It was a 3-0 decision for the affirmative.
I voted affirmative on the perm and the risk of a self-D turn outweighing marginal risk of the whooping crane DA. This debate got really confusing and going for all the args is probably not a strategic choice out of the 1nc. I'm curious as to why you did that. Are you that afraid of Condo bad?
Tribe K- the churchill card gives me what I need with the self-D turn for offense, otherwise this almost functions exactly the same way as the plan.
Theory- Wow, this just all didn't matter at all, there's no clear story, all of it is reject the arg not the team, all wasted words here.
Whooping crane- the affs only good answer is a new no-link, but the neg needs to do much better extensions and impact calc. Your ev kind of sucks too, but I give you some risk, it's just outweighed by the self-D turn.
Essentialism-Cool, it turns case, they don't go for case, you still don't solve case. I buy that the neg links a little to essentialism and the aff also makes a homogenization inevitable arg that mitigates almost everything, and at the point where they don't go for case, you don't really solve it either.
CP- the perm do both solves everything leaving hte plan and Cp as equals and aff gains the solvency deficit that you articulate pretty well.
Any question, feel free to ask.
Alright here we go, sorry for it taking so long... i have just been super busy lately. and i am sorry for spelling/grammar mistakes ... it is 2 in the morning and i want to makes sure i get this done well... so spelling had to be sacrificed
First of all, i may not be down with the V-debate style, but it seems like a bad strategy to go for offense on 5 flows in the 2nr .... (that may be something that is only found in live debate... but is still something to think about) Second of all i sort of feel that the analysis in the beginning of the debate was more complete, their wasn't as many lose ends.... but towards the end it got a little messy
I ended up voting for the affirmative
Tribe K(affirmative): First of all, lets talk about the impact of voting affirmative or voting negative on this argument. The affirmative is telling me that if you vote for the negative that attempts at progress and solving for the genocide are essentially co-opted. Then the negative is like Hay! we solve that too, and better because we use the politically correct term... But in the 2nr i don't see any answer the 1ar's argument that their is no alternative solvency because the word "tribe" is never used. and then the 2ar points that out to me. So in terms of the K i have to go with the affirmatives self determination turn..
Theory/ perm(no one)- First of all, for me to vote on theory their has to be complete analysis as to why their is potential abuse and why that means the other team should lose. I think the affirmative is winning the fact that some time skew is inevitable... meaning that you have to win another internal link to in-round abuse or it goes away, and you attempt to do this on the perm debate but the analysis is just not their ...
the affirmative concedes he isn't going for the perms meaning they go away ....
Essentialism(no one)- If in the 2nr their had been some sort of analysis as to why this is an independent reason to vote for them it would have been game over... but that didn't happen, the largest impact i pull out of the 2nr is that it turns case.... and at the point that the affirmative admits that they arn't going for case... i am sort of left with well, this turns the case that they arn't going for?
But then i get this argument that the case turns do the same homogenization and the only real answer i get to this is "The only instances in which we “homogenize” Natives are where it is impossible to otherwise engage the aff. " Then i get some decent analysis in the 2ar about how this argument is wrong and that they do link....and i agree ...
So what does this mean: A) the affirmative wins the flow because it proves the negative links to the K as well, but since their is no independent impact to the K, i don't evaluate it in the end. or i award the negative some sort of risk of turning a case that isn't being evaluated, though that solvency takeout is severely mitigated by the fact that the negative links as well... Either way this position is ultimately irrelevant in my decision...
Whooping Cranes(negative)- this is the worst flow in the entire debate round ... their is shady analysis on both sides .... so i am sort of left like wtf do i do ....
i see no extension of a link based, warranted impact scenario....
But i am left with an argument making the claim that the status quo is going to cause the impact ... so what do i do ....
i then have a pretty much new no link argument ...
So ... i give the negative a marginal impact.... which really hurts me to do
First of all i am supposed to vote on intrinsic theory .... but i don't have any reason why that is bad ....
Second of all... is the solvency deficit to the counterplan .... the affirmative wants me to award them a solvency deficit because the counterplan must consult every tribe before it can act .... but i don't give them that because the way that i interpret the counterplan text is that the once a purposal has been received it is granted ...
