LEXINGTON (1/16-1/18)

Elims
 Semis v McDonogh JN
2-1 for the Aff (Lost)
Round Report:
1NC: T – Domestic/Substantial, FW, White Terrorists PIC, Terror DA, Cap K, Case
2NC: T, FW, Case, CP
1NR: K
2NR: K, CP

Allen Xu (Sat)
- No coherent way the counterplan is the affirmative
- Aff talks about DS and not racialized surveillance
- Lack of alternative presses is problematic for the aff
- All we had to do is win a link argument – link threshold is fairly low given
understanding of what the aff does
- Winning a collectivity argument – McLaren, etc
- Alt has a high chance of solving impact turn argument
- Not that much of a link argument in the 2NR – spend more time
- ROTD question on the case – 2ar explanation: proposition of values; if the alt
resolves the case then the neg proposition of values is net-beneficial
- 2NR is ahead on LBL
- T violations aren’t as threatening as the developed case turns on case

Jason Larey
- Neg needs to narrow down in the 2NR – not enough time on the CP
- K doesn’t solve for the break the same way the aff does
- No external reason to vote apart from solving case
- No warrant for climate change in 2NR or sexism or why it’s a tiebreaker
- K can’t solve the aff links to their silencing argument
- Especially the Bernie stuff
- Not impacting as well why being broader is better – environmental racism, etc –
don’t understand NB to the K
- R/C debate was interesting – they’re a little ahead on explaining why cap is the
reason why slavery was racialized – doesn’t speak to anti-blackness
- Not sure what NB on the counterplan
- Floating perm in the 1AR – not racialized surveillance
- CP doesn’t disprove desirability of the aff – at best we’re both the same
- Dropped Cook
- CP is political expediency
- Buys interp that the K is “All Lives Matter” – need a stronger defense of “collective
action necessary”
Rohit Rajan
- 2NR time coverage problem on the CP
- Aff’s response of the pseudo-perm is persuasive enough
- Along with impact framing at the top of case
- In terms of the Cap K vote on the perm – spend more time developing link
arguments
- Agree with link threshold but we don’t meet it
- Talk a lot about cap being unnamed – complex enough system means permutation
can still understand class as underpinning some forms of oppression
- Understanding complexity is too defensive
- Bowers evidence is about the autonomous subject – 2AR and 1AR needs a better on
point response
- Aff = a break or “disrupting” norms
- Materiality link on case is underexplained
- Aff characterize themselves as also material – go for different or less link arguments
and explain them more
- NB to permutation – absence of a well developed R/C debate and historical
explanation favors the aff
- Reason to prefer the specificity of the 1AC
- Ross card is a slight NB – impact it out in terms of what it means
- Neg needs to say that how we express ID is coded by capital – make a sequencing
argument
- Tempted to vote neg on Dolar
- 2NR is really good but go for too many argument – just pick the best link arg on case
and Dolar
- Better link arg is a false prioritization argument – distracts focus from true
emancipation esp if we’re right
- Fosters distrust – divisions along race distrusts from a universal focus on cap
- They need to extend perfcon as condo bad – frame it as a DA to the alternative
(white fluidity)
- R/C to terrorism is a reason why the aff solves terrorism but we don’t
- Read part of Zinn’s “A History of the United States”
- Should’ve read more R/C cards in the 1NR – then it’s an even lower threshold for the
link
 Quarters v Interlake GJ
2-1 for the Aff (Won)
Round Report:
1NC: T – Domestic, Microgrids/Cybsec CP, Reproductive Futurity K, Advantage, Solvency
2NC: K, Advantage
1NR: Advantage, Solvency
2NR: K, Case

Eunice Ko (Sat)
- Came down – a lot of it was the util debate – didn’t think that there was a double-
bind for the alternative; how the aff solving for mass violence/preventing
destruction of marginalized people first was a double bind
- Cards on the Saunders stuff was pretty good on explaining how there’s an inevitable
cycle
- Continues the whole cycle of not addressing the issues or violence against queer
disabled body
- Util cards weren’t necessarily good – not convincing
- Tannsjo was about suicide – was a good argument but the ev wasn’t very quality
- Need to make svio impacts specific to the population (queer disabled ppl)

Shree Awsare
- Lots of moving parts in the debate
- On case – the neg only extends Cavelty as presumption
- Not conceded by the 1AR – Cavelty doesn’t implicate treaties – doesn’t answer
causal IR scenario, nor have the read an IR complexity arg
- XT of Cavelty was new
- Perfcon argument – there was one, but not sufficient to accept a severance perm
- Condo justifies perfcons – 1AR should anticipate it
- 2AR arguments about distinction between aff and neg are good but too new
- Even if the neg wins Saunders and overkill there’s a weird extended svio impact –
food shortages – aggravates lives of queer/disabled populations – accessed and
avoids fiat db framing
- Extinction scenario is a secondary tiebreaker
- Last set of arguments: access portion of the debate – UQ was underdeveloped in
both directions (why can’t queer populations access legal solutions or why can they)
- 2NC should shift more to ableism portion of the critique instead of queerness – read
links to debility
- We only read impact defense to queerness but not ableism
- 2NR needed more case args
- Ev would be nice – if they put us in that area they could’ve switched up in the 2NC
 - Read a complexity card – doesn’t take out predictions
- Read multiple cards on “apocalyptic futurism doesn’t preclude the child”
- No alt solvency takeouts
- Free-floating, vacuous signifier
- Extend the Shim card – reps aren’t 1-1 – we need more macro changes
- Need Alt Fails/doesn’t solve link/impact arguments
- Impact level of the debate was fine
- Need to use the vocab of ableism
- Answer condo – especially the perfcon portion of the debate
- Neg says they’re a defense of the squo but the squo is futurism

William Cheung
- No description of what the alt is in either direction
 Octas v Broad Run AN
2-1 for the negative (Won)
Round Report:
1AC: Refusal/Decoloniality
1NC: FW, Cap K, White Terrorists PIC, Terrorism DA, Case
2NC: Case, FW
1NR: K
2NR: Case, FW

Nick Zhang (Sat)

- Lots of offense from the TVA – lists 5 different policies from the 1NC
- If truth is colonized – then all sayings are problematic – and forms are best
- Solution-oriented politics along with the impact turn is enough offense is that the aff
is a good idea

Jason Larey
- No discussion on competitive equity
- Persuaded by “debate is a game”
- In 2AR – confused as to what’s not fair: debate itself or policies in general
- Looked at predictable ground arguments – even though a policy-oriented approach
may not be the best way to solve
- Some education – even if not an equal amount/best results
- Light on answering the research question
- Persuaded by the arg that their interp would cause a race to the margin – research
in debate, policy, realist framework is good
- NB to the interp
- TV to the aff is smart to frame as a PIK
- C/I: Can capture some of this cost-ben analysis but it’s not enough in terms of
competitive equity
- Not enough to pull the trigger on fairness/assimilation argument
- If debate is a game – it’s self-serving to read args that a ballot doesn’t mean anything
because it doesn’t assume a world of fiat
- Competitive activity – people quitting th eactivity?

Brad Bolman
- Dropped 2-card presumption argument – Dolar/liberalism assimilates their politics
back into the structure
- 2nd part – decol is a bad academic strategy
- A lot of the framework arguments the aff made beat back ours – but our fw args
supercharged the case debate
- Missing moment in the 2AR: here’s why the aff is a good, here’s why it challenges
broader systems of oppression
- But if the aff is net-worse and net-does nothing then it’s irrelevant who wins T
- Thought framework was a no-winner: they said any link to the DA
- Could’ve smashed them on the cap K
- Neg got out of the close one – didn’t think we were winning framework
Prelims
 R1 v Broad Run DS
Judge: Kevin Xie
Round Report:
1AC: Sex Workers (Gender Militarism, Cis-Normativity, Solvency, Framing)
1NC: T – Bulk Intel, T – Curtail, T – Substantial, Legalism K, Education CP, TPP PTX
2NC: Case, T – Substantial, K
1NR: T – Bulk Intel
2NR: T – Bulk Intel, T – Substantial

Voted Neg (Won)

- Winning impact framing on limits (preparation, in-depth discussion, critical
thinking
- Not an impact to overlimiting
- Banking on reasonability and defense
- Neg crossapplied aff side bias on conditionality – tilts to thinking that should err on
a more limited topic
- Reasonability debates are usually underdeveloped
- Not too much clash; neg’s made arguments that moving goalposts is bad
- There is some threshold that has to be determined – a lot of the offense says their
interp isn’t reasonable
- The Jackson isn’t necessarily good – Ritter ev is much better – makes a distinction
between DS as a phrase and a term of art
- Does exclude common crimes – their interp would still allow a number of common
crimes we wouldn’t be able to research
- Overhauling FISA – different mechanisms could be explained better
- Not another external impact apart from limits
- First w/m argument (sex work=trafficking) – would be persuasive if there was ev
cited
- Probably still untopical under Ritter – that w/m analysis would still be a past or
planned criminal act
- Argument about the legal distinction about FISA and Title III answers “interp is
arbitrary”
- Just bc some crimes allowed doesn’t mean all crimes allowed
- Aff is an external impact – they’re probably right that our interp would be civil
liberties v terrorism
- Absent a ground impact/external impact it’s really hard to evaluate
- Didn’t look at T-Substantial – half went for it in the 2NR
- W/M debate is still a little muddied – be more explicit about Ritter and Subsets
- Overview on T – quick (in the same fashion as the 2NR – going for limits, here’s the
impact – give the caselist up top)
 R2 v McDonogh JN
Judge: Michael Yost
Round Report:
1NC: Wilderson K, Case
2NC: K LBL, Case
1NR: Framework, Impact
2NR: K, Case

Voted Aff (Won)

- Selection of arguments in the 2NR: top-heavy, very defensive framing that crowds
out clear avenues for victory
- 2NR isn’t good on execution
- Good at setting up “winning a link then vote neg” – but because of the way they treat
case we win a link turn
- Surface-level descriptions of the link gets outweighed by the link turn
- Aff recharacterizes as a demilitarized strategy that stops the construction of China
- Pan – described as “threat constructions bad” but the threat construction HAS been
the zero-day laws
- 2NR needs a more robust theoretical description
- We win that even if the structure is anti-black, should still have to weigh some of the
policy constructions of the aff
- They need to expose some of the rhetorical choices – such as describing China as
“irrational”
- Or the way we’re interpreting the ongoing hacking attacks – obviously some hacks
happen but it’s not entirely clear what the motivation is
- Reformism links need better theoretical explanation
- 1AR concedes the consequentialism debate
- 1AR gets really sucked into “is progress possible”
- Doesn’t know how to weigh it based on the link debate
- One way to win is a greater description of the svio consequences of grid collapse –
kind of an afterthought in the 1AC
- The way to beat the K – generally – isn’t to win a totalizing impact turn debate (like
state good/bad) but win that the aff is good – a PRAGMATICALLY good idea in the
face of the alternative
- Teams reading wilderson shouldn’t forget about the indigenous “red” part of “Red,
White and Black” – there’s a systematic exclusion based on the absence of native
land
 R3 v La Salle PD
Judge: Alex Lee
Round Report
1AC: Stop and Frisk (Adv, Solvency, Framing)
1NC: T – Bulk Intel, White Terror CP, Legalism K, TPP PTX, Case
2NC: Case, K
1NR: T
2NR: T

Voted Neg (Won)

- Comes down to a question of quality of interpretation ev
- 2NR does better impact analysis
- Lemos evidence is from Brazil
- TOA ev is good
- 2AR arg about US code are good, but the card doesn’t talk about US code
- Dropped caselists
- Little too fast – hard speeding through analytics
- K may have been easier for the 2NR – framework had almost not been answered
- 1NR on T is good – puts pressure on the 1AR
- Prefer aff ground is tricky and it doesn’t matter too much if I drop it in the 1NR
 R4 v Berkeley Prep SS
Judge: Raul Cepin
Round Report:
1NC: Anonymous Encryption CP, Death K, Decoloniality K, Case
2NC: Decoloniality K
1NR: Death K, Case
2NR: Decoloniality K, Case

Voted Neg (Lost)

- Kritik
- Certain things needed to be clarified
- 1AR doesn’t have an on-face response to Tuck and Yang
- Tuck and Yang said give back the land
- Not saying the word terrorist – scholarship is bad – don’t say terrorist but speak
around the word
- All the things we describe indicate there’s a threat we have to response to
- Necessitates the potential to be a subject
- Response wasn’t responsive
- In general – the idea of China being an entire threat was proven by the fact that we
kicked out of it
- Framing wasn’t very warranted – this is something that we should do
- Not responsive to the representations discussion – not doing impact calc at the end
of the debate – need to be more aggressive about how to make this framing
worthwhile – do magnitude, timeframe arguments
- Risk of the link wasn’t addressed – didn’t win the permutation
- Did drop severance – not a voter though
- Their argument was specific to perms so perfcon wasn’t specific?
- Need to tell a story with the permutation – didn’t know what it meant
- Read more China will strike cards on hand (?)
- 1AR needs to pick more offense – based on what the 2AR needs to be – have a
different strategy
 R5 v Bishop Guertin ST
Judge: James Allan
Round Report:
1NC: T – Eliminate, Security K, Case
2NC: T, K OV/Framework
1NR: K Links, LBL, Case
2NR: T

Voted Aff (Won)

