence including their problem. They came back with the argument that our topicality argument was a form of policing. They ended up on winning on the 'role of the ballot' (whatever that is) argument which had something to do with the topicality policing.
ReplyDeleteThe round you're talking about appears to be Cornell (round 4, just before lunch on Saturday). The judge was Daniel Friedman from Binghamton. Running our aff as the counterplan seems like it was a pretty good idea (and one we'll develop further against affs like this one). In fact, that's pretty close to the strategy that Erika is working on right now (a ruralism position for affs that don't link to Securitization). As for the topicality debate, they basically ran the K of T against your T violation (just like you might run against a T violation if we were the Aff). Once we've refined the strategy, you'll be able to run the ruralism position (what you referred to as our aff as CP) without a T violation, and then you won't have to worry about the aff answering with K of T.
ReplyDeleteJames Madison Tournament
ReplyDeleteJunior Varsity
Round Two
John Carroll MM
DJ Spiker
Affirmative Plan: The United States Federal Government should should substantially increase statutory restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States by prohibiting the first use of offensive cyber operations.
Neg: Securitization K
They had a Heg ad I believe.
We read a Heg link, and the China Threat link. We shouldn't have though, because while they were talking about China, it wasn't in the way the link was meant. (Oops)
(We were and are still extremely fuzzy on what to do for the NRs.)
Decision: Affirmative
Round Three
George Mason MT
Jeff Kurr
Affirmative Plan: The United States Federal Government should should substantially increase statutory restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States by prohibiting the first use of offensive cyber operations.
Heg Advantage, Grid, Soft Power, & China Modeling Internal Links
Neg: Securitization K
We did Heg, soft power link. (We weren't familiar enough to argue them much)
(We were and are still extremely fuzzy on what to do for the NRs.)
Decision: Affirmative
Round 6
Vanderbilt PR
Beth Mendenhall
Affirmative Plan: The United States Federal Government should should substantially increase statutory restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States by prohibiting the first use of offensive cyber operations.
Neg: Securitization K
(Not very helpful, but we couldn't [or couldn't recognize and apply] use our links to their advantages [Which I have misplaced] and arguments.
(We were and are still extremely fuzzy on what to do for the NRs.)
Decision: Affirmative
The reasoning for voting the affirmative was usually the same.
We dropped arguements. We didn't extend ours. Didn't effectively answer theirs. Sometimes conceded their args because we didn't acknowledge their arguments.
I feel once we obtain an overall better understanding of the arguments and knowledge of how and when to apply and use the different tools of debate this will be much less of a problem. Also, we will work on flowing. That also hurt us.
Overall, JMU was a great experience and I learned a lot. It really put everything in perspective.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJ.R.: Thanks for the very insightful comments. I believe flowing probably is a key, as you identify. It will also be helpful now that you have a tournament under your belts for the two of you to meet with a coach to talk about the rebuttal speeches (the NRs). Let's set that up for Wednesday if possible.
DeleteTournament: James Madison University
ReplyDeleteDivision: JV
Round Two: Neg v GeoMas HU
Judge: Beth Mendenhall
Advocacy: Plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States by prohibiting the first use of Offensive Cyber Operations. (Adv: Heg (China), Prolif
1NC Strat: Securitization K, Risk Shell, and A2Heg
2NR: Security K, Risk Shell, and A2Heg
*Lost because we dropped some arguments and didn’t extend our arguments very well. Judge said we should actually go through their cards to reference and anlyze (to say why ours is better) rather than just extending our cards every time.
Round Four: Neg v New DT
Judge: Zeke Mihelcic
Advocacy: The U.S Supreme Court should rule to restrict the deployment of Offensive Cyber Operations to congressional declarations of war or authorizations of military action under the War Powers Resolution.(Advantages: Antihumanism (with capitalism) and Citizenship)
1NC: Capitalism(Methodology) and Ethics
2NR: Capitalism (Methodology) and Ethics
Lost because according to the judge there was no clear link for Capitalism, we didn’t specifically answer their arguments, there was no clear articulation for the world after capitalism has ended, no framework on how to weigh ethics, and we could have done a severance argument but didn’t realize we could.
Round Six: Neg v Wayne State CD
Judge: Allison Harper
Advocacy: The United States Congress should establish a federal internal review board with oversight jurisdiction over targeted killing authorization. The board will be comprised of military and national security experts chosen by the minority and majority leadership of the House and Senate. The board will assess who should be targeted, the immediate nature of the threat, costs, benefits, blowback, and other merits of Executive Branch targeted killing before action is taken. The decisions of the board will be reviewed by Congressional intelligence committees if the President overrides the recommendations of the board. (Adv: Heg, Soft Power, Terrorism)
1NC Strat: Securitization K, A2Heg, A2Soft Power, and A2Terrorism)
2NR: Securitization K, Ext A2Heg, A2Terrorism, and Risk Shell Extended from 2NC
Lost because the judge personally thinks that Securitization and defining terrorism is inevitable.
Overall, I think we are getting a lot better at flowing and extending our arguments. We need to work on our ability to making analytical arguments and understanding the Capitalism K better.
