I will explain why I viewed it this way, to start off, in 2nc CX they justified their action of "anti-fragile", because of the fact that they posted it on their twitter, facebook, tumblr, and other pages, and stated that therefore it was justified. They then went on to state that by the fact that the affirmative, (who weren't used to spreading), tried to read their evidence was bad because that destroyed the "education" created, because the 1ar would then go straight to their coach made blocks instead of doing it themselves. I feel as though that the "anti-fragile" message, would've been better created and used, if:
1. In CX, when the 1nc begins answering questions for the 2nc and obviously angers the 1ac and 2ac, DON'T STATE "are you mad?", after repeatedly hearing yes, they state "i'm sorry, while smiling" It really kills the ethos, logos, and pathos of the team.
2. DON'T SPREAD, some teams aren't used to it, it is obviously unfair for them, because if you are speaking too fast, they can't comprehend what your saying, and if they can't see it either, then they can't debate it. It obviously isn't helping the purpose of "anti-fragile"
3. THE ENTIRE BLOCK, shouldn't be dedicated to anti-fragile, and the 1nc shouldn't just be a feminism K, based off the one word in the entire case "horseman" used as a metaphor. It is a timesuck for the affirmative, because they wasted their time answering it, only to hear the discussion of anti-fragile
4. The affirmative team was very personal in their discussion of the U.S and the transportation infrastructure system, and when the 2nc and 1nr then stand up and say, it doesn't matter, what happened to you involving transportation infrastructure and how you wan't to help fix it isn't important, what matters is how we debate, is infuriating not just as a judge, but as a person.
5. I wouldn't say calling people rude is bullying, sure it may be mean, but the negative team, especially the 1n, were definitely not being kind or at least have the courtesy to at least apologize without gaining satisfaction from seeing the opposite team be distraught and angered by the comments made in the round.
Finally 6. I would definitely would have voted on anti-fragile it is a legitimate argument, IF, executed properly, but dropping the entire case, spreading the entire argument, and the 1ac arguments regarding having any change means doing the 1ac, means that I had to default to the affirmative side. I did not wish to insult the entire LNU debate, but from my in-round experience, from what i've seen on the forums, I made a judgement call if it hurt the members or you, I apologize,