- Agree with the 2AR’s gut check that we meet the interpretation
- 2NR doesn’t make a distinction between DS writ large and decrease in a program
- Resolves all standards
- Doesn’t understand how the aff collapses engaging legal language
- Ground – all arguments were circumvention or legalism – doesn’t understand why
this ground is true
- Doesn’t see the in-round abuse
- Limits – same as legal precision – they impacted it well but it didn’t answer
- Caselist wasn’t well developed
- TVA would’ve been cool
- Really no distinction between 99.99% decrease and 100% abolish
- T was the right choice going into the 2NR – but they didn’t grapple with net
curtailment enough
- Rest of the debate was good – usually hates security debates
- Slow down when you start the speech and speed up into it – even if you’re clear
- Neg needs more specific contextualization to the aff – especially on the solvency
advantage and why we’re a specific rearticulation of hegemony for international
norms
- 1AR was good, especially on security
- 2AC was good – when reading the Galluci evidence – use some of the Spanos quotes
– alternative was kinda permy
- 2NC was good – little repetitive – thought it was going to be security
- 2AR best strategic choice – sit on one framing issue for a long time
 R6 v Cypress Bay FM
Judge: Rohit Rajan
Round Report:
1AC: Homonationalism
1NC: FW, Cap K, White Terrorists PIC, Terrorism DA, Case
2NC: Case, CP, FW
1NR: K
2NR: Case, FW

Voted Neg (Won)

- Winning some advantages to the interpretation
- Winning that we’re promoting better discussion of nuances
- Don’t have discussion of things like efficient political tradeoffs
- Need a politics that understands the reality
- Blanket rejection of homonationalism may lead to affirmation of queerness may be
violent in some instances
- Need to discuss nuances
- Aff’s failure leads to discuss agent – lets them choose any actor (as the 2NR said)
- DeCock analysis is persuasive but we say learning about institutional considerations
is valuable not just about the process in DeCock
- Donohue ev is about the law, they need to make a more specific attack earlier than
the 2ar – don’t promote an understanding of the law the way Donohue does
- Understand how to navigate the bureaucracy of Congress
- Neg is winning a topical version of the aff – biometrics, border surveillance etc
- 2AR inaccessibility was relatively new
- Neg nuances: neg state evidence, talk about reforms instead of political systems
- Political sphere isn’t inherently closed off – opened up through different
frameworks of understanding
- Aff causes competitive incentive to ignore the state
- 2AR slightly concedes liberal recognition PIK out of the aff – creates a sequencing
differentiation
- Need to be more specific on the limits argument – what competitive incentive do
they lead to? (race to the margins)
- Need more politics is accessible analysis – why the political space is accessible to
people – queer people and mvmt groups
- Empirical examples of the way queer movements challenge the way the state is
deviant sexually
- Aff needs to better ground their “queer social death” argument
- Should have an impact overview on cap – even if we don’t win R/C – our impact o/w
- If we read Terror we should read extinction or consequences first
- LBL was good
- Need more developed root cause explanation – futurity analysis was good
- Nuclear family is for consumption – they go shopping, etc – that’s another market
force (e.g. nice gay couple with an adopted kid is easy to market as consumers)
- Need more theoretical links to the concept of assemblages
LCC (12/4-12/6)
Elims
 Octas v Santa Margarita CW
3-0 For the Neg (Lost)
Round Report:
1NC: Wilderson K, Case
2NC: K
1NR: Case
2NR: K, Case

Leah Clark-Villa
- Had to weigh which arg wasn’t carried out through
- Who had the better scholarship – not just fiating the policy action
- Revolutionaries – don’t end here
- Flinching argument
- Neg is winning the argument that conceptualizing ontological and material change is
winning whiteness
- Aff could’ve gotten more offense – how are they not a contradiction of that – how
are they reading this argument as non-black debaters
- Neg did an adequate job on providing reasons why civil society in general is bad
- 2AR tokenization of “there are rights now” covers up the underlying question
- State inevitable is inherent in the case
- 1AR dropped arguments on the K – never get to the question of how to solve for
social death or how civil society could reform now
- Not an either-or question; ontological and material
- Frame it as a question of whether the K is nonunique
- Make a different perm about their form of scholarship
- Still have to view the aff first – have the analysis of how anti-blackness is material
and ontological
- Perm functions as do the aff until the end of civil society

Lucas Foster
- Card didn’t prove that the Kennedy evidence
- Empirical example – it’s substantively worse for black people now after the ability to
vote
- White supremacy is able to mask material
- Pak card was sufficiently extended in the 1AR
- Conceded solvency of the K – McAlister was cleanly extended – embrace the ethic of
the black zombie

Oscar Viera
- Historically whenever the state does something in the end it doesn’t get rid of the
underlying reason – the root cause is still there
- E.g. Ferguson – turned the view back onto the people
- Conceded that fiat is not real – no impacts – starting behind on that question
- Coming off the 1AR letting them control the root cause claims
- They say the alt is a prerequisite to future policy options
Prelims
 R1 v Bakersfield BB
Judge: Robert Buscho
Round Report:
1AC: Ablenormativity
1NC: FW, Tuck and Yang K, Case
2NC: FW, Case
1NR: K
2NR: FW, Case

Voted Neg (Won)

- Been working with disabled communities for a long time
- Feels very constrained by the neg’s FW arguments – doesn’t feel like he has
jurisdiction to vote aff
- Aff doesn’t answer the 2NR case arguments
- Debated disabled people in the past – understands that there aren’t enough disabled
people in the community – question of lacking jurisdiction in this case
- Needed some more in-round abuse analysis (specific)
- Good coverage in the 1NR – surprised that we extended the K
 R2 v Peninsula JK
Judge: Cade Cottrell
Round Report:
1NC: T-Surveillance, Cyber information CP, Security K, War Powers DA, Shutdown PTX
2NC: K, Case
1NR: PTX
2NR; PTX, Case

Voted Aff (Won)

- Lack of knowing which arguments to sit on
- Winning turns case arguments but not the internal link to the shutdown
- No reason why you win a tc argument without a shutdown
- 1NC: Need an I/L card that assumes a shutdown not one from 2013
- Neg needs to make a brink argument that there’s a differentiator that’s not a link
- Could’ve made the argument that the massive link to the politics disad magnifies the
risk of a shutdown
- Case – small risk of case – 2NR needs to choose more on case (including
circumvention)
- Aff needs more impact calculus in the 2AR – there’s an extension of the retaliation
pentagon argument
- Risk of a retaliation argument – but the risk is larger
- Seemed like politics and case was the a-strat from the block strategy – K needed
more nuanced explanation of the link arguments
- 1AR: Need to extend the UQ arguments on the PTX DA
- Spend more time on politics – more diversity of arguments – always make logical
policymaker or policymaker, add winners win, something about PC (low, fails, etc)
- Trade off some of the war powers answers
- Trying to revive a lot of the link arguments that were undercovered in the 1AR
- 2AR should’ve rolled with answering the turns case arguments more based on the
1AR
- Focus in more on the alt stuff in the 1AR – go for predictions true stuff
- Might want to read some more predictions cards in the 2AC
- Even if some of their depictions are true, we’ll defend the truth of them
 R3 v Nevada Union FH
Judge: Berenice Delgado
Round Report:
1NC: T-Domestic, Security K, Case (Advantage, Solvency), Dedev
2NC: Advantage, Case
1NR: Solvency, Dedev, T
2NR: T

Voted Aff (Won)

- 2NR went for the wrong option – should have gone for security
- Sufficient set of limits on the topic – we don’t explode the confines
- 1AR should’ve spent more time on the perm
- Answer the larger metaframing question – good on the specific parts of the K
- Heuristic stuff should be a larger part of the 2AC
- Answers the epistemological shift that they talk about
- Net-benefit to the permutation – question a specific part of permutation
- Improve on solvency – need to have better answers apart from durable fiat – if it
came down to solvency they had more evidence or analysis
- Explanation of the T interpretation in the 2AR was good, spent enough time
explaining what it meant
- Spend a little more time on case – even if we are extra-T, this is why the aff is a good
idea
 R4 v Polytechnic LD
Judge: Ravitheja Talla
Round Report:
1AC: Tohono (Advantage, Framing, Solvency)
1NC: T-Intel Gathering, Legalism K, Consult Tohono CP, Case
2NC: T
1NR: K, Case
2NR: T

Voted Neg (Won)

- Permutation isn’t explicit in the 1AR
- No warranted analysis in the 1AR on why it’d solve anyway – no new 2AR analysis
on why the perm is sufficient to solve
- The aff is so unpredictable that the perm is unpredictable
- McCarthy indicates any surveillance of foreign bodies in the US would be
counterintel and DS
- No evidence that sovereignty of native lands doesn’t make them foreign
- Doesn’t matter anyways because domestic surveillance is authorized under FISA
- Reasonability doesn’t have a good enough answer
- Better reasons to reject competing interps (race to the bottom, ol)
- Makes it a lot harder for the 1NR for the 2NC to have those discussions (should say
that limiting out discussions of certain people is a form of discrimination and is
messed up)
- Both need a TVA to get out of the perm arguments – more impacts to thinks about
portable skills (e.g. legal definitions matter even if we don’t become decisionmakers
– precision is still a useful skill)
- Neg strat should’ve been different – T should never be in the 2NC – would get
pressed in the 2NC, the 1AR couldn’t press evidence
- Wait to kick out of things until the middle of the 1NR
- After the 2NC it was very obvious what we were going for – case arguments were
very big, only got it to impact framing – treat it like a case turn
- Should’ve been 5 minutes of case – 3:30 of case, 1:30 Tuck and Yang
 R5 v Damien MP
Judge: Matt Perdomo
Round Report:
1NC: Fear of Death K, Necropolitics K, Case
1NC: Fear of Death K, Necropolitics K
1NR: Case
2NR: Fear of Death K, Necropolitics K, Case

Voted Neg (Lost)

- Responded to the ROB argument way too late
- Question becomes whether the perm resolves the K
- Extension of the Mills evidence is framed defensively – doesn’t answer how
necropol justifies military intervention
- Schneier isn’t very good – if the US is militaristic that means there’s alt causality to
cyberconflicts
- Floating PIK is way too late – happens for the first time in the 2AR
- K has a risk of solving
- Didn’t respond to r/c claim about liberal subject formation – happens because of the
way the sovereign constructs who’s within or without the liberal order
- Controls that r/c
- Alt has a higher risk of solvency to the aff given the risk of links to the perm
- 1AR banked too heavily on negative state action – makes the state cute and cuddly
- They have reformism turns
- Distinction between ban and reform wasn’t explained as well
- Need to answer more of the links to the sovereign
- Twisting governmentality to their favor doesn’t outweigh the risks of
governmentality to the neg that they’re justifying
 R6 v Leland VV
Judge: Joseph Flores
Round Report
1AC: Backdoors (Trade, Framing, Solvency)
1NC: Security K, Case
2NC: K
1NR: Case
2NR: K, Case

Voted Neg (Won)

- What’s the better epist in form of representations – playing too much into the game
- When it’s a question of epistemology – the question of who resolves net-less
violence would’ve been easier had the aff defended the case
- “Incalculable violence” isn’t calculable through stats
- They say trade solves violence – they indict the idea that violence can’t be calculated
- It’s not “threats are real” – their framing of threats as real aren’t mutually exclusive
with bad reps
- Stat analysis is inherently flawed
- They’re winning there’s a risk that there’s less violence via trade – not enough of an
answer to external impact of svio bc liberal policies
- They don’t answer liberalism – we’re a prior question
- Make more links to the human nature stuff (especially liberalism)
- More direct weighing would’ve made the round easier to evaluate
- More leeway in terms of risk of impact in terms of reps debate – way more links we
could’ve generated off of liberalism generally in the 1AR
- Write a laundry list of external impacts (1NR?)
USC RR (11/5-11/6)
Prelims
 R1 v Loyola GT
Round Report
1AC: Strip Searches (Trauma, Solvency)
1NC: Legalism K, T – Bulk Intel, T – Curtail, Case
2NC: Legalism K, Case
1NR: T – Bulk Intel
2NR: T – Bulk Intel

Christina Tallungan (Aff – Lost)

- Should permute the interpretations – slightly like 2 ships passing in the night
(they’re talking about where the data collection is happening and we’re talking
about how that happens) – explain why yours is still better – helps in being
comparative
- Be clearer in signposting
- May be reading a lot of blocks – inflections/verbal cues need to be clearer

Daniel Stanfield (Aff – Lost)

- Be a lot more offensive against reasonability – not much of an argument in general
on T (no way to quantify reasonability – can be impacted a lot more)
- Need to spend less time on the case – put some of that in the 1NR instead – can’t get
to the K with too much time
 R2 v Niles West GG
Round Report
1NC: TPP PTX, Advantage CP (Lashout, Cybersecurity), ESR CP and War Powers NB,
Cyberdeterrence DA, Russia Modernization DA, Case
2NC: Advantage CP, ESR CP/NB, Case
1NR: Russia DA
2NR: Advantage CP (Lashout Plank), DA, Case

Bill Smelko (Neg – Lost)

- Didn’t get the intrinsicness argument in the 1AR
- Explained what it really was in the 2AR – happens too late
- Missed some of the case stuff in the 2NR – cyberattacks aren’t going to happen
- Farley – war is intentional, never accidental – feeds into the Russia DA (if we stay
current with the US they won’t be an irrational actor)
- 1NR read 11 cards on the link story – not enough in the 1AR that it’s not happening
– zero-days specific cards
- Use Farley to establish thesis that the DA is never going to happen (accident
regarding what Russia’s ability to cause Russian wars is) – have to use it as a t/o to
the DA
- Might’ve gone for theory on kicking planks
- Occupy block time with theory arguments in the 2AC
- Ask them if they can kick planks – pin that down in the first CX of the 1NC
- Don’t have to go for theory – but it does prevents 1NR card skew