Thanks for a good set of reports. I think you (and others) should pay attention to Beth Mendenhall's comments (round 2). Flowing and evidence comparisons are both very important. I'd worry less about the cap K, as we hope to phase that out shortly (though it's good to understand)
DeleteTournament: JMU (Novice division)
ReplyDeleteRound: 1 vs. Liberty MW
Judge: Nicco Paqueno
The Aff's plan: USFG should amend the 1947 National Security Act to include OCO's as covert operations.
Advantage 1: Int'l Law
Advantage 2: US/China relations
They argued that the squo cyber operations were used too often and this ease for the president to use offensive cyber operations is too great; causing other countries to respond negatively with counter-attacks, leading to cyber prolif- and establishing this international law prevents any chance of countries responding to attacks with nuclear arms. Their US/China Advt. said that Obama's efforts are failing with China and they attacks we place on China are perceived as threats and will retaliate with a worse response.
Negative: Security K
Arguing that we link to them becuse their logic of security on saying who can be targeted and who can not results in extinction by devaluing life to the point of genocidal logic. Our alt. was to embrace constructivism and end the devaluation of life that securitizing leads to. We split the neg block with framework first, then extending impact and alt cards of the Sec. K. Nathan took the 1NR on case and tackled the perm. Although we didnt have (very) specific A2 Perm cards.
We lost the debate, ultimately not answering the perm as throughout as it could have been. Also explaining our link was very difficult and something the RFD went the way it did.
Round 4: vs Navy JM
Judge: Shree Awsare
Aff's Plan: United States Federal Judiciary should rule that the Pres. of US lacks authority to detain individuals indefinitely.
Advtg. 1: Terrorism
Advtg 2 : Judicial Independence
They argued the President detains individuals for as long as he pleases which allows recruitment levels to go up for terrorist organizations ultimately leading to a nuclear prolif in the attempt to gain nuclear arms. Also saying this restriction on indefinite detention allows the US Judicial System to divert from its current bad credibility through limiting detainees equal access to the judicial system.
Negative: We chose to run the ruralism K
The judge voted down because of a link of omission. Not being able to articulate the link but just saying that the aff leaves out the rural voice by focusing on detainees while rural communities are starving, poor, dying in wars. The perm was: do the plan in all instances and do the plan then the alt. we split the neg block once again i took the K (framework)...extending impacts and Nathan took the case/perm explaining that helping detainees first only allows more of the rural voice to be unheard and pushed aside.
We dropped; Judge would have liked a specific link (rather than omission). And ordering framework to have; standards, interp., substance.
Here are my thoughts on these two rounds. In round 2, the perm answers should be pretty clear (see playbook; you don't need a bunch of cards), in part because the link is, even more so, that they create the China threat. In round 4, I'm thinking you should have run the Securitization K (if it links, run it, and it links to Advantage 1: Terrorism, in a big way). The link of omission argument is one we'll have to work on when we run ruralism. More on that at the team meeting on Friday
DeleteRound 6: Georgia JM
ReplyDeleteJudge:Zeke Mihelcic
Aff's Advoc.: USSC should grant certiorari to Al Bihani vs. Obama...ruling that detainees entitled to Habeas Corpus.
Advt 1: Human Rights
Advt 2: Credibility
Aff argued the case which allows the Pres. to detain suspected terrotsts for an indefintie amiunt of time is wrong and they should be able to srtabd trial which is k to human rights. This is where we first saw Agamben. Current policy leads to bare-life which justifies genocide (leading to...extinction). Fixing it will help US Cred. which is key to maintaining stability.
Negative: Prepared with the Ruralism K, we had trouble extebnding our answers later into the debate which costs us being able to defend human rights more hard. Losing on a Link of Omission, we were persuasive on the impact calc with framing the debate to be around the rural voice and how the aff excludes any hope of solving if the rural minority isn't recognized. They permed with, Perm, do the plan then the alt; but we responded by using something said during cross ex against them. They said the "current court system isn't great"...which is the venue they hope to solve human rights and credibility with. We said they couldn't perm because they'll never work if they implement change through a system they say is broken but provide no evidence on how to fix.
RFD: Link of omission wasn't sufficient; and the Perm wasn't answered correctly which was a major factor.
Round 2: vs. JMU
ReplyDeleteJudge: Sommers Kyla
Affs Advocacy: The USFG should reduce the number of signature strikes
Adv 1: Terrorism
Adv 2: Modeling
We won on the negative using the Security K because of Framework. However, the judge would have liked us to use No Solvency cards as to how drone strikes cause more terror. She also gave us an analytic we could us. It was that the assumption of what the USFG knows the motivations of these "terrorists" is a link in and of itself and leads to more flawed Western solutions that cause more problems. Why would the US set international norms? especially with terror in the first place, when we caused so much problems anyhow. She also said that we could have added more impact defense.
Round 3: vs. Wake Forest
Judge: Will Scott
Aff's Advocacy: The US should ban the use of drones.
