RFD:
Definition Debate: I agree that the affirmative evidence has no intent to define, and some of these cards
are powertagged and deliberately misleading. For example, the Gamso evidence says, “In the context of
this case, these principles mean that just as the General Assembly may not tell the courts how to do
their job, so the courts may not legislate.” This evidence argues that the example of the courts enacting
legislation was actually unconstitutional, so this evidence flows negative. The Illinois Law Review
evidence is also says that the courts can create precedent, but not that they can enact legislation. So the
negative wins the definition debate.
We Meet: the 2AR says extend the we meet, the neg dropped it. However, the 2A does not extend the
actual claim of why you meet the negative’s definition, which I don’t think you do as per my explanation
of the definition debate.
TVA: Essentially the aff’s answer is that the plan requires the courts to solve. Solvency is irrelevant in a
topicality debate. Also, I think that only adds to the ground loss question, because you prove that the
best solvency indicts of the affirmative are skirted by using the courts instead of congress.
Limits/Ground: I think that the negative loses negative ground, specifically the best case arguments and
the courts counterplan. The neg argues that predictability is an internal link to education and fairness. I
do think this part of the debate is light, but I also think the affirmative does not have a lot of ink here
either, so the impact debate also flows negative.
Reasonability: This was really just shadow extended. There was no explanation of why the aff was
reasonable, what constitutes reasonability, or why this resolves the negatives impacts on T, which are
fairness and education.
For all the reasons above, I conclude negative on topicality, so I do not evaluate the solvency of the
affirmative.
1AC (Neel Redkar)- Clarity is super important in the context of online debate, and you started out very
unclear. I also think you should allow for more pen time, especially considering your tags are a touch
long. At times it seems like you are less clear on the tags than the actual cards. I even noticed that on a
couple tags you got faster than when you read the evidence, and you typically want to slow down a bit
during the tags and really enunciate. Record yourself and try to flow yourself – I think that will help you
understand exactly what I mean and give you insight on small tweaks that will make you more flowable
without having to sacrifice a lot of speed. Many of your tags are worded awkwardly and could be more
word efficient. You were equally as unclear and difficult to follow in the cross examination, because you
mumble at times, spoke too quickly, and didn’t really seem to be speaking to us. You were much easier
to understand during the cross-x of the 2NC.
1NC (Tang) – Your clarity is impressive. Even when you are going at full speed, I can still understand
every word you say. This 1NC strategy seems solid. Biometrics are things like fingerprints.
2AC (Zheng) – Your extension of case could use more impact comparison. You spent too much time
answering topicality, especially the enact topicality. You could have cut your time in half on those
positions and still had a strong response. Otherwise, your time allocation was pretty solid. Although, the
courts disad felt undercovered. I think you can question how political capital influences the court,
because political capital theory is based on executive action. Miller ’19 could be highlighted down quite
a bit. When a team reads this many off case, you should consider picking the position you think you have
the most game on that they have the least game on and put ONLY offense on it. That would make it very
difficult for the block to drop that argument, and might force their hand into going for something they
might not go for otherwise.
2NC (Robertson) – This speech is very light on specific link analysis. I am left wondering how the
affirmative specifically links to the negative arguments. Spend more time really carving out the specifics
of what plan does that results in the negative impacts. What exactly does the affirmative do that results
in conservatives destroying healthcare and targeting women and minorities. What specifically does the
affirmative do that harms uncooperative federalism or what parts of the aff does this counterplan solve?
What is the net benefit. I’m left with a lot of questions.
1NR – I missed a lot of the stuff you read directly off your laptop because you were difficult to
understand. Good arguments don’t matter if the judges can’t catch them.