John Vitzeolis (Neg – Lost)

- CP stuff isn’t relevant – not going for those impacts in the 2AR
- Aff’s impacts were underdeveloped
- Valeriano evidence is good – speak to the intent of countries
- Even if there is cyberprobing a large-scale attack is off the table
- Our ev answers that – there are portions that answer that arg
- Norms aren’t official international norms – repercussions answers
- Didn’t capitalize on arguments that could’ve been better – alternate causes in the
2AR was too short
- Don’t answer their description of the squo – Russia’s conventional capabilities are
lacking
- Neg missed the boat on some of the blank cards – is Russia mod a good idea?
- Don’t understand the distinction of why the aff’s impact are more probable than the
neg’s
- Ask about how the CP links to the NB in CX
 R3 v Meadows BN
Round Report
1AC: Islamophobia (Terrorism, Solvency)
1NC: T – Bulk Intel, Security K, Case
2NC: T, Case
1NR: K
2NR: T

Tracy McFarland (Neg – Won)

- 2AR framing is defensive
- Winning a substantial argument that their interp facilitates clash and research
- Better strategy is to get super indignant – use that for a different model of debate
- 2AR is really defensive – they need to advance their own model of debate
- Quals debate in the 2AR only proved why legal precision stuff isn’t true not to justify
interpretation
- Nature of metadata is indiscriminate – can’t collect IP addresses for Muslims –
makes the plan text meaningless
- Good to go through their ev and isolate links
- Want to read a couple extra cards that shore up chemical/biological threat
construction – independent link

Jon Williamson (Aff – Lost)

- Voted on counterinterpretation or we meet
- 1NC definition doesn’t define domestic surveillance
- Only standard in the 1NC is legal precision
- Their counterinterp solves the standard better
- Thought rest of the debate was good but the definition and interpretation don’t
justify an aff ballot
- W/M should’ve been the first thing in the 2AR
- Most of the T violation is new in the 2NC
- Too fast when going for T
- Substantially prevents the sort of material qualifications they entail
- The block should’ve switched the order – probably more to say on the K than you
had time for (interacts with the case well)
 R4 v LCC MY
Round Report
1NC: Vulnerability Purchase CP, Nearly All PIC, Terrorism DA, Cyberdeterrence DA, Russia
Modernization Case Turn, Case
2NC: PIC, Cyberdeterrence DA, Case
1NR: Terrorism DA
2NC: PIC, Cyberderrence DA, Case

Aron Berger (Voted Neg – Lost)

- Lots of arguments going around – not a lot of argument resolution
- Neg may have won some impact framing questions
- CP solves the aff – no one knows what perception means – no one’s good at
quantifying what international perception is
- 2NC sufficiency framing: no one knows how countries perceive things
- Neg’s good ev: creates trust with other nation (not as good as my ev – but it’s still
sufficient)
- Prolif arguments – world with net more nuclear weapons means response to
cyberattacks is more irrational
- Tiny risk – net higher risk of cyberattacks stopping bad things
- How the international community would support the other team’s policy
- Example of national security – writ of habeas corpus proves (or the NSA uses
national security all the time to justify) – it’s ambiguous, vague and nebulous

Chris Thiele (Voted Aff – Won)

- We had more explanation
- CP didn’t solve much of the aff – national security exemption is vague from the
context of international actors
- Aff doesn’t have the best internal link to the international norms
- Dropped DA turns case analysis
- 1AC trick gets lost until the 2AR (only cyberattacks = escalation)
- Lewis ev doesn’t help us much (ask why)
- Libicki evidence is much more qualified
- Do a better job on quals – impact them – scratch the ev?
- Lot of the 2AC stuff wasn’t applicable – cleaner blocks, more direct answers
 R5 v Polytechnic ML
Round Report
1AC: Racial Surveillance – Countergazing
1NC: FW, Capitalism K, Case
2NC: FW, Case
1NR: K
2NR: K, Case

Ideen Saiedian (Voted Neg – Won)

- 2NR is mag solves first
- Alt solves cap – question of whether we win a link
- 2AC doesn’t solve the impact and the alt – extinction level impact
- Just win they don’t get a permutation – don’t need to win the link debate
- Links could’ve been better: lots of r/c questions – explain why it’s inconsistent
- How does cap explain TM overindividualizes racism – ignores superstructure about
how bodies are coded – “if ppl weren’t racist it’ll go away” ignores capitalism
- Cap creates a collective struggle
- Neg strat wasn’t good but out-teching – not great answering the aff
- 1NC should’ve read disads
- Presumably the aff disagrees with doing surveillance – circumvention arguments etc
- Beating on the floodgates DA – reasonably topical
- Have an overview at the topic that explains the dropped arguments – frame the lbl
through the lens – even if we drop the entirety of the 2AC

Aubtin Heydari (Voted Neg – Won)

- 1AR mishandled the cap K – not enough time, question of method or praxis
- 2AR link and R/C debate is good, but it’s not a question of R/C – how do we
challenge material structures
- 1AC has a difficult time knowing what countergazing is – how does the ballot lead to
a disruption of criminality – esp since none of us are black
- The cap K is really ahead on some other fundamental question
- McLaren evidence is really good – cap affects ppl on a nondiscursive level – it’s a
question of qualitative changes
- MLK debate was weird
- Read authors who criticize identity politics from descriptive natures (e.g. Berlant) –
can’t challenge notions of identity, only prescriptive identity (I should be) solves
 R6 v Notre Dame FR
Round Report
1NC: T – Preventive Intent, Security K, Case
2NC: K Links, Case
1NR: K Line-by-line
2NR: K, Case

Joseph Flores (Voted Neg – Lost)

- Don’t answer the question of whether reps good or bad
- Is China always good or bad – implicitly answer that – China isn’t inherently a threat
- Need to answer Cuomo – Big stick impacts justify that – independent disad to case
- They’re focusing offense on wrong part of the link scenario – should’ve went for
grids
- Not enough work on differentiating reps
- Better response to satellite stuff
- Right args in term of demil – spend more time painting China as a pragmatic actor –
not just that we’re prag but China’s approach is also prag – explain why they’re
gonna attack
- Spend more time on grids in 2AC
- Plan text frames how we respond to threats needs to be explained more in context

Donny Peters (Voted Neg – Lost)

- Not a good answer to space mil
- Should’ve punished the 2NR for not going the alternative
- Only thing with the neg is the status quo – their pragmatism args
- Reframe the perm evidence as reasons why you justify your reps/policy arguments
- 1AR needs a better job justifying reps
- Explain how the perm resolves the links
- Impact out grids in 1AR, more work on perms 1AR
LONG BEACH (9/26-9/27)
Elims
 Octas v CPS KX
2-1 for the neg (Lost)
Round Report:
1NC: Shutdown PTX, End-to-end Encryption CP, T – Curtail, Security K, Case
2NC: CP, K, Case
1NR: PTX
2NR: K, Case

Christina Tallungan (Sat)

- Multiple examples
- Disclosing zero-days: characterization of the aff is much more true of the links about
securitizing
- We can sever our reps – that’s problematic
- Reversion to the status quo on the disad
- Even under the f/w our explanation is much more specific than the characterization
- Cyberattacks will happen because the US is hoarding zero-days; will hurt us
- Our securitizing policies are going to hurt us
- Characterize the aff a little more clearly
- Get to the K with a little more time
- Permutation isn’t in the 1AR at all
- Aff isn’t the type of security they talk abt
- Too many different strats for the 1AR/2AR causes fractured decisions
- Needs the bottom of 2AC (reasonability, etc)

Jon Williamson
- If the perm was in the 1AR
- Perceptually 4 args in the K: your ev concludes aff, threats are real, discourse comes
first, need to stop collapse heg short term
- Impact level of the K indicts half those args
- Defensive argument that the ev concludes aff
- Look at their link a little bit more
- Read more evidence that supports the impact turn argument
- Last 30 seconds of the 2AR kinda prove the link
- CPs need to have a solvency advocate, gv’t not companies – need those theory
arguments
- May have needed more args on T

Joseph Flores
- Same thing with the perm
- Evidence doesn’t define directionality – question of what reps are used to justify
cybersecurity’s role in national security
- Still politicized – 2NR description is that we still politicize it
- The way we do that is still securitized
- Need to paint that security is inevitable
- What does framework do for the neg? Need to decide how much weight that gives
them
- Decided that even though specifics they criticize predictive part
- They don’t build the internal link scenario – SPF but how
- Stay away from predictive stuff – it’s always already happened
- We’re the only way to make discourse productive – that’s the recutting of their ev
- Do more on the sever our reps stuff – don’t know the implication of that
Prelims
 R1 v Denver Independent RW
Judge: Kris Colen
Round Report:
1AC: Queer Lines of Flight
1NC: FW, Capitalism K
2NC: FW
1NR: K
2NR: FW

Voted Aff (Lost)

- Didn’t win a reason why we don’t link to the microfascism argument
- Not mitigating any claims about microfascism – no impact defense with a developed
arg to answer it
- Not enough time spent on it. Should’ve been able to predict it after the 1AR
- 2AR argument – this aff isn’t very hard to answer – first aff thought of when thinking
of the topic
- Need to impact the arguments in the 2NR
- Counterinterp isn’t answered – takeout to the framework argument – debate
shouldn’t be interpreted statically
- If individual focus is bad you need to contextualize it to their argument – uniqueness
question; everyone’s focused on the individual
- Go for Marx – 1AR didn’t do enough on cap
- Conceded an impact – easy to win a framing issue – framed as a try or die claim;
global violence exists on a global scale and cap causes identity destruction
- They are the ivory tower
- 2N should do as much as possible to understand the aff in the 1NC
- Class explained the way in which queerness is demonized in society; 30 states fire
ppl for being queer because their ID isn’t seen as productive
- COLEN GIVES REALLY HIGH SPEAKS
- 1NC cross-ex: historical materialism isn’t just rewriting history: figure out how class
has become violent – elevate that into a form of scholarship and form that into a
political plan to create a revolution
- What about the aff’s radical rejection of desire solves? What is it about that that
implicates things?
- Accept the aff that is true – just question solvency.
- Don’t spend too much time explaining their argument
- Don’t go for the monologue argument – the dialogue is already happen
- Caddo Magnet – f/w solves f/w because some teams always just go for framework –
there’s no genuine investment in debate
 R2 v College Prep DS
Judge: Chris Thiele
Round Report
1NC: T – Domestic, Neolib K, Circumvention DA, ESR CP, Case
2NC: K, Case
1NR: DA, T
2NR: K, DA, Case

Voted Aff (Won)

- Rebuttals sound like the 2AC – doesn’t make warranted analysis
- Not a clean line between a backdoor and a zero-day exploit
- Didn’t get the alt don’t solve part – don’t prioritize perm double bind/tricky args like
that
- Better T answers – need answers on the standards game
- Solvency ev isn’t a result of the aff
- NSA circumvention – not going to disclose the aff – could have easily been
extratopical
- NSA could be paying programmers of surveillance to insert backdoors as zero-days
in software – which could cause circumvention through backdoors
- Why does your data cite specific data that disproves the thesis of their argument
 R3 v SVDP SC
Judge: Brandon Garcia
Round Report
1AC: Islamophobia (Advantage, Solvency)
1NC: T – Bulk Intel, Legalism K, Informants PIC, Terrorism DA
2NC: PIC, DA
1NR: Case
2NR: PIC, DA, Case

Voted Neg (Won)

- Didn’t flow/falling asleep – probably didn’t think the round was worth watching
- DA outweighed/had external turns
- DA is risky
- Have a card that says terror studies are self-reflexive esp if you concede that ISL is a
thing
- They determine if it’s subjective through external review
- Don’t go for circumvention or legal stuff doesn’t solve if you’re going for a courts CP
– they could reorient their epistemology/etc for at least some offense
- Unless circumvention is a net-benefit to the counterplan don’t go for it in the 1NR
(e.g. Congress circumvented but not the courts)
- Stress terrorism turns case more
- Use Posner to combat the idea that ISL causes violence to the other – mitigates
impacts of the aff
 R4 v Alliance STERN VA
Judge: Lee Thatch
Round Report
1NC: Security K, Framing, Case
2NC: K, Case
1NR: Framing
2NR: K, Framing, Case

Voted Aff (Won)

- Aff won defense to why the aff isn’t imperialist
- Warrant abstract movements: When you only front a movement based on abstract
movements it’s easily manipulated by people in power.
- Put all the right pieces in the right place
- 2AC and 2AR all goes at the same speed – pick portions of the debate to
compartmentalize
- Specificity is the best 2AR possible
- THEIR args cause SPF – their abstraction claims cause dogma which fail to take into
account particularity – similar to the abstract mvmts arg above
- Specific links to our aff:
- Leadership is key to international norms causes more structural violence
- Satellites allow the US military to be more effective
- US retaliates because of securitization
- Neg is missing key offensive arguments:
- Discourse comes first is a claim about what’s happening in this round between the
debaters and the judge
- No hypothetical fiat world we’re debating about – address that world we’re creating
- The link arg is that state security takes precedence over everything else
- 1% foreign policy doctrine: if there’s a 1% chance the US was attacked by terrorists
they’d do anything possible to prevent it. Applied to the war in Iraq.
- If the state doesn’t value you then it’s the root cause of existential threat – to launch
a nuclear war you have to devalue the people you launch bombs at
- Impacts are inevitable in the world of the aff
 R5 v CK McClatchy BF
Judge: Leo Kim
Round Report
1NC: Cyberdeterrence DA, Fiat Double-bind, Edelman K, T – Preventive Intent, Security K
2NC: Edelman K, Case
1NR: Fiat DB
2NR: K, Fiat DB, Case