Adv.1 : Yemen
Adv 2: international credibility
Adv. 3: leadership
We lost using the Gender K. The judge said that I need to highlight the warrants in the Cuomo card more. He also said that I could make it more clear that the K's starting point is key. Sure there are other problems, but we can't talk about every problem every time. This is a good starting point."
Round 5: vs. Wayne State
Judge: Paul Mabrey
Adv 1: Biopolitics
Adv 2: torture
We lost using the Ruralism K. The Judge said that we should expand and be more detailed with our arguments. He also said that we could try to frame the ruralism K in a way to say that part of the reason we have Guantanamo and bombs is that Iraq and Afghanistan are seen as rural. The US is first world, urban and developed and everybody else is the third world, rural, and nedding developing assistance. Or, if we wanted to start from the rural person, we could say that we needed to get our own rural poverty, asymmetries of power and get that taken care of before telling other people how to do things. He said that he liked my argument against the use of sovereignty in the AFF, however it needed to be expanded. He said that we could say that the AFF has a plan using Congress. Congress is a link to focus on the state. The starting point of fixing problems comes from the rural vs. the entire body. The sovereignty argument is important because it explains how the entire body is linked to the sovereign and the lens of the elites. He also said that we should make the argument that even though we don't solve for all of the AFF, we solve for most of it. It is not through the state but the lens of the person rather than reaffirming rural-urban binaries.
Marilyn Guirguis
Thanks for some helpful analysis. The one thing I'd suggest is that it's harder to get well-practiced on a K if you only run it once a tournament. Obviously, round 5 called for something besides Securitization, but you might want to try to consolidate a bit more.
ReplyDeleteVS Monmouth
ReplyDeleteJudge: Alec Opperman
result : Win
Neg: Security K
Aff: Drone strikes
We won this one on a root cause argument that I made in the 2nr. The biggest glaring issue we had with this round was understanding the other teams affirmative before we could debate against it. The monmoth team made a mistake by running a plan talking about limiting OCO's but had all of their impacts linked to drone strikes. I asked one tiny question related to this in the first cross x but dropped it when I realized I had no idea what I was asking. Basically, they called for a reduction in cyber ops but that made no real link to drone strikes and we failed to point that out. They had a lot of bodies impacts that I related to their security discourse in my last speech. They ignored this argument and opperman ended up picking us up for it.
Round 5 Vs Cornell
Judge Jesus Carrasco
Neg strat: Security K
Aff strat : Limiting drone strike power, with meltdown and pak adv
We lost pretty hard on this one. They gave us six different perms in their 1ar and we had literally no idea how to handle that. After speaking with nina I have a slightly better idea about how I would approach that in the future. Judge commented that we need to better understand the functions of our security K. They also ran like 43 cards in the 1ac and ended up dropping most of their advantages and only going for meltdown and pak at the end. The judge told us we should have claimed this to be educational abuse. In our 1nc we didnt read some of the card tags so the judge docked points on that and I think that made it hard to sort out where our neg was going. He told me not to just SAY extend the card, but to extend the card and embody it more to the argument being made.
Round 2 V Boston College
Judge : David Merkle
Aff strat : Soft power
Neg: Security K
They had a lot of impacts that we dropped the ball on. We read the heg advantage but didnt address their nuke and extinction harms so the judge sided with them because while we showed heg was detrimental to Human rights, we didnt solve for their extinction scenarios. On the heg debate the judge told us that we should have re-read their cards because they claimed that heg prevented war, then claimed that they reduced heg. Wont make that mistake again. We had a super hard time linking to their arguments mostly because of comprehension issues. My flows are even pretty terrible at embodying what went on in the round. Judge found that our best arg was painting securitization as creating a tyranny of survival. He felt we could have better applied it to their "if we dont do this were all going to die" scenarios.
Round 6 vs. Boston
ReplyDeleteAff: rrestrict Indefinite Detention
Neg: Security K, Fem IR K, and some on case for Heg, Human Rights, and Terror
We won this round. The judge had to go catch a train to NY so the judge talked about the AFF's mistakes. I would assume however, that I would need to do a better job of kicking out of the Fem K in the 2nr and that I can do a better job of bringing out the others' teams mistakes and the arguments they dropped.
West Point Novice
ReplyDeleteround 1: Capital CL
Judge: Jillian Marty
Aff: eliminating defense privatization
Advtgs: Hard Power/ Intl Law
Neg: Sec K/ Ruralism K
We lost the debate as it came down to framework. Extending and articulating the alternative was a problem that we realized later in the round. A problem we ran into that was recurrent on the neg side was splitting the block correctly so that the 2NC/1NR block is separate from each other with one on case and the other taking the K. Also it became clear that we need to know what speeches you can kick out of the K and what speeches you are doomed to just run it.
Round 4: CUNY JX
Judge: Kevin Diamond
Aff: Congress eliminate ability of pres to use drones in pakistan
Advtgs: Taliban Radicalization/ US Pakistan relations
Neg: Sec K
We won this debate for extending how much the aff cant escape their link of security and gave a compelling argument on how limiting one sense of power with the executive increases defense power in other places and the aff only says who has the right to have drone use and who doesn't which is baaaad. leading to sacrificial genocide. Once again the judge pointed out that I need to work on the alternative and making the debate around that.
