RFD: I vote negative in this debate.

I am told that my role in this debate is to be an academic activist and

to support the best epistemology that addresses systemic violence, and at the end of this debate the
negative offers the best epistemology.

Framework/ Role of the Judge/ Role of the ballot – the affirmative never says the words role of the
judge or role of the ballot, which means these arguments are functionally conceded. There is one
framework argument extended by the 2AR, and that’s the utilitarianism first argument, but there is not
description of why the affirmative is more utilitarian, and given the context of the link arguments I think
the negative has successfully argued that the K turns the affirmative advantages. This argument was on
the link debate, and was never responded to by the affirmative.

Utopianism

There just isn’t enough here to hang my hat on. Yes, perhaps the alternative is utopian and perhaps it
isn’t real world, but the negative’s framing is about my ethical orientation as an academic, which means
that the question of pragmatism isn’t really relevant. Also, there isn’t a warrant as to why utopianism is
bad or why the alternative can’t resolve the link arguments.

Link debate

There are two links which are pretty solidly extended in this debate. The first link is the distraction link,
which says that reformism is a distraction from structural harm, and that political reforms serve to
placate people and results in the system just re-adjusting to continue business as usual. The second link
is the desensitization link, which is very similar and says that people become desensitized to violence
because they see it as “less bad” when the aff is passed. The aff never really addresses the specificity of
the links, and I’m also told that these are independent disads that turn the affirmative, which means
regardless of alternative solvency I vote negative on the link debate alone.

Alt debate

I think the negative could have done more to explain what exactly the alternative does. I know that it is
an ethical orientation. I don’t know what that ethical orientation does necessarily. However, I think
given the framing questions this is less relevant, in particular because the aff doesn’t really explain the
warrants or impact of the utopianism argument. This is the one place you could have lost the debate.

The aff

I think there is mitigation going on here. The economy arguments make me question the probability of
the impact. I think with more comparison, the aff could be deployed to win this debate, but there wasn’t
enough push back on the alternative framing. I also think that the question of judge bias is never
grappled with. Even if the aff passes, what about racist judges? This seems like an articulation of the link
argument which says that the system just reforms to continue the same system of violence.

1AC (Bigelow) –

There seems to be a disconnect from “Mandatory Minimums are unconstitutional” to global democracy.
This is also true for the second advantage; you need an internal link between increased prison
populations and mass incarceration kills the economy. You need to first prove that mandatory
minimums are largely responsible for mass incarceration. The solvency contention could use more
detail.

1NC (diaz)

I think this counterplan is smart and strategic. The mandatory minimums link on the K might actually
make room for the affirmative to perm. Your K says that reforms are bad. The link says that mandatory
minimums are a reform. If the aff abolishes mandatory minimums then they are in alignment with
abolition, which would be a permutation argument. Instead, I think you should maybe talk about
structural adjustments and police reform and how the aff masks structural violence by highlighting
incremental change.

2AC (Hayes)

Good coverage. I appreciate the overview where you extended the thesis of your advantage claims. Go
one step further and compare those advantages to the impacts of the negative. You can also start
framing the ballot at this point, where you tell me what are going to be the voting issues at the end of
the debate. You make the argument that the counterplan doesn’t solve the advantages, which is a great
argument but add a couple of warrants. Also, you can make that argument on the K page as well.
Overall, I think this is the best 2AC coverage I’ve seen at this tournament thus far.

2NC (Arroyo)

Your blocks are pretty good, but you should also answer the specific arguments of the 2AC. You read
your framework block without ever talking about the 2AC framework answers, so what do I do with the
aff impacts? You haven’t answered that question directly, even though some of these arguments likely
apply to that question. It is your job to apply those argument and to directly respond. This speech is well
structured, and you’re making great arguments. The one thing I’d say would help is spending more time
listening to the 2AC and modifying your blocks to be in conversation with the 2AC. I like the
characterization of the permutation as a question of starting points and energy. I think the question of
political energy should be where you focus the link discussion in this debate.

1NR

Toward the end of your speech, you started to get a bit disorganized and it felt like you were less
prepared toward the end of your speech. I think you could use some framing on the counterplan debate.
Explain to me why I should vote on the counterplan, and what is the litmus for voting for the
counterplan. Explain that the counterplan solves the affirmative entirely, and that the risk of an external
impact means I should vote negative.

1AR
Give me a roadmap before you start speaking, or at least tell me what page you’re starting on. I think
starting by reading all new framework arguments is both abusive and not very strategic. Instead, you
should be prioritizing your best arguments and comparing them to the negative arguments. We are
about a minute into the debate and I don’t feel like you’re speaking to the negative’s arguments. This
speech is really hard to flow because I have no idea what argument’s you’re answering, you’re kind of
just going all over the place. You should ask yourself what the 2NR is going to go for, because I think its
pretty apparent they are going for the critique. However, you only spent about a minute answering the
critique. Try to predict their arguments so you can prioritize the most important aff answers. As of right
now you end the 1AR with about 3 arguments on the K; framework (which is new), Perm do both, and
the alt is utopian, which is extended without a warrant. This is a bad spot to be in. Answer the role of
the ballot and the role of the judge!!!

2NR

On the framework debate, answer utilitarianism! At the very least tell me its new and I shouldn’t
evaluate it. (you kind of do this at the end of the speech, but you did it generically when you should tell
me exactly what argument is new and that I should reject it) Spend more time on the alternative, and
explain why it solves the affirmative impacts.

2AR

Before you extend your advantages, tell me how I evaluate the debate. Tell me why your impacts
matter, especially in the context of the framing debate and the conceded role of the ballot and the role
of the judge. This speech feels very disorganized.