Voted Neg (Lost)

- Get to the perfcon argument way too late
- You have to make it earlier
- 45 seconds wasn’t enough a warrant based on theory
- Perf con justifies shifting
- Didn’t go for the perm in the 2AR
- Bad advocacy skills wasn’t expanded upon
- No reason why bad advocacy skills was a reason to drop the team
- More time in the 1AR – easier for the 2AR
- Behind on the fiat-double bind from the 2AC; don’t do the right extrapolations
- Providing agency could’ve been a disad to the doublebind – netbenefit to evaluating
best policy option
- 1NR: that roleplaying arg is inevitably bad
- Atkin: regardless at whether activism is good or not, scholarship is bankrupt – Iraq
war was paid off by thinktanks
- Need to respond to those warrants – they’re clearly winning that policymaking is
bad for a lot of reasons
- Need more impact work – 2AC: start off with lbl instead of impact overview – need
that more contextualized
- Don’t know what zero-days are; need to explain that a lot more
- Gets too bogged in with the kritik debate
- Agonism args don’t matter
- On the K: explain how the f/w interacts with the rest of the debate
- Link turn strat in the 2AC on the K
- Spent the right amount of time on the doublebind – impact out the education stuff
less
- Go for resentimment has no impact, the card means nothing in a world where the aff
outweighs
- Policymaking is divorced from all epistemic claim – proximate cause is probably
why the scholarship is more beneficial in the short term
 R6 v PV Peninsula TK
Judge: Matt Luevano
Round Report
1AC: LEADS Act (Competitiveness, ILaw, Solvency)
1NC: T – Intel Gathering, Security K, Case, Circumvention
2NC: K, Circumvention
1NR: Case
2NR: K, Circumvention, Case

Voted Neg (Won)

- Aff needs to be making args about why the judge shouldn’t be a critical intellectual
(it’s a nebulous phrase)
- Solely evaluating discourse can be answered: discourse doesn’t shape reality;
pragmatic realist understandings of IR are good, concrete political action/moves
necessary/more important than understanding legalistic f/w
- ROTJ: problematize 1AC – look at enabling conditions of the impacts
- Even if the ev is a little generic – contextualized it enough to prove why US-EU
relations have created an objective legalistic understanding of how the world should
operate
- Nebulous violence impact is an impact filter
- Read terror links/extend the K of heg
- The K is about discourse – conceding impact defense doesn’t no link the K
- Circumvention wasn’t answered in the 1AR
- 1AR should’ve kicked MLATS and gone all in on heg good – should’ve talked lashout
as the framing of the aff – it’s not about other threats but the US being the initiator of
violence
- Meta-level root cause claims: we fit the root cause K into util calculus
- 2NR: make a mental checklist of: link, here’s why it turns case, here’s why alt solves
– small overview is helpful but don’t repeat it too much
- Miles spent a small amt of time on f/w and explained in on the alt – easier for most
judges because it gives them ease of mind knowing discursive analysis is able to
resolve real-world impacts
- Didn’t have to read that much heg stuff – makes sense to overcover heg because
that’s their best advantage but the nature of the K answers the advantage – don’t
need more than 2 or 3 impact D cares – intuitively easier to apply the K there.
- In block prep weigh their best bets about what adv they’ll go for
UMICH
Practice Rounds
 6/24- Ragul/VL v Tamara/Jacob
Judge: Brian Rubaie
Round Report (Aff)
1AC: PRISM
1NC: TPA PTX, Ex Post CP, T – Domestic, Terror DA, Case
2NC: CP, Case
1NR: DA
2NR: Terror DA, Case

2ac
- Big picture- point out if there’s not impact defense to something- e.g they’ve
conceded disease causes extinction- they concede our impact & no defense to our
claim- sit on the impact and frame it
- Solid addition in CX but dress it up a little differently – not ‘it’s a little deeper than
that’ (your partner’s explanation) but rather something like ‘in addition to that’ …
- Some people get annoyed by acronyms (CP instead of counterplan) –I’m not one of
em but heads up
- Good idea to point out concessions on case but instead of doing it on solvency do it
on your impact args (try or die, etc)
- Speak each word a little bit more clearly/loudly – you’re not unclear but there is
room for improvement, esp on the text of cards – try to pop on individual words that
are meaningful/important- delineate different words differently
- Slow down a little bit on the long analytic of the terror DA – a bit harder to flow
- Instead of ‘non unique, soft power solves terror’ it should be ‘case solves the DA, soft
power solves terror’
- Use analytics to save time – it’ll make it easier to move at a slightly slower speed
while keeping a quick and easily flowable pace – esp true on DAs like politics that
may not be the truest things in the world (no offense neg but let’s be real lol)- when
there was “TPA
- Push for PRISM targets only US citizens, not that it does survey US citizens – their
arg is really more extra-T than T because they agree you target US citizens but say it
also targets foreigners
- Counterplan leads to politics- it’s another agenda item

CX
- Great first question re; links to the CP – whenever someone says adv cp + politics
you should say it links to politics in the 2ac because any agenda item costs PC
- Good job of pressing on ev, esp Margeilles – ‘show me a line’ can be over-used but it
worked well here
2ar
- Excellent choice for how to start the 2ar but explain WHY it doesn’t solve
perception- explain THERE why it doesn’t solve- the word perception is NOT in the
2NR
- Make a big deal about them dropping the case – 100% certain open internet and
econ = extinxn – even a 1% solvency deficit outweigh large risk of the DA because of
magnitude- aff gets somewhere near extinction level, the neg- it’s try or die- gotta
give it a shot
- Overview on the CP was the best part of the 2ar – very good comparison of specific
pieces of evidence about the CP vs the plan
- Solid arg about why the text of their ev only says 100s of thousands – was this
earlier? If it was say ‘ext the 1ar’ if it wasn’t say ‘I get to point out what ev they
DON’T have’- ‘shouldn’t reward powertagged evidence’
- I think the terror inevitable UQ direction angle is a neat start but go deeper – what
terror threats are coming that PRISM could never solve- how could things originate
in a way that PRISM couldn’t detect- trigger the DA with or without the aff
 6/25- Simone/Sean v VL/Jason
Judge: Melanie Johnson
Round Report (Neg)
1AC: Islamophobia (Terrorism, Solvency)
1NC: Terror DA, TPA PTX, Attorney General/Civil Liberties Impact Statement CP, T –
Surveillance = Electronic, Legalism K, Case
2NC: Case, K
1NR: Terror DA
2NR: K, Case

1NC
- Don’t say 1, 2, 3- just say first, second, third off is x
- Give ppl chance to change flows
- Work on emphasizing key words when you’re spreading

1NR
- It’s confusing which flow you’re on- clearly delineate it
- Right-wing groups say they get protection is because of 1st or 4th amendment rights-
they’ll claim that muslims getting rights means that they get rights
- Also another link to evangelicals- religion
- Flesh out your args more: specifically domestic dirty bomb o/w and right-wing
terrorists target Muslims
- They’re pretty much all blips- db8 is a communications activity
- Structure- explaning arguments better- disad o/w- probability/mag/timeframe-
disad turns the case- think about the impacts and advantage areas the aff makes
- Package it in the format- also explain why disad o/w
 7/7- Oussama/Ragul v VL/Andreas
Judge: Melanie Johnson
Round Report (Neg)
1AC: Islamophobia
1NC: T – Surveillance = Electronic, SFO K, Islamophobia PIC, Case
2NC: K, PIC
1NR: Case, T
2NR: T

Kristina
- Needs more impact analysis in the 2NR- especially on the limits disad
- Fairness is not the argument we make in the 2NR
- 1AC isn’t fed gv’t action- it’s through student dissent- not sure how the 1AC is extra-
T- make that more clear- they are extra-T BECAUSE they include physical
surveillance

Jake
- Put framework in the Neg- framework makes the game work
- Behind on the limits debate
- 4th amendment rights is huge
- Kundnani only indicates that electronic surveillance happens to other people at
large
- Should explain extra-T more in the 1NR- what is extra-T and why it’s an impact
- TVA: Student dissent to create coalitions vs electronic surveillance
- Impact inherency more- need to isolate portions of the aff that are inherent and not

Melanie
- Don’t ask all the 1AC CX questions
- A lot of T arguments about limits only makes sense in a world where they’re reading
a traditional aff- all those arguments would be true if they limit themselves to
electronic surveillance
- Agree w/ Jake- make inherency a voter- have to go further impact-wise- non-UQ
disads b/c plan has already happened- in-round deliberation doesn’t matter
- Gotta read f/w- none of the rest of this stuff doesn’t make sense without framework
- Not a whole lot of clash on a whole lot of args
- Could justify voting aff- they have a we meet, turns your limits standards b/c
framework args
- Aff never pointed out that there’s a discrepancy, neg has been very clear that they
are not electronic
- 1NC have to read f/w: this 1NC surveillance ev is not very good- underlined portion
(not highlighted) talks abt undercover police and informants
- Not sure why neolib makes sense- make claims abt the root cause of things
- State cooption doesn’t make a lot of sense- they’re students in the room
- Work a little bit on clarity- little louder and enunciating
- If you want the strawperson argument to make sense- read some of the portions of
the card you’re referring to including your 1NC card
- Connor in finals: root word of phobia is a greek word that means fear
- Divide the block a different way- maybe kick one and make arguments that some of
the cards applies to the other
- Shouldn’t read all the analytics off the computer if it causes you to talk into the
computer- when you had to debate on paper there might have been some analytics
typed up- things weren’t typed up all the way throughout the 1AR/2AR, had more
connections- turning pieces of paper makes you have breaks
 7/10- Andreas/VL v Ella/Emily
Judge: Brian Rubaie
Round Report (Aff
1NC: T – Its, Oversight CP, Cyberdeterrence DA, Case
2NC: T, Case
1NR: DA
2NR: T

Ragul
- Need more defense to limits
- PRISM, NSA, and Drones all get grouped together
- We meet didn’t make a lot of sense until the 2AC
- You start your 2AC too fast- maybe work your way up

Ashton
- Aff miscommunication- everything was topical until you said “by”- that might be the
part that’s not topical
- Plan is not mandating curtailing
- Government is not curtailing anything if it’s releasing info
- That’s normal means- releasing information is not a question of extra-T
- CP is weird- it’s a question of circumvention- fiat means it isn’t a question of would
but should
- Need a very large distinction between surveillance and monitoring
- They conceded that surveillance require privates- any curtailment of surveillance by
the government would require privates to curtail their surveillance so its isn’t a
question

Oussama
- Vendors are going to be decreasing the surveillance not the government
- Need a plantext in a vacuum statement
- Ella says breadth over depth on the CP- prove that limits aren’t necessary
- 2AC needs a little slower to understand it- project more
- Need more differentiation between tags and cards
- Need to answer the caselist- need more analysis on why everything requires it

Rubaie
- Framing of the 2AC is good
- Difference between a mandate and an effect of the plan- we meet because the things
that would be extratopical are results of the plan
- In cx- bridge that gap initially and make it really clear that you’re pressing back
against it
- The nature of what is NSA surveillance is still very complicated- thousands of laws
- They don’t set a clear brightline for what is topical for the private sector
- 1AR can say that there’s a lot of new extrapolation in the block- need a quick press
that says the 2AR need leeway on args in the 2NR
- Even if you think the 2NR was really good on extra and fx-t they’re just impacts
- When the 2NR is good you need to find ways to read the words they don’t say
- Plan in a vacuum- the gv’t is getting rid of currently secret info- when it’s public info
it’s info-sharing not monitoring- if the private companies choose to make security
holes that’s a result of the plan
 7/16- Ross/Adam v VL/Jaime
Round Report (Neg)
1AC: Borders (Cartels, Wages, Solvency)
1NC: T – Domestic, Neolib K, HSI DA, Case
2NC: T, Case
1NR: DA
2NR: T

Judge: Kurt Fifelski

- Explain what their own interps justify on T
- More of a limiting debate- overlimiting v underlimiting
- No incentive to go into the US now because there’s a constant stream of revenue-
w/o a constant source of revenue they have to lash out
- Clarity was an issue in the 1NC but not in the 1NR- maybe just a question of not
reading in a while
- For this K to be viable you need a better link
- Islamophobia would be a weaker K than the straight up Cartels K
- Latter- turns case in the block and external in the 1NC
- Neolib K would make sense if it’s “we need to get them here and get them to work
cheaply and effectively”
- T arg needs more impact work in the 2NC- what types of affs do those entail?
- If any aff that looks over the border is justified then there are surveillance stations
in the US that spy elsewhere
- Answer the add-on
- If you have time read more impact D on case- helps set up the disad a lot more
- If the opponent says “you can ask another question while I look” just wait- either
time is short and you’ll get an answer or they’ll take a long time
- Neg can make a timeframe distinction- Arizona was on the books for 5 years before
the court ruled- short-term circumvention
- Slow down and flesh out the link debate in the 1NR
- Have some more recent cards on the link debate
- Read ALL of the cyberattack impact cards
- Read more analysis on their 2 analytics- not predictive of future trends
- US stock exchange, electricity grid collapses, etc
- Impact to the Braum card is satellites- no banking, GPS, military power projection,
warming management
- 2NR: Have a better explanation of how the ICE aff works
- That also means another aff on the caselist
- Respond to the 1AR indicts on the caselist- esp that all affs are extra-t
- Limits are key on this topic- really hard to be neg
Emily
- 2NR probably should’ve have gone for T- DA and Case was probably better
- Better response to the indicts of the caselist- 2AR depiction of the world of the neg is
pretty compelling
- No impact to extra-t other than ground- no internal link to edu