West Point
ReplyDeleteOpen Division
Neg V CUNY JM
Judge: Annabelle North
Advocacy: We invite you to our table. We affirm the making of this house into a home. The resolution poses a unique concern of security in relation to the homeland and the concept of war powers but the topic paper like the debate community and Murica has yet again pushed us into the kitchen they have level the discussion of domestic violence in the house we must share to private matters that can’t be talk about until we get “HOME”
Neg: Cap, Anthro, and a couple case cards
We lost because Annabelle thought that we were being exclusionary. This is actually what she said in her RFD, which causes me to question her decision. She did, however, give us some advice regarding how to answer some of their methodology claims.
Neg v Rochester AW
Judge: John Clarke
Advocacy: there was no advocacy statement, just a role of the ballot which talked about who used the best method. (It was followed by the Shanara Reid Brinkley card which talks about three-tiered methodology and organic intellectuals.) The aff was about ableism though.
Neg: cap, anthro
We won this round. The affirmative team dropped severence perms bad on the Anthro flow, and they undercovered the perm debate in the 1AR.
Neg v Binghamton FG
Judge: Josh Turnage
Advocacy: We affirm the topical targeted, "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing; indefinite detention; offensive cyber operations; or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities," by reversing the see-er/seen binary of targeted killing.
(WE HAVE TO FIND A STRAT AGAINST THIS AFF. It claims basically every -ism during the 1AC (even if it is disjointed)-- biopols, cap, anthro, race... no neg K ground.)
Neg: T (which only said that IF a team reads the resolution, they should defend the resolution), Ableism (seer/seeing binary-- occulocentricism), Cap, and Fem
Lost. I ended up going for Fem in the 2NR, but I lost the perm debate. The affirmative put up too many NB to the perm, even if they were really disjointed. Josh Turnage said that whenever I find myself in debates like this where there are so many impacts given by the aff and I want to go for something like Fem IR, I need to win the root cause debate to get the correct leverage.
Tournament: West Point
ReplyDeleteDivision: Novice (with Dalisay, West Point Swing)
Round Two: Neg v Bing LW
Judge: Kate Ortiz
Advocacy: “United States Federal Government should substantially increase its statutory and / or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing, indefinite detention, offensive cyber operations, or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities. We conclude by contextualizing our advocacy by exposing the assumptions we bring to the table and affirm this year’s resolution as an ethio-political mode of engagement that is a means without ends and queers the hegemonic understanding over the Self and the non/human.”
1NC Strat: Securitization K, Ruralism K
2NR: Ruralism
*Lost because we had no idea what queering the non/human was even though we asked like 10x during cross-ex. Also, we lost because Security K and Ruralism K didn’t link at all and so we had no evidence to use.
Round Four: Neg v Cuny GH
Judge: Joe Keeton
Advocacy: The United States Congress should substantially increase statutory restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in targeted killing by amending the Authorization on the Use of Military Force to explicitly ban targeted killings in Pakistan. (Advantages: Pakistan-India Relations)
1NC: Security K, A2Terrorism, Risk Shell on Solvency
2NR: Security K and Risk Shell
Won because our impacts outweighed and they didn’t fully understand securitization so they kept trying to perm which we proved impossible. Also, Judge said that we should have pointed out that they never read their plan text during their 1AC (they ran out of time). It could have gotten us in trouble for assuming that they would link to securitization, but we ended up winning anyways.
Round Six: Neg v Liberty JR
Judge: Jeff Roberts
Advocacy: (Don’t have the exact plan anymore)
1NC Strat: Securitization K and Risk Shell, A2 Econ, and A2Terrorism
2NR: Securitization and Risk Shell extended
Won because the other team concede solvency by not answering our Risk Shell and also K turns the case (Callahan 85). Therefore, our impacts outweighed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRound 4 Neg (Loss)
ReplyDeleteThe Aff ran something that was talking about destroying the binary between the human ond non-human and that this was the only way to solve for the problems that led to the construction of the assumptions that were the basis for this year’s resolution. We ran our aff as a counterplan and used the state good cards as a link to why only our plan would work. They stated that they had no problem using the state which destroyed our link cards and allowed them to perm.
Round 5 Neg (Win)
The affirmative talked about ending drone strikes in Pakistan with advantages of no nuclear war and reduction of women’s suffering. We ran securitization with links of their nuclear war scenarios and their representation of Pakistan as a problem region. We also ran the risk shell and the Callahan Impact turn on their impact calculus. We won this very easily. Threat construction was clear as they kept saying that nuclear war COULD happen rather than is would.
Round 2 Neg (Loss)
Aff ran a plan that restricted drone use. We called them out on their securitizing logic and they did not respond well at all. We won this round but since the judge was incompetent (under the influence of something) he voted for the other team based on nothing.
Round 2 was indeed unfortunate (though, as the weekend went on, it appeared that the judge's issue was something more long-term; as I mentioned at the meeting, he has heretofore been an excellent judge). As for round 4, I believe Erika is working on a response to that aff (your strategy choice was not bad considering the options you had available).
