sfrpeterm

Sorry for not replying very quickly, I'm at camp. I will still follow and give an RFD don't worry Good luck (on what's rest of the debate I guess)

Nope, I'm good. Nice round and good luck on your rounds!

Ok, that's a good explanation of the aff. I still think you link to extra T, but of course, that's debatable Yea I get it, I just wish that it was in the 1AR, but I understand your strategic decision.

So in the context of the aff, I got the impression that the courts would overrule Milliken and then assesses(?) where there is inequality and give some type of funding to get states to comply. I bet if I read the evidence more I would understand it better but that is just from reading all of the aff cards once and just going off of my flows. I am just not sure how you somehow deregulate federal power and then allow states to do stuff. This is where I think the T was really good here because I was under the assumption that the plantext was just to overrule milliken v bradley and then leave it up to the states, which doesn't seem like it would really give you much solvency for anything besides advantage 2. Also, you gotta explain some of the stuff you read on the K, especially BlackCrit. It could have made me love your perm and believe it, but I just didn't know how it functioned at all.

Here is my RFD, I mostly just discussed the key points in the debate and how they interacted with each other. I voted aff Jon – 27.6 James – 28.2 Please feel free to ask questions and such, I am willing to reply and help as much as I can. Jon v James RFD.docx

Sorry for a late rfd, I've been out of town. I'll get the frd out tomorrow. I have been following the round though, just not flowing but I'll get it all down when I get home tomorrow morning

Sorry for not posting earlier, but I am aware that I am judging and my paradigm is on the other ODT thread. Any specific questions can be DMed or posted. Good Luck!

I'd cut this for next year's Baudrillard K At Home in Babel The Language of Hyperreality in the Immigrant Narrative.pdf

You just find a way to solve their impacts while avoiding some net ben to neitralize the adv. A good file for it is the michigan one: https://openev.debatecoaches.org/bin/download/2017/Michigan7/Advantage%20CPs%20%20-%20Michigan7%202017%20OW.docx

It has to do with being on a mac. For example, you can highlight a word on a mac using pages (I think), but it won't be readable on word in some cases. A quick solution is just to open the file in chrome and use that as a way to view the file. I saw all of the highlighting when I did that.

I'll try to have the RFD up before midnight. Great debate, I really enjoyed the clash here.

Sorry man, my laptop broke and it makes it really hard to produce speech docs. Good luck!

My paradigm should be on the original ODT thread, if you have any questions you can post or PM me

sorry for late reply (pt. 2), but yes I totally did. I think the elaboration was good and contextually fire for the round. Glad it was extended/closed onedit: spelling

I thought the 2NR was good, you could maybe have less of "this means a 100% neg ballot" and maybe more warrants? I dont think you had to close on all of those arguments, but the Rule V. Reg arg would have been good if I had warrant level extension. This point could have made earlier and would have been good for defending your brightline in the 2NR, which is "Courts is their own topic". I find that super pursuasive and you can come up with exaples such as "we have to prep a state courts CP and a hollow hope DA that ONLY works on courts affs". Besides that, solid work.