Bhavish
- Don’t think the 2NC answers the ptxt in the vacuum arg
- Drones arg is not super responsive
- At the top of the 1NR should make a big deal out of them not having impact D

Mitchell
- 2NC pivots the C/I to either US persons or within US borders
- Need to call them out on that in the 1AR
 7/17- Jaime/VL v Mitchell/Bhavish
Round Report (Aff)
1NC: T – Surveillance, Legalism K, Cuba PTX, Heg Bad, Case
2AC: Warming Add-on
2NC: Heg bad, Case
1NR: T
2NR: T

Judge: Jordan Foley

- Control the explanation of how the transition happens- distinction is that we
prevent a quick collapse- yes heg may cause someone to backlash- creates a power
vacuum that is worse and makes that violence worse
- Could spend a little less time on the K in the 2AC-
- Whenever they make heg bad args b/c people see them as threats- if post-heg world
causes multiple hegemons like China then they’d lash out even more
- The aff can only make Russia less threatening by eliminating vulnerabilities-
preventing Russia from controlling how that decline happens is key
- Distinction between surveillance and monitoring is not explained well in the 2AR
- Need to address extra-t specifically- why uses and means is something that’s more
abstract about surveillance programs more generally
- Why is disclosure an act of curtailment? Explanation for surveillance v monitoring
distinction isn’t made very clear- that needs to be applied to the offense they’re
extending on extra-T
- Re-interpret what your aff does- what kinds of extra-T things the aff does
- The extra-topical portions of the aff are necessary for every single
- Definitionally changing the information about zero-days is a curtailment of
government surveillance
- Any form of data collection is surveillance- that topic’s huge
- Execution question- 2AR explanation between public disclosure and curtailing
surveillance- tie it to the debate about the impact to extra-t

Kristina
- Spent too much time on case
- Case efficiency needs to be a little better
- Group args- they’ll make them more effective and efficient
- Need a reasonability claim in the 2AC- need plan text in a vacuum framing
- Voted neg- it’s not what the solvency ev advocated for
- All affs would be extra-T is a new arg in the 2AR
Hadar
- Voted negative on extra-t even if you met their violation
- Limits impacts debaters
- 1AR needed
- 2AR can easily be perceived as new
- 0-days necessitates the combinations
- 1AR does make the arguments that implicate extra-topicality in the 1AR
 7/23- Hadar/Kristina v VL/Jaime
Round Report (Neg)
1AC: Islamophobia
1NC: FW, Neolib K, Case
2NC: FW
1NR: Case
2NR: FW, Case

Judge: Kurt Fifelski

- Diversify why your framework is good
- 13 minutes of a block split on different f/w arguments might be a good idea
- Questioning the links on the K- may link more to the f/w argument than to the aff-
Morozov definitely links- not a narrative in the 1AC
- Have to answer cx questions easier- how does neolib explain ISL- not a 1 to 1 ratio
but neolib is the one aspect of oppression that all oppressed group has in common-
have more of a historical Marxism approach that might be more useful- our story
goes back millennia and theirs only starts at 9/11
- Concessions in the 2NC need to be dealt with
- Have a larger limits argument- makes the TVA very effective- justifies a whole bunch
of affs that would make the neg ineffective
- Limits disad is the best one to their interp
- Capitalize on their response to the TVA- would eventually go into effect- proves our
underlimiting args
- Dissent doesn’t solve any of those things either- have it as a filter at the top- makes
you a little more efficient because
- Topic is a negative state action- don’t have to externalize your agency- say that a
particular policy should change- strong ethos building moment is reading the
conclusion of their ev
- Many policies help people and Muslims
- We need to be engaged in law and the resolution and when the right takes over they
will turn the US into a worse oppressive state
- Dissent obviously failed in France- they tried and now Muslims can’t be in public
- 1NR was good- impact more of these arguments on case- if they placate dissent,
what does that mean in the long term?
- Calling that a massive solvency deficit to the aff is better than the turn- use the
Brown evidence
- Chilling argument is good
- If you don’t get to every argument on case it’s not that big a deal
- Could get through the o/v much quicker- some repetition- meta-comment for the
block; args are made multiple times
 - Places to capitalize in the 2NR:
- Briefly discuss the TVA
- Develop the agonism is good arg- already had the internal links
- Answer their counterinterp
- In debates you can either pick your poison: TVA or switch-side
- Answers the Antonio ev
- The power of the powerless- great story of dissent- Vaclav Havel
- Should have a 1NC K against the aff that’s not really generic neolib

Ashton
- Racism is bad means they need to defend a policy that would result from that
dissent
- There’s no clash or args going back and forth between truisms
- The way the aff is set up- makes it really hard for the neg to debate since they’re just
islamophobia bad
- Cross-ex of the 1AC- they should defend policy when their 1AC ev says they should
defend policy

Byron
- Brown- commodification and complacency analysis is good
- Go for neolib as a linear disad to the 1AC- would’ve screwed them over- reallocate
1AR time management
- A lot of their args are on perms/competitions are on what comes first- competing
methodologies is bad- the alt is dissent against neolib instead of islamophobia- they
shouldn’t get a perm if it’s competing methodologies
 7/23- Jaime/VL v Connor/Jason
Judge: Brian Rubaie
Round Report (Aff)
1NC: Security K, T – Eliminate, NATO CP, Cyberdeterrence DA, Dedev, Case
2NC: T, Case
1NR: K
2NR: K, Case

Adam: Neg
- PIK can resolve the offense of the aff and the case
- Epistemology in the 2AR is good but not enough in the 1AR
- Do more work defending the thesis of the aff

Danielle: Neg
- Also voted on the PIK stuff
- Probably solves- only a risk of the aff linking
- We probably do
- Sever out of your reps
- Don’t give the 1AR long, flowery sentences
- Break the args up in a way that makes it easy for them

Ross: Neg
- Very strange about what the alternative does
- “Reconstruction of subjectivity”
- In the end the links function as individual reasons that severing reps is bad
- No link strategy isn’t viable
- F/w- you can outweigh
- Links are individual disads- could have been a different 2NR strategy

Emily H: Tentative Neg

- Aff did a bunch of aff things: Nuclear war outweighs- don’t have to defend reps if
you evaluate plan text in a vacuum- all the links they isolate are from reps
- Probably not a true argument but is a very tricky arg

Ike
- Also voted on the PIK
- Really need framework
- Justifications on framework could’ve made a very strong case to vote aff

Rubaie
- Have some 1AR blocks- Jaime has to deal with the case stuff which is difficult if the
2NC is really hard on case
 7/25- Jake/VL v Cusick/Yamout (MAGS)
Round Report (Aff)
1NC: Cyber Purchase/Regulations CP, Cyberdeterrence DA, Ellul K, Iran PTX, Case
2NC: CP, Case
1NR: Cyberdeterrence DA
2NR: CP, DA, Case

Judge: Andres Gannon

Andres.gannon@gmail.com
- 1AR/2AR Doesn’t say a lot about US offensive capabilities
- Not a question of whether the US has deterrence
- It’s a question of being able to attack
- Explain how OCO’s impact turn the disad- OCO makes an arms race more likely- US
just needs to be able to defend ourselves- don’t need to attack others
- No need to worry about having defense- not abt other countries being comfortable
attacking us
- Aff doesn’t do reporting of cyber vulnerabilities
- Aff removes the incentive the US has to make zero-day discoveries
- Under the status quo- the gv’ts official protocol is x- need to explain how that
operates in the world of the plan
- Skeptical of the argument that the government would maintain infrastructure
vulnerabilities
- It’s in totally different sectors
- Would probably stop looking for zero-day vulnerabilities that’s more relevant to US
infrastructure
- Our government is currently dealing with that- that would happen in the squo
- The 2AC probably spent too much time on the K- need to read condo
- Could make utopian fiat/floating PIK args
- Would’ve spent more time on the CP- not a lot of in the 2AC
- 2AR tips
- Extend some of the arguments on the CP that are relevant to the DA- causing an
arms race is an answer to the DA- makes war more likely
- Deterrence means both sides are standing on the side of conflict
- US doesn’t need the ability to attack others- we don’t need
- Aff is the best way to do that by
- A. lessening the number of those attacks
- B. Mitigate the relevance of those attacks
- Status quo only gives the US OCO- running into a war with a sword or no shield
- Neg hasn’t explained by US cyberdeterrence stops cyberattacks on the US
- We have other ways to solve nuclear prolif- satellites, coop, and only we prevent
cyberattacks on the US
 7/25- Jaime/VL v Tubach/Mohapatra (MAGS)
Round Report (Aff)
1NC: Iran PTX, T – Preventative Intent, Security K, Cyberdeterrence DA, Russia
Modernization Case Turn, Case
2NC: T, Russia Mod, K
1NR: Case
2NR: K, Russia Mod, Case

Judge: Jordan Foley

- Nobody mentions the cyberdeterrence DA after the 2AC
- Don’t think that you should make “new framework bad”
- No reason to go to politics in the 1AR
- If the aff were to stop something like stuxnet there is some arg that it’s part of a
push for Obama’s iran deal
- Not a whole lot on the link turn
- Cut out the rhetoric in the 1AR
- Neither team speaks a lot to the motivational components of Russia
- Need to leverage posturing causes miscalculation- appeals to the public are far less
credible as a result of the plan
- The aff stops oversecuritization that will happen in the squo
- Could do a better job of why Russia thinks the way that they think- what are the
external political factors that are involved
- What is motivating state actions in the status quo?
- Persuasive 1AR/2AR framing of the aff: the 1AC solves securitization
- The framework argument and the alt were explained as “if we win case you vote
neg”- begs the question of if the aff is winning on case
- Needs to be a little more of an explanation for why modernization is something that
they would likely continue doing- perceived themselves of having enough resources
to attack
- Have a more holistic story
- Have some more time to recontextualize the aff stuff in the 1AR
- Change the security calculus so that military modernization means they’re not on
the offensive- no advantage
- Need a more on point answer to svio claims
- Heg transition causes Russia to be more imperialistic
- Econ collapse is framed in terms of miscalculation- use that to give you more
strategic options
- Ks are weird bc they’re like explaining your advantage in a very robust way
- Who is being motivated by what? That needs to be in the 2AC- if most of it is the
basis of political calculation- the aff would be different- make the right args stick- re-
explain the aff that cuts against security K themes- rhetoric of imperialism, war, etc
- That should be on the 2AC case flow
- Explanation of the permutation could be better- the process of debate already
criticizes- reasonable risk that the impacts are true- the threshold should be low
- Fact list needs to be couched in terms of why those things happened in the first
place- if they control the reason why Russia’s building its military
- Using that internal link turn is really good- if you defuse the reason to attack the
United States them you reduce security
- Ideal 2NR link- the heg link causes Russia militarization
 7/26- Faith Geraghty/Jaden Lessnick (MAGS) v VL/Jake
Judge: Miranda Ehrlich
Round Report (Neg)
1AC: 702 (Heg, Internet Freedom)
1NC: Iran PTX, Ex Post CP, Terror DA, T – Oversight, Foreign Surveillance case turn, Heg
Bad, Case
2NC: CP, Foreign Surveillance, Heg Bad, Case
1NR: DA
2NR: DA, Case

Aff
- 1AC- very good delivery but keep in mind the room acoustics
- 2AC- time allocation was good, flowable on case and tag
- Should’ve read conditionality- block could over-invest
- Add-ons should ALWAYS be in the 2AC- tradeoff and strategic options
- Should’ve narrowed the debate
- On overload- no one is talking about uniqueness- are capabilities sufficient to solve
now?
- Probably need to kick out of tech competitiveness and go straight for hard power
instead of soft power

Neg
- Need more evidence comparison on the link turn debate- not a lot of interaction on
either side
- If it’s true that increasing surveillance is seen legitimate- e.g. 9/11- then why doesn’t
solve the perception argument in the status quo?
- 1AC cx- Should be pressing harder on the aff’s answers- ask follow-up questions
- Stand up right next to the speaker
- Need to be louder- hard to hear you- need to increase your volume
- More difficult to flow than usual- need to be larger
- T shouldn’t be 4th in the 1NC- perceptually looks odd
- Should start your speech out faster vs slower
- The answer is that Obama sides with the Republicans and fights the Democrats
- 2AC cross-ex- be less reliant on evidence- don’ pause to scroll and look at a card on
your computer
- 2NC: good speech, block strategy was smart
- 1NR should be the speech to kick politics
- If you think that the aff doubleturned themselves put that in the 1NR- otherwise
they get cx on it
- Even if your ev is a JD candidate it has to be checked by a professor to go to a law
review
- Good 1NR- impact calc is good but have more magnitude/probability at the top
- Should have a more clear structure
- Should list off more terrorist groups- AQ and Hezbollah and etc puts a lot more
pressure on the 1AR
- Need more ev comparison on the overload- the 1AR will pivot on that
- 2NR- Need more warrants on the case debate
- Going for the CP would’ve been good- wouldn’t have traded off w/ case defense
 7/26- Ryan Powell/June Choe (MAGS) v VL/Jaime
Round Report (Neg)
1AC: Ambassadors (EU: ISIS, Russia; Indo-China War)
1NC: Legalism K, T – Domestic, BRICS DA, Case
2NC: T, Case
1NR: BRICS DA
2NR: T