ReplyDeleteTournament: Huber Vermont
ReplyDeleteDivision: Novy
Round 1: vs CUNY HF
Judge: Taylo Brough
Aff’s plan: The USFG should eliminate the ability of the President of the United States to introduce drone use in Pakistan.
Advtg. 1: Taliban Radicalization
Advtg. 2: India/Pakistan relations
Neg. strat: Security K ------------------
The Aff won with their plan to end the use of drone defense or tactics in Pakistan, which they said would stop the Taliban from radicalizing by ending the recruitment process brought on by retaliation/resentment for indiscriminate killings from US drone use. This recruitment spurs the use of nuclear weapons leading to the prolif thereof. Also said the drawback of defense towards Pakistan allows for better relations between Pak/India, without these relations we would see nuclear escalation because India would feel threatened enough to retaliate towards Pakistan.
We said this type of mentality of making a clear selection of who deserves our retaliation allows the genocidal logic that sacrifices many for the sake of national security which is bad to prioritize. Against their Pak/India advtg. we read a Middle East instability link and I had some cards saying drone use has been on the decline and that relations between india/pak are not only fine, but have little to no impact.
They attempted to perm which was handled in the 2NC, breaking up the neg-block with Sec K then case in the 1NR.
This was a neg debate that we lost because of not articulating the alternative which I had to write an overview for after the round. The alt needed to give a stronger representation of what the world of the alt looks like, not just a pure rejection of security, rather a different way of evaluating security must precede any action/policy.
Round 3 vs NYU SC
Judge: Iganc.. Evans
Aff plan: the Supreme Court should restrict presidential war powers in cases of indefinite detention by confining State Secrets privilege… (I know, right? What’s that?).
Advtg 1: nuclear prolif
Advtg 2 : Information Security
WVU AF: Security K---------------------------------
Their plan consisted of restricting the Prez war powers by ending his ability to classify information that may be released from cases involving indefinite detainees after their trial. By implementing their plan, supposedly we will stop the inevitable nuclear proliferation, also if we were to implement their plan we can create a more transparent and legitimate means of obtaining information so that we can also stop the inevitable collapse of “the system” from this lack of accurate Intel. This accurate and transparent information creates a more credible court system.
With our security K, we made a strong link to their prolif advantage in which they assessed the “prolif risk factors” where we could pin them on the fact that this assessment is bad because it’s made from the “winner’s perspective (in which winners win).” This perspective and need to assess or flood information which increases the ability for people to access info on indefinite detainees; causing more unrest and instability because people may not know how to respond.
The perm debate was tricky in that they said the aff was a prereq to doing the neg’s alternative in that we attempted to turn the perm debate saying that we are mutually exclusive because the alternative is a change in logic or perception of threats so that we would have to be a prereq before any plan is implemented and the aff’s perspective is perverted to create threats….ultimately we won the perm debate because of a lack of articulation from the aff.
The judge said that something that would have helped us out a lot would be saying that the alternative is to reject the aff. All we need to do is reject the aff and vote neg and the adoption of our logic over just not doing their plan is more beneficial.
I commented on round 3 on the other thread (that alt will work with some judges, not others). As for round 1, I bet you wish you did that overview before the tournament like you said you would (sorry, couldn't resist).
DeleteTournament: Vermont
ReplyDeleteDivision: Novice
Round Two: Neg v Vermont LK
Judge: Will Baker
Advocacy: The United States Congress should establish a federal court with jurisdiction over targeted killing authorization. 1NC: Security K, Risk on Solvency, 2NR: Security K, Risk on Solvency
We lost because we didn’t really answer their argument of saying alt world is a utopia which is not possible. We also needed to apply more cards to their arguments. We used too much evidence and should have compared their evidence with ours and analyze/argue it that way instead of reading more evidence. We should have explained our cards meaning and why it beats there. He said, “Evidence is tool, argumentation wins the round.”
Round Three: Neg v Vermont MS
Judge: Vik Keenan
Advocacy: United states congress should substantially increase statutory restrictions on the war power authority of the president of the US in targeted killing by amending the authorization on the use of military force to explicitly exclude targeted killing. (Distancing)
1NC: Capitalism K and Ruralism K (On Case)
2NR: Capitalism K and Ruralism K (On Case)
Won because our impacts outweighed. We choose to use Ruralism because they said they wanted to use troops instead of drones. We needed answers for Ethnography. We needed to elaborate more on foreign ruralism. Also, We needed to do better line by line of analyzing. We needed do a better job explaining the role of the ballot. Also needed to work on the mentality of cap drives war and that the reason we do drones in the first place is for the people that invisible in their country also.
Round Five: Round 5 Neg vs Cornell RR
Judge: John Dellamore
Advocacy: The United States Congress should restrict targeted killing authorization to cases that, given clear evidence of a specific attack in the immediate future, satisfy narrow criteria of preemptive self-defense against actions that are imminent threats. We reserve the right to clarify intent. (Adv: Intl Law, Conspicuity, Pakistan, and Meltdown)
1NC Strat: Securitization K, Risk Shell, Mid East Instability Link
2NR: Securitization K, Risk Shell, and Mid East Instability Link
Lost because we needed to concentrate on more on framework. The judge said the aff won on assumption and that we didn’t really answer their meltdown adv very well. Also, we got a little discouraged, because we thought we were losing when we still had a chance. We know now that it’s always really important to never give up/get discouraged no matter how bad the round is going.
Those are all good comments, and the first two judges are known for providing excellent critiques. I think all of the points you raise (even in the rounds you won) are good ones. And improving on a performance even when you win the round is the mark of a debater on the rise! You might want to consider redoing a rebuttal from either round 2 or 3.
DeleteOcts Finals: Neg against NYU KH Judges: Celine Johnson, Willie Johnson, and David Register: 3-0 Win
ReplyDeleteAdvocacy: Thus the plan, Congress should increase restrictions on the president’s war powers in indefinite detention through statutory restrictions on the use of black sites. (Adv. East Asian Prolif, Mid East Prolif, Dehumanization) 1NC: Securitization K, Risk Shell, A2Prolif, Mid East Link, Kritik of War 2NR: Securitization K, Risk Shell, Kritik of War (They dropped Prolif/Mid East) Won because we took everything we did wrong in Round 5 and fixed/applied it in this round. We concentrated on framework. Also, we needed more answering on humanization. Also we could have made the argument that we have enemies because of securitization and that even our allies are enemies because we have to spy on them. These threats exist because US is creating those threats which ties into the discourse of threats argument. So basically our impacts outweighed theirs.
Tournament: Monmouth
ReplyDeleteDivision: Novice
Round 1: Neg v BosCol PS
Judge: Miriam Peguero
Advocacy: (Don’t have it anymore)
1NC: Security K, Risk 2NR: Security K, Risk
We won because we had a better answer to perm (which was the only argument that was carried out through the round). Our K turned their case. In the rebuttals, we should not read so much, but come up with stuff off our head – that’s what the judge said anyways.
Round 4: Neg v NYU HK:
Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz:
Advocacy: Thus the plan, Congress should increase restrictions on the president’s war powers in indefinite detention through statutory restrictions on the use of black sites. (Adv. East Asian Prolif, Mid East Prolif, Dehumanization)
1NC: Fem K, Risk (2NC), A2Prolif, China Instability Link, and Mid East Instability Link
2NR: Fem K
We won because Carty said “It’s not about being biological female or male, it’s about social constructs of masculine and feminine.” Which the other team failed to understand and the judge really like that. So they kept arguing about women in Supreme Court, but it’s not about that at all. We need to explain the feminine bottom approach more. The judge said we read too much new evidence, but we read Risk in the 2NC because we ran out of time in the 1NC to read it. Also, the judge said explain how the feminine ethic solves for prolif (bottom up approach again) more. And we should have pointed out the Aff can’t solve because of the partrachial gov. (which I thought we did, but maybe not good enough). Finally, we need to do a better line by line. --- Also, could you email me the video of this round that he recorded?
Round 6 Neg v NYU AL
Judge: Taylor Pasquence
Advocacy: Thus the plan, Congress should increase restrictions on the president’s war powers in indefinite detention through statutory restrictions on the use of black sites. (Adv. East Asian Prolif, Mid East Prolif, Dehumanization)
1NC: Security K, Risk, A2Prolif, China, and MidEast
2NR: Security K
We won because we solved their case. We said in a Neg world, there wouldn’t be any Prolifs or Dehumanizaton or Black sites. They also didn’t answer our perm cards very well. The judge said we should have made a fiat argument. Also, we need cards/evidence why an utopian is good. So basically, we won because we solved all their harms and they justified endless war (according to the Judge)
Tournament: Navy
ReplyDeleteDivision: JV
Round 1 vs. Clarion DC
Judge: Brossmann, Brent
Aff's Advocacy: They wanted to have Congress pass legislature requiring the President to restrict drone targets ( or suspected threats) to 3 specific criteria.
Advantages: Drone, Reconstruction
Neg Strat: Sec. K
We lost to this debate much on framework and so, how the debate should be viewed.
This framework debate stemmed from their attempt to perm, citing warrants with realism which allowed them to test our alternative. We also used the RISK cards on their impact scenarios. Justin did a good job in the 2AR breaking down why we win on the perm and turn their impacts of endless pain and suffering. The judge told us after the round to really question any assumptions they make about the neg.
Round 4: USMA OS
Judge: Lyla Summers
Aff's Advoc.: The President should be restricted his right to declare war and that power be given to the Congress.
Advantgs.: Smart Power; Civil Military Relations; China
Neg: Sec. K
They claimed by only allowing Congress to declare war, the problems associated with diplomatic solutions can be fixed, as well as relations with the public and China. Which, not addressed could result in the economic failure/civil disorder. We won this debate because those bros spent too much time defending case args. and not really addressing our solvency mechanisms within the alternative. We did a nice job handling the perm debate and keeping it focused on why we win because we benefit more.
