Exclusive Commentary on NFL Final Rounds

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — We will be posting exclusive commentaries of the final rounds as we are able to put them online.

UPDATE: Commentaries on the final round of Original Oratory (by Adam Torson), Duo Interpretation (by Christian Keil), International Extemporaneous Speaking (by Liz Vieira), U.S. Extemporaneous Speaking (by Zach Prax), policy debate (by Robert Parker), Public Forum debate (by Carol Green), and Lincoln-Douglas debate (by 2008 National Champion Todd Liipfert) have been posted.

Editorial aside: Congratulations to Drew Hammond for coaching TWO of this year’s finalist teams in Duo Interpretation!

ORIGINAL ORATORY Commentary by Adam Torson

The distinguished panel is introduced, including numerous multi-diamond coaches, NFL Hall of Fame members, and past National Champions.

David Gay, the chair of the event, reminds us that we began with 222 contestants, and are now down to six. The event was tabbed by Doug Tschettar, Steve Schappaugh, and Lois Pearson.

105 –- Uncle Mackston Digs Dead Animals -– Rory Squire — VA
The speaker argues that in modern society we are becoming increasingly uncivil and disrespectful toward one another. She uses the theme of animals and taxidermy as a device to organize her speech, and employs contemporary examples such as crowds trampling people to death and websites detailing cruel behavior among teenagers. She also describes personal experiences of inhumanity and cruelty. She concludes with examples of good and decent behavior to make the claim that we can choose to be civil and compassionate toward others. Despite some difficulties in the early part of her speech, she recovered nicely and delivered an excellent performance.

205 –- Harvey and Jack -– John Hofmeister — Apple Valley High School (MN)
The speaker uses the example of the imaginary rabbit from the play and movie “Harvey” (taking on the voice and mannerisms of actor Jimmy Stewart) to offer some thoughts on the state of imagination in America. The speaker argues that we encourage others to imagine for us. Because we consume so much mass media which bombards us with images and sounds, instead of reading books or engaging in other forms of imaginative entertainment, we are losing our ability to use our imagination. In fact, he argues, we discourage imaginative thinking altogether, often leading to conformity and poor thinking. The speaker then describes the positive side of imagination, including an anecdote about the connection that imaginative play allowed him to form with his mother. Finally, the speaker offers solutions to the problem, including breaking and crossing boundaries in our thinking and improving our problem solving skills by focusing less on analytics and more on imagination.

277 –- Non-Verbal Communication -– Morgan Bush, McNeil High School (TX)
The speaker introduces his speech by showing how strange non-verbal communications impair our ability to communicate. He argues that we are losing our ability to communicate effectively in the modern world because we fail to pay attention to non-verbals. First, the speaker describes the types of non-verbal communication, including examples of how tone of voice is lost in text messaging. He then describes more broadly how the digital world and virtual communication effect our interactions with each other. Specifically, he argues that because non-verbals are such an important part of most face to face communication, virtual communication can only capture a very small part of our communicative interactions. Specifically he discusses the effects of text messaging and social networking websites. The speaker concludes by arguing that non-verbal communication is what imbues words with their human quality, and help to elevate spoken communication to an art form.

216 –- I have a Question –- Alfonse Mushamba — Holy Ghost Preparatory School (PA)
The speaker begins with an anecdote about his curious nature, describing how he asks many questions all the time. He then argues that too many of us are asking too few questions. He gives several examples of situations in which we fail to ask important questions, such as in a healthcare setting or as part of the recent financial scandals. The speaker then argues that we often learn not to ask questions because we fear being perceived as “empty headed,” and suggests that many schools fail to encourage curiosity. He argues that even inconvenient questions can provide important information, and so the solution to the problem is to get over the fear of asking the wrong question.

220 –- Finding the “I” in “Team” –- Joe Thomas — Eagan High School (MN)
The speaker begins with an anecdote about the unfairness of grades on group projects. He begins by suggesting that an increasing reliance on group problem-solving, while sometimes a positive force, can be dangerously stifle the contributions of individuals. First, the speaker argues that group work can reduce productivity, because individuals tend to work less in a group setting. Second, he argues that group work stifles creativity and silences opposing viewpoints. Third, he argues that group settings can distort individual judgment, giving examples of people failing to act to stop terrible crimes in group setting. Specifically he describes the phenomenon of deindividuation and “groupthink.” Finally, the speaker argues that while teamwork can be powerful, it needs to be tempered by the power of the individual.

207 –- Whoa Be Unto Yo’ Soul –- Alexandra Elim — Plano Senior High School (TX)
The speaker starts with an anecdote about a colorful music teacher, who emphasized the importance of feeling the music and “soul.” She introduces the idea that we have lost sight of our authentic soul. First, she describes how we have lost our authentic selves, arguing that we are conditioned in schools and at home to conform and hide our true selves. Second, she argues that our fear of our authentic selves has made us awkward in our relationships, and makes us feel inferior. Third, she argues that we need to emphasize individuality and a self-directed life, and honor our authentic selves – our “souls.”

Semi-Finalists are introduced.
14. Ola Abiose –- Iowa City West High School (IA)
13. Trananh Hoang –- J. Frank Dobie High School (TX)
12. Miles Bridges – James Logan High School (CA)
11. Tatyana Burton -– Apple Valley High School (MN)
10. Tina Wynn –- Gabriolino High School (CA)
9. Breanna Collins -– Winston Churchill High School (TX)
8. Chris Moncrief –- Bronx Preparatory Charter School (NY)
7. Deepti Wadhera — Syosset High School (NY)

DUO INTERPRETATION Commentary by Christian Keil

Note from Jon Cruz and Mike Bietz: Congratulations to Drew Hammond for coaching TWO of this year’s finalist teams in Duo Interpretation!

AN AMATEURS PERSPECTIVE: DUO FINALS

This year’s duo finals were, to say the least, amazing. It was an entertaining, close round, and held six of the best speeches I have heard in my (admittedly short) speech career. Without further ado, here are your national finalists in dramatic duo, presented in speaking order:

From Eagan, Minnesota: “Because I Wanted To Say.”

“Balls! My foot!”

This piece is a tale of two characters: a recently married woman, and her gay best friend. The conflict of the story is the apparent struggle of the woman to tell her friend that she misses/will miss him. What was actually happening was cloudy at times, and it lacked some of the elements I look for in a duo: tech elements, multiple characters, and a strong moral. If anything, the piece taught that you should say what you want to say, but that is decidedly weaker than the topics touched by other duos. Overall, it was a good piece, just not stellar. The story could have been stronger, but there was good humor, and good drama.

From Duluth-Denfeld, Minnesota: “Anna & August.”

“Please don’t puke on me.”

This duo was cute. There were many “awwww…” moments, and this piece had the most big laughs out of the six final pairs. It follows the adolescence of the two titular characters, and their awkward, yet apparent love. It begins with Anna kneeing August in the face after their first kiss, and ends with Anna throwing up on August at senior prom. The two live “happily ever after.” (Awwww…) This piece was a crowd favorite (the couple watching behind me immediately declared it “at least first or second place”), but I feel that the performers didn’t have the command that other duos did. And, although it got more laughs than any other duo, some jokes did fall flat. I still love this duo, and it definitely deserved its place in national spotlight.

From Harlingen South, Texas: “The Crayon Map.”

“One day, I’m going to take my pistils and shove them right up his…”

The story begins with a young boy (Frankie) drawing his older brother (Aaron) a map in crayon, that contains talking flowers, a pond, “Dr. R’s,” and an unnamed location later revealed to be a hospital. The intro asks us to consider what is real, and what is simply imagination – foreshadowing the major twist. The two brothers are taken by the map into Frankie’s “dream world,” where they encounter the items on the map, leading them to the final stage, the “last thing [Aaron] needs to wake up.” It is revealed then that Frankie has been dead for two years, and Aaron is simply dreaming. This is one of the strongest stories in the final round, only second to “The Metamorphosis”, and I really liked this piece. The humor could have been stronger, but the drama was top-notch.

From Lakeville North, Minnesota: “The Metamorphosis.”

“The voice was his own, true, but it was as if a constant WHAAAAAAAA intruded.”

Everything about this piece was wonderful. Granted, I am horribly biased as an ex-Lakeville debater, but I truly feel that this piece had everything one can expect from a dramatic duo. First and foremost, they pulled of Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis. The story follows a German businessman, Gregor Samsa, and his metamorphosis. Gregor awakes to find himself “transformed into a hideous vermin.” He eventually dies, after being starved by his own family. The piece asks the audience to decide who is the real vermin, Gregor, or his family, who cares less and less about Gregor as the piece progresses. The technical elements (like coordination) and the dramatic/comedic elements were in a league of their own, and I truly feel like this piece has a good chance of winning. My only reservation is that there was a small mistake made: in the scene where Gregor’s father throws apples at him, the competitors said “Gregor” instead of “Gregor’s father.” It was still stellar, surely of national-champion-winning quality, and my personal favorite.

From James Logan, California: “The Wizard of Hip.”

“I brought you into this world, and I can surely [shotgun loading noise] bring you out of it.”

The question presented by this duo was, simply: what is hip? The story follows the youth of a boy growing up with his family (father, mother, sister), and trying to figure out the answer to this question. The piece made lots of family jokes and had AMAZING cadences, the beat at the beginning as the most memorable. The boy plays basketball with his dad, and his dad starts to cough after making a shot. His coughing gradually fades to a scene many years in the future, at the dad’s deathbed. It is here that the boy discovers what hip truly is: immortality. I thought that the only real problem with this speech was the off-topic jokes (spanking, sister vs. brother). Granted, those jokes were hilarious, but the piece even concedes that they are off-topic: “Now back to hip.” This duo was the most memorable for me.

And finally, from Eagan, