Really good and fast debate. It was definitely close. I vote aff since mourning is the best model of political activism.
Further explanation: Coming out of the 2nr framework was the only possible neg offense, since you had kicked academy, had not touched cap (you need to explicitly kick it), and the case debate was vacuous and short, partially new, and fails to answer the aff's arguments and extend your own. In this scenario, the easy way for me to resolve this round is the ROB. The aff is definitely winning their ROB since the neg's is explained differently on different parts of the flow and lacks the answer to the critical question of how I can determine who did the better debating. This means that the aff, who is winning their case, is the only team that generates political activism in the form of mourning and therefore gets my ballot. I also have specific critiques on framework that I'll do below that likely would have caused me to vote the same way without the ROB.
1. You should probably always ask some CX questions even if you know the AC or NC like the back of your hand. It obviously didn't effect my decision but using CX is probably a good idea in the future.
1. You spent way too long on a very low quality TVA. Rather than reading your, admittedly good, block you can just point out that he never explained how the TVA solves, or is in any way similar to, the aff. I've never hit a Dysonian SETI aff and without reading it I would have no clue that it has anything to do with anthro, toxicity, auto-immunity, etc.
2. The case gets very vague in the 2ac and 1ar. You essentially just list k impacts. I would've liked specific explanations of how the human-inhuman divide leads to things like imperialism, genocide, queer violence, or racism. I get it, but the explanation is really lacking.
3. Your counter-interp is bad. It's pretty strategic but a) I don't get how bugs and birds in China, are the People's Republic of China and your definition of engagement is very likely not how it's intended by the topic. I think the negative's interp is right.
1. The 2nc functionally didn't have a TVA. You read a plan-text from the aff debater's wiki that is never tied to the aff. The only connection you make is "they both talk about OOO" but OOO isn't the aff. For SSD, how the affirmative can read this aff on the neg is brand new in the 2nr (like how such a k would look beyond "Read it on the neg") and I buy that it would be a link of omission and easily perm-able. This gives the aff a lot of easy offense against framework, the 1ac, that they probably don't deserve.
2.I think you could've done much better on the counter-interp debate. Your definitions, specifically of engagement, are much better than the aff's but you don't push at all on their definitions. This made the interp debate much more of a toss-up than it needed to be. Additionally, when you lose that the aff is excluded (above) and you lose that I should weigh the aff (I felt your arguments on that were new since all you had in the 2nc is "it's about models of debate") it makes an interp that includes the aff and its vital impacts much more convincing.
3. I think as a whole you suffered from a lack of specificity. Several places in the debate you have an "X" to be replaced with something else (i.e. the affirmative could kritik X instead of reading this aff) while that in itself wasn't devastating I think a vast majority of the debate lacks contextualization.
Ask me any questions. I'm seriously sleep deprived, so tell me if I miss anything major or don't make sense and I can try to explain.