Round 6: Clarion Swing BP
Judge: Melissa Mistretta
Aff's Advoc.: They wanted to have Congress pass legislature requiring the President to restrict drone targets ( or suspected threats) to 3 specific criteria.
Advantages: Drone, Reconstruction
Neg Strat: Sec. K
I believe we lost the perm debate on this one and not utilizing time management. Also our RISK cards weren't articulated the best to give us full weight in the predictions bad argument. They were saying through their advocacy that by making a bright line of what represents a threat innocent lives can be saved. We linked by making it clear that by just placing a criteria on who can live and who can die is inherently bad in terms of securitizing. they kept trying to say they're deducing the amount of targets solicited and innocents killed, but we said that was flawed logic. lost the debate in not pointing the engagement if the arguments.
Round 7: CUNY LM
Judge: Adam Jackson
Aff's Advocacy: break from the empire by eliminating the ability of the President to indefinitely detain someone
Advgs: war, the biopolitical
Neg: Sec. K, Cap
We lost this debate due to poor strategy using the Sec. K, which was only then a time suck for us since we used the cap k which had a shady link. Judge said we lost the debate on the link. it was difficult getting a link although we tried to say that the mystification of capitalism caused this empire; but they permed and although the debate was sloppy they were able to when the no link/perm debate.
Zach: Good comments. Did Adam Jackson suggest a different strategy for you if you hit that aff again?
ReplyDeletesure, well first he said that the link (or lack thereof) to cap was bad and so he proposed using the ruralism neg and centering the debate on framework, "have a distinct methodology from the aff". Also Adam suggested pointing disads to the aff, rather than running 1 off.
ReplyDeleteRutgers Tournament
ReplyDeleteDivision: novice
Round1: West Point OR
Judge: Tommy Weddington
Aff Advoc: US Congress should establish a federal court w/ authorization over targeted killing.
Advtgs: Heg; Senkaku Islands; Nuclear Terrorism
Neg strat: Sec. K
We lost this round on framework and explanation of the alternative (which came too late in the round). The aff proposed Congress to establish a federal court w/ authorization over targeted killing which would secure the credibility needed for a positive hegemonic standing. They also would stop the targeted practice at the Senkaku Islands which would otherwise lead to drone proliferation. Lastly their plan ended the retaliatory terrorism posed when the US strikes foreign civilians. We first ran the Security K and case on the 1nc. The strategy for me was to take the Case in the 2nc (meaning the perm) and Ben took the K in the 1nr; framework just came too late which muted our alternative.
Round 3: CUNY SY
judge: Adam Scher
Aff Advoc: Congress restrict the WPA of the Pres. US by limiting his use of targeted killing.
Advtgs: Taliban radicalization; Indo Pak Relations.
Neg Strat: Sec. k; Cap. K
We lost this debate due to not answering all the perms, we just answered the one on security and dropped the one on cap. Adam mentioned that I took too much time answering Cap in the 2nc when we had it answered and too little time on Security. Ben took case in the 1nr which he was more comfortable with. Their impact was women's rights which gave us a nice impact analysis with our genocidal logic of security.
Round 5: NYU AC
Judge: Kathryn Rubino
Aff Advoc: Congress will eliminate the presidents ability to indefinitely detain.
Advntgs: East Asian Prolif; Bomb Power; Fabrication
1nc strat: Sec. K; framework
The highlights of where we lost this debate was the multiple perms, and turns to the alternative. we had answers to much of case but with the articulation of the alternative, it fell short to the affs solvency toward ending black sites, or secretive detention. they also had 2 perms; do both; do plan then alternative, and we didn't group them and answer with "multiple perms bad". We utilized the RISK cards well with their nuclear prolif impact. Though a problem we ran into was answering how the alternative would solve for black sites...which tested our link. We said rejecting the logic of security means not subjecting suspected "terrorists" to detention in the first place; their solvency mech. is placing black site prisoners in more comfortable detention centers though.
Round 6: Wilkes HS
Judge: T.S. Allen
Aff Advoc: US should establish a federal court with authorization over targeted killing.
Advntgs: Pakistan; China Realtions
Neg Strat: Sec.K
We won this largely because I had answers to their advantages which gave us more time to focus on framework and the alternative. They didn't perm which was a great advantage I suppose; also we trapped them when they said in the 1ar that "there's always a need for security" which allowed us to turn the link and develop our constructivism alternative that rejected the 1AC's logic. the judge suggested prepping the Neg block out before the round to cut down on prep time and give more time for alternative explanation and impact analysis.
Tournament: University Texas @ Austin
ReplyDeleteDivision: Varsity
Round 1: Minnesota CE
Judge: Jishnu Guha-Majumdar
Plan: The United States federal judiciary should rule that all habeas corpus hearings of persons detained under the War Powers Authority of the President of the United States be subject to due process guarantees and that such individuals who have won their habeas corpus hearing be released.
