Ok so this debate was suuuper close, I took me about 6 months to make my decision lol. Let it be known I’m not the biggest k debater but I tried to adjust for this round. I also tried to narrow the RFD to some of the main points in the round.
Surveillance T- I really think that extra topicality argument should’ve been flushed out A LOT more. I think that if that was brought up through the entire debate and the neg argued against the “colonial discussions are a priori” point, I would’ve pulled the trigger on that. I totes buy that there’s some surveillance that the corporation will do when mining, but I think most of the aff’s solvency is based off something that is not surveillance.
Its T- Again when the aff makes a huge prior question argument and it mostly gets dropped, it’s hard to vote on it. Even though the LBL by the neg was awesome and I buy that there was abuse, not answering the prior question would’ve made it hard to vote on this.
K- Not a lot I can I say on this, aff definitely won the k and crossed applied it to the T to make the prior issue.
Solvency- So I buy that the XO can indeed be used to secure spiritual significant lands for Native Americans not just to create monuments, but I also buy the fact that they aren’t effective, like the Eisenhower one. But I don’t think it’s a big enough solvency take out to win the round. If you made the Cap/circumvention turn bigger in the beginning talking about the super backlash it would have and along with it creating more racist policies in the future, it would’ve gutted solvency. But since it wasn’t as big from beginning to end I think neg wins that they stop this form of capitalism.
The debate came down to two main arguments though (had a hard time figuring out who won these):
Mining Turn/ Poverty DA- First of all I think that if you’re going to run a case based around the destruction of Native Americans homes and Culture, the aff should be just about that. It felt a bit weird when the aff said there was a genocide to the environment as well. But anyway, I think that the aff does a good job extending the Lydford and McConell evidence, explaining how there wouldn’t be much econ benefits coming from the mining. Something I wish the aff did was explain that even if there some jobs made, as soon as the mining is done, they will not have a job AND also have no land. And I think that the aff addresses the McAuliff evidence pretty well, theyre literally blowing stuff up, toxins going into the water is bad. Maybe they don’t want it to happen but it’s going to anyway
UN CP- I think time frame is probably one the main reason I have to give it to aff, their evidence is pretty concrete about how the next coming months will determine what happens with the land exchange. Even if we fiat that the UN gets control immediately, I don’t see either actors working with eachother fast enough to solve the problems. I don’t see an impact actually coming from the CP as well, I think the aff did OK enough on the trade off to show that there are too many other factors that will hurt the credibility. And I kind of see the CP biting the K just a bit, enough to see that circumvention would probably be worse when you have the two actors attempting to work together.
So at the point where both teams agree that “what’s best for the Native American Tribe” is the main criteria for voting, I vote aff on the case solving some of the impact that Rio Tinto would have on the land. If there are any questions (even though this debate is kind of old) I will surely answer them. Sorry for this being so late.