Finally is the perm debate ... *sighs* -i think the perm debate is really hit and miss, both teams talk about the perm, but neither one really interacts with the arguments that the other team is making .... i think the affirmative may be winning that consultation is normal means... but the affirmative doesn't really make any analysis to the binding / non-binding difference ... and the negative makes that analysis in the 2nr... so i have to buy it meaning that they change the consultation to be non-normal means meaning that the perm is severence... but the the analysis on why severence is bad ... is just not their
first lets start off with negative offense... i don't feel that they win that the counteplan increases the ground of the affirmative meaning that it is either the affirmative wins on this argument or its a tie and i go on....
first of all, i think the affirmative is winning that a consult counterplan where it is only a consultation of someone about the plan would be very abusive. But i think the negative is winning that, that isn't the type of counterplan they have... so i throw out all the theory arguments about how just a straight up consult counterplan would be bad. But i also think the affirmative is winning that the negative isn't defending a world where they could pinpoint, and try to gain some offense ... so i grant theory to the affirmative due to the vagueness of the negatives conterplan
Round outlook- Due to the fact that the affirmative won theory that the negative's consult counterplan is abusive, but i don' t think that makes them win the round because they conceded "reject the argument, not the team" on the theoretical level ... so i am left to way a self-determination turn against a cranes disad ... (and this is where the shady analysis on the disad really comes back) i get a warranted extension on the self-determination, i get a unwarranted, essentially analytical about an impact scenario. i have to vote on the evidence....
I vote affirmative on the perm and the self-determination turn. Good round to both of you.
How I see the case doesn't really factor into my decision, but I'll go through it anyway. Just so you know, I didn't find the contention titles that amusing, just because they really weren't that witty. In debate, I think puns are the way to go when it comes to humor. I thought your 1AC had a lot of good evidence. There are a few things I didn't find strategic. I don't find your water impact that compelling, because there's no internal link to why the water of the natives is key. I think your 1AC has a bunch of impacts in general such as the ecosystem stuff and the Bullard 02 radioactive colonialism card, but it was a bit of a mess without any terminal impact. Maybe that's the way it's supposed to be since you have the framework arguments at the back. On solvency, your Hall 04 evidence didn't seem to have a real warrant for why you solve poverty, although I see how you could spin it. The Trust Doctrine analysis was pretty good. Your last contention sort of tells me that you want me to look at three impacts: poverty, genocide, the Trust Doctrine. I find it a little sketchy, since I'm not sure whether you really solve, especially since your main internal link to genocide is through poverty. At the end of the round, virtually nothing in the 1AC mattered anyway because you conceded solvency. I'll get to that later.
The strategy in the 1NC was fine, except for a few little things that I will get to on individual arguments. I think it wasn't very smart of have all of your arguments be unconditional. That's what made this debate so weird. Going for so much in the 2NR makes my decision kind of difficult. I don't know what you're advocating, because you have an alternative on a K, a counterplan, and another advocacy which was never really articulated as an alternative but became one (that's the “reject racism” thing on essentialism). If I had to intervene at some point, it's only because the round was a little confusing at the end.
Before I get to the substance, let me just say that the theory didn't matter in the end. The 2NR just doesn't do enough analysis. I grant the aff that time skews are inevitable and that you get the block, and that's the only extended abuse warrant on multiple perms. On the delay perms debate, not enough warrants were extended. There wasn't really an explanation of in-round abuse, and saying “intrinsic perms bad” just doesn't cut it. Even if I don't grant the aff “reject the argument not the team”, there just isn't enough there for me on the flow to vote neg on theory. If you wanted to win on theory, you should have gone for it.
I like this argument. I don't even know if you need the Bardnt evidence, because Churchill 94 does some really awesome analysis. I haven't made up my mind on that, but basically I see this argument as a floating PIK that solves the 1AC and any possible risk of that the word “tribe” is offensive. In the 1NC, the only answer that is responsive is the Lavelle 96 evidence. That card is probably the best answer I've seen to this kritik the whole year. I think the aff should be careful, because he reads Churchill in the 1AC, but that's never an issue. Except for the perms, every other answer is easily subsumed by the Churchill card. I don't really even look at the perms, since there's no way the aff can capture a PIK out of their own discourse. All the neg needs is the mere mention of severance.
But when the neg concedes the Lavelle evidence, the only warrant to replacing “tribes” with “people” is Lowe 97. But that's not really enough. Just because they prefer one word doesn't mean that you can't use another. But the fact that many of the native prefer to be called “people” does put defense on the self-determination turn. I don't think the Lavelle evidence actually says that using the word “tribe” is optimal, although it does criticize Churchill's approach. Most of the evidence just talks about how Churchill is wrong in his conclusion, which is still really good defense. I buy the aff's analysis that the natives themselves prefer the word “people” over “tribes”, but that's not really responsive to the turn. The aff is saying that the criticism itself is what cripples self-determination.