Advtgs: Blowback; Judiciary
Neg Strat: Sec. K; Ruralsim K
We lost this round due to poor strategy which coincided with bad time management. The judge voted on the perm, citing the aff was able to solve for the problems assoc. with ruralism while doing their plan. Strategically the sec. k wasn't the best option because of the lack of a link. Ruralism K should have been emphasized more. My 2N speech(es) also didn't get to the nuts and bolts of the debate; the link, perm, impact debate.
Round 4: Boston College CK
Judge: Alex Zendeh
The Plan: The U.S. Congress should restrict indefinite detention by legislating these changes: citizens can't be detained; changing legislature in who we can detain...
Advntgs: Terrorism; Leadership
Neg Strat: Sec. K
The judge voted aff on the perm; the second perm they made but we failed to either group or devote enough attention to it. They also won on turns to the alternative which wasn't contextualized very well in the 1NC and should have been pushed more to make it more of a framework debate. The judge also suggested ways in which we could strengthen the link; by extending the Der Derian cards saying threats are socially constructed and security is a way in which we construct threats after in "incident". Also our alternative should be to "reject the logic of security and reject the aff"...so an attempt to perm would negate themselves.
Round 5: Kansas State KM
judge:Eric Morris
Plan: The United States federal government should statutorily restrict Presidential war powers authority for targeted killing using uninhabited aerial vehicles as a first resort outside zones of active hostilities.
Advntgs: Norms; European Relations
Neg Strat: Cap. K; a little Sec.
The judge voted on the weight the aff had on generic case argt's. We made strong analytics but conceded much of the political warrants. We handled the neg block better than usual taking cap in the 2nc and case in the 1nr. this strategy let us answer the perm adequately. the link debate was tough to establish as we used the "mystification of cap" card as the cap link but didn't articulate the root of where the neolib order mystifies their judgment and execution of the plan. Though we also used risk cards on their extinc. impact scenarios there wasn't good enough impact calc between both of us to win that debate.
Round 8: Mary Washington SY
Judge: Janna White
Plan: The United States federal judiciary should restrict the use of the Internment Cases as a basis for war authorization of Presidential detention without charge during conflict because of over reliance on military necessity.
Adnvtgs: Racism;
Contentions- framework, solvency
Neg Strat: Cap. K; Sec. K
We lost the debate over the perm and the loss of our alternative solvency. Time management played a big roll in shaping this round, we needed to spend more time on case arguments and flowing would help there. also the judge suggested we nclude a courts DA, saying that any attempt to use the courts will just enforce the status quo on detention. We probably could have split the block better, and gone for one K in the 2NR and doing impact calc. We had to also spend much time on the link debate but the Cap K was easier to prove than their secularization.
Tournament: Regionals @ West Conn.
ReplyDeleteDivision: Novice
Round 2: Rochester DH
Judge: Andrew Geathers
Plan: United States Supreme Court should overturn the korematsu case involving indefinitely detaining people on the basis of race/national origin.
Advntgs.: Racism; Rule of Law
Neg Strat: Cap. K; Sec. K
In losing this round: the link debate was too simplistic in that we didn't particularly indict the Supreme Court of throwing money toward solutions. Also with the security k, we should have kicked it at the top of the 2NR and went for cap primarily. With the link being difficult to specifically show, the aff gained ground on the perm debate. If we are to hit this arg again going for the cap k would be the best approach for us and pushing how the state throws money to solve; such as when Reagan restricted interment in the 80's by funding initiatives to limit interment and giving money to the families of the interned.
Advice from the judge for this round saw that we should look at the big picture concerning capitalism and the case toward the end of the debate.
Round 3: Liberty KP
Judge: Celina Johnson
Aff Plan: USFG should restrict targeted killing to first resort outside of geographic zones of active hostilities.
Advntgs.: Presidential; Legal Regimes
Neg Strat: Security K
They say by limiting the targeted killing criteria they will make the presidency more transparent and legitimate; also claiming that changing sqou drone policies will create the model that legitimizes regimes. We lost on the security k, allowing the aff to access their congressional solvency which had "clear action." with that said, we should have had a stronger impact analysis weighing out our impact of sacrificial genocide. Time management played a big role in this loss because I spent too much time in the 2NC answering case turns and should have pushed the impacts outweighing the aff. Evidence extrapolation is something judge mentioned, meaning that in the round we should not extend tags, but rather contextualize what the warrants are saying toward the aff.
Round 5: Cornell KR
Judge: Josh Turnage
Plan: US Congress will restrict targeted killing to imminent threat.
Advntgs.: Pakistan; Conspicuity;
Neg strat: Security K
This tricky Cornell team had everything ready to go from the start, but at the end of the debate they took away the net benefits from the perm they were able to win by hitting the link debate hard. We also had a difficult time explaining how the alternative (embracing constructivism) would solve for the aff's advantages. the judge said on the link debate we need to be more specific in how they securitize and spin a detailed story of how securitizing interacts with their case, which would not give them as much ground on the link debate. They also permed (with 4 perms) so we grouped them togther and said it was unfair and using that many perms makes the aff a moving target and can make any shady move toward the perm of their choice. Next time we would have to blow up the link debate and contextualize the alternative, especially in the way that the aff can't perm.