Judge: Andres Gannon

- Aff’s most important arg- brightline/impossible to tell who’s a foreigner prior to
surveillance
- Impact that to what debates look like- does that mean extra-t or can’t read affs or
contrived fake versions of the aff?
- Explain that the affs that they want to debate would be artificial under their interp
- Interp is larger but at least it’s clearer- read plans that are topically consistent
- Neg: End of the 2NR is the best moment: intent of the aff is key- even if some affs
will target non-US persons by chance the purpose of the aff is to end surveillance of
US persons
- 2NC/2NR is good at big-picture T framing but there could be more examples in the
context of this interpretation
- There are so many immigration affs that exist- it’s an entire topic that’s added- those
debates are different- important to explain core neg arguments are entirely different
against the affs they make topical
- The way we read core args like terror or politics is a lot different
- Could be more aggressive on limits- a narrow set of affs is a good things- repeated
debates create adaptive and REACTIVE skills- if your strat doesn’t work you refine it
- Think about it: if there’s an aff you debated once last year you had no idea what was
going on and chances that the case neg were bad; on the other hand, you probably
knew how to beat natgas really well
- A really important skill debate gives people is the recognition that topics are
incredibly complicated- more debates on one topic means you have a much better
and informed opinion- much better way to get to the truth of the topic
- T could’ve been much more efficient in the 2NC- a little too much overview-ey stuff;
maybe get it done in 2 ½ minutes, maybe 3
- 1AR time allocation was good- good to spend time on T
- Underlimiting bad: thing about the ways the aff will cope if there’s a narrow topic- if
there’s 5 affs means that there are going to be contrived solvency mechanisms that
don’t make sense (e.g. 17 different plan texts for 1 aff like the NSA aff)
- Innovating why you’re defending something is net worse
- Aff’s arg that it’s an impossible burden is probably the best one
- Circumvention could be a core neg ground- incredibly important debate to have- aff
could distort that ability to debate it
- The impact calc/turns case could’ve been more specific to the particular aff; turns
things at the internal link instead of the terminal impact
- Could definitely outweigh the case- a. Population density means people die more in
asia, b. geographic proximity, c. economic weight of these countries are very high, d.
More nukes there, e. overlapping alliance ties
Intra-Lab 1
 R1 v Hadar/Ashton
Judge: Jordan Foley
Round Report
1AC: Islamophobia
1NC: T – USFG, Islamophobia PIC, SFO K, USFG CP, Case
2NC: K, PIC
1NR: Case

Voted Aff (lost)

- Don’t think the PIC theory was handled very well- there’s a lot of nuance in the
discussion of whether Islamophobia is used
- 1NR was good at putting the blocks together why ISL and SFO links together
- Their arg is that they’re a description of how anti-muslim violence is mapped onto
ppl
- Talk about how religious is inaccurate- wtbout people who aren’t ME but religious-
there’s a distinction between ISL (fear of a religion)- generalizing all Muslims as
Islamic is messed up- obscures racial problems
- Implies it’s a mapping of religion and that it’s a mental illness
- Do better of a job of nailing down the aff- 1AC was about scholarship and discourse
so it’s weird that they say “ISL isn’t in our ptxt”- we say the way they talk about their
scholarship is bad- our discourse shapes how we approach dissent- that acitivism is
a messed-up conception of discrimination and bigotry in America
- You don’t go for structural violence decreasing now- the neg strat would be better if
you included some pushback against impact uniqueness- there are societal pushes
in the squo that are creating changes- no reason why the affirmative is necessary-
pushes against ! claims
- Some stuff is necessary- institutional reform is now- some examples may be helpful-
gv’t reforming has generated a societal mvmt
- Root cause arguments- some of the examples were too war on terror-ish;
chicken/egg, easily described as part and parcel- focus on US islamophobia is
probably worse- go harder on those examples would be beneficial
 R2 v Jessi Mav
Judge: Nick Lepp
njl1994@gmail.com
Round Report
1NC: T – Domestic, NATO CP, Foucault K, Cyberdeterrence DA, Case
2NC: K, Case
1NR: DA
2NR: K, Case

Voted Neg (Lost)

- Not thinking things through in the case of the 2AC
- Voted b/c of f/w- ROTB means that there’s only a risk of voting neg
- Too much time on T in the 2AC
- You understand your aff really well for a high schooler
- Everyone should write down question before you ask them- have a strategy
- Got to get to the point that you’ve made your point in cx
- 2AC should argue that the aff solves Russia war- which is their net-benefit
- In the 2AR the k is a link to the status quo- link is not to the aff, it’s to the squo
- Tags need to be clearer, you're clearer on ev than you are on tags
- Good pressback on questions in CX but you need to spend less time on curtail and
more on the links
- I think this is the speech that clearly includes the most thinking because of your
ability to collapse-- you just go hardcore for no link to the K. That style of 2AR is
SUPER smart and will win you an amazing number of debates (for inspiration, watch
Jason Sigalos from Emory KS give a 2AR, he does this the best) but make sure you're
still covering your bases (IE you need to have a framework arg about
weighing/getting the case, and a util claim as a bare minimum to answer the K)
 R3 v Nico/Sean
Judge: Brian Rubaie
Round Report
1AC: Islamophobia
1NC: T – Surveillance = Electronic, Islamophobia PIC, SFO K, Case
2NC: K, PIC
1NR: T, Case
2NR: T

Voted Aff (Lost)

- Framing- it’s a question of what kind of line the counter-interpretation draws
- You need to explain why the lit base more of what they justify is more in the counter
interp itself
- Great volume and pace and very clear throughout with only a couple small
exceptions I’ll note below
- Smart T arg – the 1ac definitely says surveillance is more than just wires
- Slow down just a little bit on all the reasons islamophobia is bad – even tho I helped
assemble that stuff I didn’t remember and couldn’t quite flow them all
- Pop a little more on key parts of your ev
- Great strat on the whole – I think you made pretty smart choices with your off-case
arguments
- EXCELLENT choice to read the circumvention DA
- Good answers throughout CX – the T version, the defense of how we use electronics
to target those we’ve ID’d as muslim bodies, etc. – solid
- One good argument with the PIC is that we should focus on structural and not
interpersonal, i.e. Kundnani says he’s not as concerned with prejudice as he is with
laws that structurally oppress Muslims – phobias center on individual prejudice as
the primary mean of the primary cause of the problem and distract us from
structural reform
- You are SO good at CX/answering CX questions – it’s a real strength of your’s and
something you should attempt to utilize as frequently as possible
- This 1nr is pure fire – I didn’t get where you were going at with the Asian Muslims
stuff but it made a lot of sense and was a very bright arg regarding racially marked
bodies
- On the case – they don’t remove agent infiltrators, they defend stopping it against
Muslims – the good circumvention arg is they still make agent infiltration legal
(which the other version of the aff doesn’t) and they still could’ve targeted Luqman
Abdullah for being a black activist even if they were legally barred from targeting
“the muslim body”
- There’s also some room to K muslim body – it assumes the muslim body has a
characertistic – we say black body etc bc it’s a uniting feature but the whole point of
why islamophobia is bad is that we RACIALIZE muslims i.e. say something like
‘muslim body’
- Gotta make your partner interactions a little less obvious/intense – whatever way
you’re feeling about the 1nr needs to be something you’re g chatting and not
something you’re broadcasting to the room, and esp to the judge before they make a
decision
 R4 v Nate/Will
Judge: Christina Vitolo-Haddad
Round Report
1NC: T – Surveillance, NATO CP and Russia NB, Cyberdeterrence DA, Terror DA, Case
2NC: T, Case
1NR: CP, NB
2NR: CP, NB, Case

Voted Neg (Lost)

- Voted neg b/c not enough 1AR explanation of no link to CP
- Not enough impact work on Russia war
- Extending the perm in the 1AR would’ve solved
Intra-Lab 2
 R1 v Jessi/Emily
Judge: Kurt Fifelski
Round Report
1NC: T – Domestic, Psychoanalysis K, UN UPR CP, Cyberdeterrence DA, Iran PTX, Case
2NC: PTX, Case
1NR: T
2NR: PTX, Case

Voted aff (Won)

- Aff is able to get a lot of access on their solvency- the neg strat is predicated on
- Quality of the Zetter evidence- agencies will release data for credibility
- No incentive to hold on to it- doesn’t have to be a mandate of the plan
- At least get the perception arguments on the second advantage
- Circumvention needs to be nuanced in the 2AR
- Some warrants in the block that the 1AR didn’t answer that they could’ve
maximized
- Aff gets quite a bit of access to both of their advantages- outweighs politics- ev
quality matters
- Not a 2NR response to Syria thumper
- We did not straight turn the disad- quite the time tradeoff in for the 1AR though
- Develop more aff arguments more- has to do with the 2AC to be really fast- have to
slow down on blocks/analytics
- Slow down on blocks, make the args more flowable
- Neg should’ve gone for T
- Have to have offense against T in the 2AC- never a response to the borders
argument- never specifies who those people would be
- We meet and reasonability- very risky
- Offense/defense paradigm is the end of it- need a counterinterp even if you
absolutely meet their interp
- Judge instruction could have started in the 1NR
- Need to have some conversation about how to read the aff- there’s a weird
disconnect in cx on what constitutes the action of the aff
 R2 v Sean/Ike
Judge: Miranda Ehrlich
Round Report
1AC: Embassies (EU RX: TTIP, Russia, France, Germany)
1NC: T – Domestic, Neolib K, TTIP DA, Case
2AC: Heg Add-On
2NC: T, K
1NR: Case
2NR: Case, K

Voted Neg (Won)

- Wins some of the offense on the K and substantial case defense
- Specifically, the aff causes TTIP to pass to cause neolib svio that’s bad- props up free
trade system
- Even if the world is getting better as a whole neolib causes some bad things
- If they’d won one particular scenario on the case they could’ve done more to win
- Util card in the 1AR- ext args in 2AR were kinda new
- 2AR rhetoric was great- had there been more impact analysis in the 1AR that
could’ve been a major VI
- Neg is much more in-depth on the question on US-EU evidence
- Most likely resilient- other alt causes- likelihood that it breaks is really low- might
not have been
- Lots of ink on EU relations in the 1NR
- Great impact args on warming
- Doesn’t know if it’s true that tech exists in the world of the alt
- Correct about the China lashout- monetary lashout- nuclear option is not nuclear
war
- Apocalyptic rhetoric stuff was kind of a reps link
- K is kind of non-unique- have to pin the neg into a linear ethics DA- TTIP isn’t really
unique because of TPA
- Will never win a debate in front on Miranda on a severance perms theory arg that’s
reject the team
- Use the numbering system- keep that going in the 1NR- makes it easier to keep track
of what number you’re on
- Best part of the 1NR was the indicts to their authors
- Args got a little blippier as you got down the flow- reference 1AC ev as much as you
possibly can- look at their cards and point out their flaws
- In most HS debates- esp at camp- things are powertagged- pointing that out is really
persuasive
- Could’ve read more ev- doing a lot of 1NC analytics extensions
- Should not put case first in the 2NR if you’re going for a K- UNLESS most of your
links/offense is from case
- Bolman does that but they win debates on case turns all the time
 R3 v Ike/Sean
Judge: Brian Rubaie
1NC: Deleuze K, Case
2NC: K
1NR: Case
2NR: K, Case

Voted aff (Won)

- Very clearly extended permutation in the 1AR- answer to the counter-permutation
- Has to be some reason why permutations are legitimate- not a reason to throw out
the floating PIK out
- Counterperm does the plan as an act of joyous affirmation; perm does the alt
without the reps of Russia
- 2NR uses the same language of the 1AR in terms of the counterperm
- No reason why the aff can’t perform the aff without the threats of Russia
- Counter-perm doesn’t take out any portion of our solvency
- 1AC makes it virtually indistinguishable from the counterperm
- Empiric makes it through in the 2AR
- It’s probably a stretch to say all professors are bad/epistemically suspect but Booz
Allen Hamilton probably isn’t
- Construction isn’t an offensive move against Russia- defensive/proactive pushback
- Even if it fits within a pattern of history our reps aren’t bad
- Circumvention is a very good argument- assemblage complicates the notion of
durable fiat
- Even if you think that there’s a dropped permutation ask them about it to make sure
- Presumption- if there’s no functional difference between perm and counterperm
then vote aff
- Could be clearer in the 2AR- permutation framed as an answer to a
counterpermutation
- If a permutation is all of the plan and all/some of the alt- counterperm is all of the aff
and all/some of the plan
- Original floating PIK- permutation is a new advocacy so the neg gets wrong
- Not true- tests of the link- demonstrates that the alt isn’t incompatible with the 1AC
- Could be clearer what perm do both is/means
- Same problem with the 1AR- repeated empirics too much- just generally group it
 R4 v Tamara/Riley
Judge: Andrew Beddow
Round Report
1NC: FW, Case
2NC: FW
1NR: Case
2NR: FW, Case

Email: beddowegoism@gmail.com-
- Voted Neg (Won)
- Think that on f/w- both are strategically indecisive in the last few speeches
- Could’ve consolidated positions in ways that no-linked the disads
- Neg’s best argument- predictability key to portable skills- procedural agonism isn’t
impacted terribly well
- Could’ve been better on decisionmaking internal link turns
- State good/bad was ultimately irrelevant or at least tangentially irrelevant
- Procedural agonism+TVA could’ve been more devastating developed more
completely
- Social position framing predictability could’ve been a no-link to the disad
- Link to the main DA is resolutional predictability- not state good- important but not
decisive
- Aff isn’t explaining the impact of fugitivity beyond safe space- not an independent
impact- does it make us feel better? Need to explain that it’s a moral stance in this
round
- What does the ballot actually accomplish? After this therapeutic discussion what
does rewarding the ballot do?
- Argument should be how the moral convictions as a part of substance is bad
because voting against them means they deny the moral truth of their claims
- Can’t have a certain depth of discussion if we can’t have an internal link to
competition
- Portable skills are important outside debates- doesn’t matter if we’re not
policymakers or not
- Aff answer should be that they’re a criticism of the content we discuss in debate; the
idea that USFG does or does not do x makes debate unethical
- Take the hard-line position that the content doesn’t matter against that- having the
capacity to divorce ourselves matters
- 2NC and 2AC were the best speeches of the round
- No spillover was useful- was a little unclear after that
- Slow down and more clearly make your points more distinctions
- Hitting hard on aff solvency
- Plantation bad stuff wasn’t decisive- cooption not really important
 R5 v Emily/Isaac
Judge: Miranda Ehrlich
Round Report
1NC: Cap K, Purchase/Regulations CP, Iran PTX, T – Domestic, Cyberdeterrence DA, Case
2AC: Warming Add-on
2NC: PTX, Solvency, Russia
1NR: Add-on, DA, Cyberattacks
2NR: PTX, Case

Voted Neg (Lost)

- Big risk of the disad- faster on timeframe and turns the aff
- Don’t think there was impact defense extended in the 1AR- there could’ve been
impact analysis
- No card attached to that
- Not a lot of a warrant
- 2AR didn’t give much of an argument on how Nico did on impact defense
- Isaac does a good job spinning a specific scenario- internal link is fight between
Dems and Obama
- Needs a place in the 2AR where you attack that story and contextualize your general
argument to the specific analysis
- Story without ev behind it- additional cards- veto causes fight which means he fights
the democrats
- Ridiculous interpretation of fiat- not how the plan would pass
- Most of the story is spun without evidence- default to what the cards actually say
- Aff wins on circumvention
- Fiat that the executive doesn’t do ZD surveillance- durable fiat
- Need to do a better job explaining the aff- a little more familiar with it because lab
leading but it’s a complicated program- off the beaten path- shouldn’t assume that
your judge knows what a zero-day is
- Tags in the 1AC aren’t necessarily descriptive enough to paint that picture
- Timeframe on the disad outweighs the impacts on the aff
- Need to be very explicit when you kick advantages
- Link story would’ve made more sense if there was specific evidence to why dems
like zero-days
- Syria should’ve been separate from losers lose in the 1AR
- Should’ve been more variety in defense on ptx in the 1AR
- UQ overwhelms the link isn’t a bad argument
- Dems would vote on a different way than PC- more about elections
- Need to beat back on timeframe- push more aggressively on that- really sit on
losers-lose and drastically reduce the probability of the DA- aff is going to happen
first and is much more likely
- Needed a little more time on the DA- was a little top-heavy
- Cyberwar DA is about exploiting foreign vulnerabilities- that’s how we no-link the
DA
 R6 v Will/Nate
Judge: Andres Gannon
Round Report
1AC: 702 (Heg: Growth, Legitimacy; Democracy; Solvency)
1NC: T – Domestic, Agamben K, Iran PTX, Heg Bad, Democracy Promotion Bad, Case
2NC: K, case
1NR: PTX
2NR: K, Case

Voted Neg (Won)

- In terms of the aff impacts accessing the alt/K impacts accessing the aff- both sides
needs a tiebreaker
- Both have args about where the causal arrow goes
- Svio creates the conditions that means we care about heg/democracy/etc
- Needs to be about internal links to getting there-the question becomes which side
solves their internals better
- E.g. manner in which it shores up democracy in the ways that shores up rationality
and neolib means they can’t access the form of being that prevents it from spreading
- Framework is weird- get the 2NC arg but the phrasing is dangerous- they’ve
phrased their 2AC f/w arg in terms of the alt
- When including an evaluation of the aff- also consider its justifications- we don’t
disagree that the plan matters- that should’ve been the better answer in 2NC cx
- Not the kind of benign multilat that you want
- If they win that the plan is desirable that doesn’t disprove their justifications were
undesirable
- Could’ve made the floating PIK cleaner- winning reducing surveillance is good is
irrelevant because our alternative doesn’t preclude that- only precludes reducing
surveillance because of neoliberal justifications for security
- Alt preserves the possibility of the aff happening- in a productive fashion-
surveillance should be reduced in a different way than the 1AC justified
- Neg has done more to explain why the aff’s framing of war causes the conditions of
structural violence- won the sequencing question- framing it in those terms always
guarantees structural violence
- Needs to win external frame- 1AR has more than the 2AR- aff needs some way to
access svio, external impacts
- F/w could have been better in context of whether the aff doesn’t solve the K
- Relevance of f/w is not made entirely clear
- Floating PIK doesn’t go to the neg- not enough in the 2NC and 2NR
- 2AR should’ve only gone for one advantage
- If going for democracy= controlling impact Increasing demo prevents svio- given
what’s going on with the alt explain why an elimination of democracy causes
structural violence
- Impact calc explanation- becomes a much better argument
- Impact calc could’ve been better- need to win that prolif causes immediate collapse
of heg- undermines confidence and the international order the aff tries to solve-
there’s no way US leadership on the internet stops prolif from happening
- Forcing us to spend time on that- reducing relative military
- Can still turn the aff given how the impact turn functioned
- Outweigh the aff- prolif is a big deal
 Semis v Jason/Connor
3-0 for the negative (Won)
Round Report
1AC: ICE (Racism, Solvency)
1NC: Wilderson K, Case
2NC: K
1NR: Case
2NR: K, Case

Lab #s 19-36 – Voted Neg

Christina
- Neg is winning that ethics come first
- First, evaluate consequences in terms of the ethical framework of the consequences
- If stopping material violence reproduces those structures- in the long run it’s
unethical
- Can’t reduce racism even if it’s good in the short run
- There’s a card about funding- there’s gotta be money attached if they devolve power
to the states- that gets funded elsewhere

Jordan
- Aff needs to go for more than the generic consequentialism argument
- Speaking too much in terms of the neg vocabulary- leverage in terms of the aff
- Negative state action- removes the ability of the state to do things- aff can avoid
complacency
- Becomes attached to civil society needs a better and more specific explanation
- Frame the entire debate around the theory of antiblackness- not ontological- doesn’t
apply internationally
- Aff needs to be in more concrete terms- go back to the fundamentals in the 1AC
about the kinds of violence sanctioned by voting negative
- Challenge long-run framing
- Doesn’t have a good framing that says stopping immigrant raids creates
independent political power that allows a separation from civil society to happen
- Neg- need to frontload all the case solvency arguments- reasons why the aff’s
reformism is bad
- Otherwise it’s too much abstract theorizing stuff
- Need some ICE raids creates complacency and forms of things to be created
- Don’t repeat your overview in a bunch of different places
- Both teams are making assertions that there were things that were not
- Characterize the aff’s reform as something that recreates an attachment to civil
society
- In more 2NRs you need a push on consequentialism good/material
violence/tangible change, etc
- 1NR was a little top heavy- got the point after the first 3 or 4 rhetorical questions
- Arizona- based arguments are good but it’s unclear how much the aff relates-
delegation v devolution of arguments
- Is the fed gv’t deputizing individuals themselves or giving it to the states?
- 2NC and 1NR were too disconnected- 1NR needs to reference some of the things the
2NC is saying- the only reason they’re important is because they helped explain
some of the link and impact stuff on the K
 Finals v Isaac/Emily
5-2 for the neg (Won)
Round Report
1AC: Drones (Privacy, Solvency)
1NC: Wilderson K, Case
2NC: K
1NR: Case
2NR: K, Case

Lab 2As – Voted Neg (won)

Lab 2Ns – Voted Neg (won)
Miranda (Aff)
- Not enough work on the fact that the aff doesn’t solve
- Given the lack of explanation of the alt they haven’t indicated try or die
- Risk that both the aff and their mode of politics are good and resolves some of that
- Don’t really win that anti-blackness is ontological
- Don’t get to the level that the level is ontological v contingent
- Access disad is the biggest piece of offense they isolate
- Small risk that the plan increases access- money to go to court to sue people, etc- not
absolute- not that there’s zero access to the political but differential
- In a world where it’s slightly easier to sue the gv’t- chilling effect argument
- You don’t win they make things worse and there’s a risk the make things better
- Aff is a prereq to the alt functioning
- Adopt a skeptical politics for the neg
- Undercovered the perm in the 2NR- they’re spinning the perm in a way that makes
sense
- Link of omission- permutation resolves
- Stanley card might indicate that
- USFG should do a ruling means the court
- Circumvention arguments on redaction don’t make much sense- in the context of
military tribunal
- Lawsuits arg was OK- ACLU exists that would fight
- Pessimism breeds complacency- if their arg is true that it’s so deeply entrenched-
it’s hopeless- Wilderson is functionally nihilism

Kurt (Aff)
- Argument about ignoring the state= unethical doesn’t make a lot of sense
- Something UQ about drones that they never respond to- only type of tech that has
the capacity to kill- need a precedent now that moves against it
 - 2NR framing at the bottom: alt versus the aff doesn’t make a lot of sense bc no idea
what the aff does
- Changing drone policy probably won’t placate the masses the way you characterize
it
- Other link args are more descriptive of the status quo
- State’s inev- pretty good distinction between Trump and Sanders- don’t not vote,
just vote for Bernie
- Drones were used in Ferguson and Baltimore to quell dissent

Rubaie (Neg)
- Solvency was a really big part
- Standing part of the 2AR was great
- Fiat is to the ability to make that mandate
- Redact info wasn’t very truthy but not responded to
- Plan text solves aerial surveillance
- Not a direct 2AR answer on that flow
- Framing of the 2AR- if it’s a little productive
- Impossible to separate ethics from political productivity- big moment in the 2NR-
the way you view all that should change
- Attack the thesis of social death a little more
- Broader framing of how society and politics works- aff wasn’t very different
- Perception isn’t about surveillance writ large but the legal authority to do so
- More on consequentialism and answers to the K
- Probably bullshit that things that Angela Davis/Maya Angelou talk about are always
written from the perspective of the slave- they have social life

Jordan (Neg)
- False hope thesis
- Much better in the block than 2NR- other means of aerial surveillance
- International modeling argument in the 1AC- would’ve massively helped
- What about every single component of a democratic state is racist?
- Access to political agency doesn’t access that chilling effect argument
- Society views black people in general is important
- More ethical to reject a false hope
- Don’t couch everything in terms of the permutation
- Tried to make the aff so small that it fed the link arguments
- Lot of other messed-up stuff that happens that is unethical to advocate
- View it as “more unethical to embrace”
- Don’t have a very good explanation for how society is anti-black
- Black people are the exigent circumstance- wasn’t convinced that they solved
enough
- Framing of the 1AR wasn’t couched in those turns- very close to a coin flip- someone
had to make a connect somewhere
 - Need to engage more with a philosophical discussion of the ontological nature of
blackness
- Legality works- there’s a reason why people didn’t own slaves after the civil war
- Make the aff bigger- sets precedent for hundreds and hundreds of court cases-
precedent of the aff is necessary to prove the legal justification for not rolling those
back
- Jump on exigent circumstances against the aff- that’s the best circumvention
argument against the aff
- No difference between the plantext and the squo- people will always use drones for
national security problems
- Could say that voting negative is unethical- pessimism doesn’t overcome people
dying in the street
- Could say that cultural norms get imbued in laws that solves- alters the way in
which society views other people
- How does antiblackness function in another country where there are no white
people? What if they don’t have the middle passage/alienation problems- use the aff
to say we subsume or o/w because of international spillover

Christina (Neg)
- State inevitable stuff wasn’t really in the 1AR
- Was a great strat for the 2AR but that’s not really there
- Speaking different languages- 1AR is super reactionary and spreads themselves way
too thin- learn more about what you can concede
- Make args that are more important to start in the 1AR
- False hope/circumvention arguments- 2NR need to be contextualized a lot better
- What does that mean in the political climate right now?
- Makes who complacent? What does that stop from happening?
- False sense of security- cops still interact with them that are more violent- evn if a
drone’s not in the sky the fact that a political change comes as a result of that is
problematic
- The aff doesn’t ban drones but surveillance using drones
- Would kill with drones
- Immigrants don’t have political agency- how does anti-blackness affect that?
- Don’t talk into the table when you’re reading from your flows- esp in a room with
bad acoustics
Camp Tournament
 R1 v Kevin/Simon Park (BEFJR/MAGS)
Judge: Christina Vitolo-Haddad
Round Report
1NC: Wilderson K, Case
2NC: K
1NR: Case
2NR: K, Case

Voted Neg (Lost)

- Winning args that the state being inevitable- question of whether the aff is better
than the alt
- 2AR doesn’t really have an extension of why extinction should come first
- Embracement of what is the most ethical
- Does make sense that revolutionary suicide is embracing the risk of the 1AC
impacts- prove that they’re false by embracing them
- Don’t go through the internal links on case- get the top internal link level
- Not answering the 2NR claim that the US can’t retaliate back- MAD means the US
wouldn’t want to strike back at Russia
- Use the ballot to challenge hegemonic threat construction
- Making good headway on the argument that we don’t say heg is good but stop the
sudden collapse of heg- we’re necessary for a peaceful transition- all working
towards the same good- epistemology of the aff is a productive way to evaluate
- Alt isn’t very pessimistic- the theory of revolutionary suicide is an embracement of
hegemonic threat construction- not going to happen- roll the dice- that’s optimistic
- Spinning the aff as the fiat equivalent of all lives matter- the idea that we should only
care about when they’re dying when white people are at risk
- Find a more unique tie-in to the aff- hold zero-days against software companies
owned by people of color
- The people who would experience famine are the people who can’t afford the food
in the first place- could just go for the famine impact- disease, etc
- Condensing the case debate- concede some of the internal link takeouts- we don’t
need to win all the impacts
- The only thing you need to win is that the aff is good for people of color
- Embed a little more clash in the 1AR- learn how to make some of that clash happen
in the explanations of your own arguments- carry that over into the 2AR
 R2 v Dhruv Sudesh/Rafael Pierry (BT)
Judge: Elyse Conklin
Round Report
1AC: Insider Threats (Whistleblowers, Groupthink, Solvency)
1NC: T – Nonpublic, Agamben K, EPA/Whistleblowers CP, Iran PTX, Case
2NC: K, Whistleblowers, Groupthink
1NR: Solvency, PTX
2NR: PTX, Case

Voted Neg (Won)

- 2AR didn’t extend enough of the internal link
- O/w the impact of the DA more easily- timeframe turned the advantage
- WW/LL stuff was undercovered in the 1AR- didn’t give it as much weight
- 2AR did a good job of explaining how the aff functioned in context of circumvention
- Slightly higher level of internal link explanation from the aff
- Make Agamben link arguments more specific- belief in rights might not be the most
offensive way to phrase the link
- Link turn argument in the 1AR are how the affs are going to approach Ks- holding
the gv’t more accountable
- Take a couple minutes to think about the aff- link spin could’ve been different-
everyone’s going to say neg state action- using that defensive way of approaching it
can be better
 R3 v Max Wilson/Wes Wilson (KM)
Judge: Andres Gannon
Round Report
1AC: Cyborgs
1NC: FW, Case
2NC: FW
1NR: Case
2NR: FW, Case

Voted Neg (Won)

- Won decisionmaking- model of debate created by the neg’s interp is good fo
inculcating a set of skills- key internal link to solving the aff and creating change
- Limits/predictability- have discussions about the aff- either as a topical aff or
reading the aff on the neg
- Enough to vote neg on framework
- 2AC onwards should’ve spent more time on framework
- While the explanation on case was fine- not efficient use of time
- 2AC offense- static things are bad/need to be fluid- make that a much bigger deal
from the 2AC onwards
- Not much would change- 2NC was very good on f/w- top of the 2NR should be the
args that suck up all their offense (aff as a neg and T version of the aff)
- Starting in the block- could do more to explicitly connect the case args to
framework- if the case args don’t help the 2NR very much you need to frame it
differently- reinsert explanation
- The only one that mattered was state good/bad and ceding politics was a link to
that- make that connection a little bit cleaner- they cede the political, implicates aff
solvency
- 2NR might have to choose btwn decisionmaking and debate is a game- in the
abstract there’s a bit of tension between those two- can overlap but 2NRs need to go
for one of those two
- There are some debates where it’s hard to go for fairness esp if the aff impact turns
it in the context of accessibility
 R4 v Ike/Katie Wimsatt (BEFJR/HJPV)
Judge: Nouran Ghanem
Round Report
1NC: Inspector General PIC, Iran PTX, T – Domestic, Dedev, Case
2AC: PICS Bad
2NC: T, PTX
1NR: Case, Dedev
2NR: PTX, Case
2AR: PICS Bad, PTX, Case

Voted Aff (Won)

- Aff strategically went for an easy way out- theory debate- 2NC didn’t have an
answer to the fairness and education standards
- Time-skew- sufficient- usually have a high threshold for theory debates- conceded-
the only arg on the flow was reject the arg/not the team
- Aff is ahead on the OCO case page- neg makes a conflation w/ dedev- make a few
nuanced distinctions- military tech and tech sector are distinct
- Have a few arguments- reject the claim- was flowed from the 1AR to the 2AR
- No terminal defense on that page- mainly 3 arguments- each one wasn’t specific to
the kinds of args the aff was making
- There needed to be different offense and more defense
- Both teams need to work on warranting/citing arguments- claims alone aren’t
arguments- give way to warranted evidence analysis
- On politics- in a world where the neg isn’t behind on theory this was the right
choice- neg is behind on the link debate
- Not really a sufficient argument for why uniqueness overwhelms the link
- Can’t just say losers lose- need to cite the evidence and make those warrants
- Could have been an impact debate- wasn’t sufficient- ahead on the disad impact
debate
- The problem area was the link
- Work on word efficiency- more embedded clash
- Should use more buzzwords to indicate/emphasize where you’re really winning-
Michigan AP always starts with something they’re winning- line or two on the flows
where you indicate that- helps your ethos and confidence- make more strategic
choices
- Go for the arguments they conceded and your main offense- don’t overwhelm
yourself and go for as much as possible- you only need to win a couple key args
- Label theory as an easy way out to vote
- On case- could’ve condensed it by explaining your internal link and impact and
answering their args- went about clarifying their misunderstanding
 R5 v Alex Kong/Colesy Cotter (MAGS)
Judge: Bree Peilen
Round Report
1AC: Borders (Cartels, Wages)
1NC: T – Domestic, Cap K, VISA CP, Terror DA, HSI DA, Heg Bad, Case
2AC: Germany RX Add-on
2NC: T, Terror, Add-on
1NR: Heg Bad, Case
2NR: T

Voted Neg (Won)

- Our ev is better- some of the 2AR framing goes into our analysis
- Freewald- talks about how the 4th amendment is purely domestic- doesn’t extend to
foreign surveillance- doesn’t apply to activities on the border- which is who they’re
surveilling
- Ev about the 14th amendment is in the context of permanent residents- ours is in the
context of non-permanent residents
- Not all constitutional rights- takes it a bit further- lot more specific to the area of
surveillance
- 2NR has some sort of caselist the aff justifies- talks about massive amts of foreign
surveillance
- Sufficient defense in aff ground and aff creativity- sufficient enough to giving the aff
some ground
- Interpretation of just national borders would justify numerous different affirmatives
- So many different programs within national borders and non-US persons that come
into and out of the US
- Consistent work on extending why the aff is extra-t and explodes limits
- Needed more work on preferring aff innovation- very brief in the 1AR
- Lots of really good analysis on how Hezbollah still has the means- T is by far the best
choice
- Different case strategy- advantages are kind of nonsensical- alt causes to cartel
violence/profits- marijuana= 60% of cartel profits, etc
- Tons of industries within cartels- the entire college topic on marijuana was cartels-
even then it’s hard to win that marijuana resolves cartel violence
- Internal link is bogus- idea that the econ is going to collapse because of wage
depression/dual labor market is silly
- Be more specific abt predictable limits/topic education
 R6 v Emily M/Gabi Yamout (BEFJR/MAGS)
Judge: Mike Shackelford
Round Report
1NC: Nearly All PIC, Cyber Purchase CP, Iran PTX, Cyberdeterrence DA, Heg Bad, Case
2NC: PIC, Heg Bad, Case
1NR: DA
2NR: PIC, DA

Voted Neg (Lost)

- CP probably resolves a sufficient amount of the case
- Outweighs the aff
- Conflict mitigation scenario- framing it as an impact filter is pretty strong
- Perception of weakness turns case arg is mishandled
- Accesses some of the same Russia lashout arguments- Russia wasn’t a big deal
- Cyberdeterrence is probably true- just the way the arguments got resolved- yes
there’s a psychology and a state of mind
- Ambiguous nature of cyberspace makes it hard
- They’ve embedded how those affect our cybersystems
- Other scenarios- lot of good arguments in the 1AR/2AR to re-turn the disad
- Imagine a number of scenarios for conflicts not started by cyberattacks that might
not require de-escalation- another instance of prolif, another attack, OCO’s would
de-escalate the damage
- On the case flow- invest a little more time in Russia- extending the terminal impact
and impact framing- magnitude controls your decision calculus
- Win a comparative modernization advantage to the CP- not sure how much they
need to modernize and how much they cause a lashout by Putin
- Satellites was tricky- least developed portions of the debate- the 2AR’s claim that
one attack causes the entire system to break down is probably too much of an over-
reach
- More ev comparative work early- affecting multiple satellites
- The CP is mitigating a lot of the aff
- Getting into one institution takes down the entire satellite system that institution
controls (e.g. NOAA)
- CP- unstrategic to frame the solvency deficit as all or nothing- want strength in
terms of the solvency deficit- hedge your bet a little bit, do some comparative work
in the event the counterplan solves around 50% of the aff
- Recommendation has been recommended- Obama didn’t make that happen- would
fiat the creation of that committee- at least some disclosure/curtailment of
surveillance
- Should say “give us the benefit of the doubt on the question of what’s disclosed”-
extremely vague
- Need to say that the risk of one zero-day alone is bad
- Go for a risk calculus argument- we don’t know if Russia and China have all the
access points we have- if they only have 2 keys then there’s a low chance that there’s
an attack
- On the Russia scenario- another opportunity for the same analysis- IP theft only
requires one door- might not be metadata collection but it only tries to get into
certain system to get into all the data- if you get into Microsoft you get it all
- CP resolving a huge chunk of the aff doesn’t matter- should frame it as all or nothing
- CP keeps the market open- only the aff collapses the market
- Less is more- 2AR was a little cryptic at times- lot to get through- there were
definitely 3 or 4 places where arguments weren’t being resolved- same thing that
the 1AR- no way to resolve the debate
- Is cyberdeterrence true or not? It was easier to figure out their arguments- force
amplification, psychology, state of mind, etc
- Didn’t resolve the earlier portions of the debate
- Disad is the best place to read the card- unnecessary investment in Cushing’s quals-
better to have another card there
 Doubles v Jonah Jacobs/Ben Mnushkin (HJPV)
3-0 for the aff (lost)
Round Report
1AC: 702 FCC (Data Localization, Cloud Computing)
1NC: Wilderson K, Case
2NC: K
1NR: Case
2NR: K, Case

Ned Gidley
- Push a little more on the Farley reformism link
- Not a big part of the block- mostly apoc- aff does a good job on the rhetoric- mostly
asteroids
- On case, asteroids are a pretty real threat
- Not ahead enough on framework to view a risk of a link
- Could have used Pinkard well on the ethics portion- in that case you have to do a lot
more work
- Need a traditional impact if they win f/w
- Don’t leave warming out there- they’re probably not going to go for heg as a reason
to prefer the perm

Mimi Sergeant - Leventhal

- Neg was doing a lot better in terms of explanation but lacked in overall strategy
- Neg ballot would have been “willing to say screw you to larger impacts”
- Problem is the law inevitable debate
- No impact calc between ethics and util
- Saving future generations is important- prevent extinction through voting for the aff
- F/w is a non-starter- less generic security K thing- evaluate the anti-ethical
implications
- Should’ve used a bigger deal of the Glennon stuff on case- if the US only makes
decisions in terms of national security how odes the aff solves
- Perm debate was nonsensical on the neg
- Explain what is fluid or malleable abt contesting the competition of an alt
- Evalute impact through the lens of the dispossessed stuff could’ve been better- UQ
claim that the extinction of the black people is the status quo
- Need to pick and choose more on case- just go for K links on the case
- 1NR should only just be a defensive arg to supplement epistemology args
Calum Matheson
- Argument doesn’t make any sense- fluidity doesn’t make sense with the way the K is
read- because it’s just a straight up racism DA
- Aff doesn’t have a good reason why epistemology isn’t important
- Don’t have a good link to the epistemological parts of the aff that doesn’t matter- no
arg abt why asteroids aren’t real
- Framework is a red herring- aff read ev that the tech discussion of asteroids has a
real effect
- Aff shouldn’t be allowed to make some f/w arg- doesn’t answer the arg that the
effect of the aff lets them weigh the aff v the K
- Revolutionary suicide arguments- the aff doesn’t do anything to resolve
antiblackness- means civil society isn’t necessarily doomed
- Alt probably doesn’t solve- they’ve answered the big structural uniqueness thing
that anti-blackness is inevitable
- Best impact evidence is Matheny- makes an arg that any group that’s a subset of the
population is eliminated when the entire population is eliminated- doesn’t favor any
particular group
- Rev suicide= rev murder by asteroid
- Doesn’t necessarily prove that they’re wrong
- F/W arg that screens out the effect of the aff
- Turn the solvency mechanism for the aff- cloud computing- objection to the idea
that If the gv’t had massive cloud computing resources those would be used for
systems to save humanity against asteroids
- Improve the alt- what does it do and how does it solve stuff- needed more nuance on
the impact part