So the aff wins the turn, but what does that mean? There's never any impact calc done on this. The 1AR never does analysis on the impact of self-determination. Even if I buy the extrapolated story from the 2AR that self-determination is key to solving all the harms of the 1AC (which is a bit of a stretch), I really don't know how any of this plays out. The bottom line is that I don't look at the new analysis of the 2AR, which means that I'm just stuck scratching my head at the end of the debate. You tell me to weigh the turn against the neg arguments, but how do I do that? How do I weigh the implications of running a criticism in a debate round against a counterplan passed by the USFG? But, in the end, it didn't really matter how I weighed it because it was the only impact left. I'll explain that when I talk about the counterplan.
I thought this argument had a really strong link coming out of the 1NC. I don't know if it was actually a case turn, but, at the end of the round, that doesn't matter. I do think, however, that the neg links to this as well, but I'll talk about that later. Most of the arguments that the 2AC makes are non-responsive and just fall into the criticism. The aff tries to justify the homogenization by homogenizing. That map in the 2NC was awesome, by the way. The perm debate would have been interesting, but it was dropped by the 1AR.
I liked that analysis in the block and later in the 2NR, but there were a few arguments that I ended up siding with the aff on. The analysis that the 2NR makes on why he doesn't link and why the aff does is not completely consistent with your original link. The original link was talking about the discourse of homogenization, and I think the aff makes a pretty good case that you do homogenize natives at certain points during the debate. I also think that the aff wins that homogenization is inevitable, which means that there just isn't an impact to this. I ended up disregarding this argument completely.
Whooping Cranes DA
I thought the uniqueness on this disad was really good. The link and the impact coming out of the 1NC were pretty weak. The Associated Press 08 evidence doesn't really say that they're going to die or even that increasing turbines in native lands increases the risk of whooping crane extinction. It just says they might encounter the turbines. Eastern Partnership 07 says that they may help humans, but that's a far stretch from extinction. I would recommend running a biodiversity impact, just so you can have an easier time on the impact calc in the block. The debate here was irrelevant in the end, because solvency was conceded and because there was never any analysis on whether or not the counterplan linked (it probably wouldn't either, simply because it would run into similar solvency issues). That means that there's absolutely no link.
I get the counterplan, but I think it's risky. You have to watch out for the fact that it doesn't solve the case whatsoever. You even say that certain natives don't want these energy developments. After the 1NC, I was also afraid that you would contradict yourself with the counterplan and the essentialism argument, and here's why: you don't give a mechanism to this consultation. If you consult every Indian nation, how will you determine the course of action if different people present different views. Any action that stems off of the counterplan would still put the natives into one group. Since you spun the essentialism argument as a discourse turn, that's something you need to be prepared for.
The counterplan solves listening to Native American views, not necessarily the case itself. There's that Haskew 2000 evidence on how listening to the natives is important to self-determination. I buy that, even though you don't impact the concept of self-determination either. There's a lot of new analysis from the aff in the last speech here. I only look at what was in the 1AC. The solvency deficit stuff was irrelevant because of how the solvency debate came out. The “perm do the counterplan” didn't make sense. It was complete severance out of the plan, and the neg answers that well in the 2NR. The counterplan and the plan are completely different, even to the point where the counterplan doesn't actually increase alternative energy. Also, even if I grant the aff the whole textual competition thing, I really don't see where it's going. At the point where the neg actually still have a USFG action that does something, I'm not going to reject it for that reason.
But then I look to “perm do both”, and the aff seems to be doing well here. The only thing extended by the neg is that intrinsic perms are bad, but there is no warrant extended with it. I err aff, and I decide that intrinsic perms are okay. This is where the whole competition issue could have come in, but I decided that it wasn't really all that important. So the aff gains the counterplan as the only bit of solvency for self-determination. The neg also gets that (it's the same, because there was no disad extended to the perm). This means that you guys are tied on what you actually accomplish through the USFG.
Those cards in the 1NC on solvency were great. The 1AC solvency contention was pretty weak, so I was really hoping that the aff would come back in the 2AC with something strong. The 2AC actually did some okay analysis. I'm not really going to go into it, because, at the end of the round, both of you agree that the plan won't solve anything or lead to more wind turbines. That also means that the case turns are also irrelevant because turbines aren't build. I might have been able to grant the neg the colonialism turn, except that the warrants weren't extended in the last speech.
This isn't really an impact evaluation as much as it is a simple breakdown of what I see at the end of the round. I see two worlds. Here's the world of the aff: a plan that does nothing, another plan that solves, the use of the word “tribe” in a debate round that might do something. Here's the world of the neg: a counterplan that solves, a Churchill card that might be somewhat bad. Functionally the aff and the neg achieve the same thing, but it's that darn Churchill card that sways me to vote aff.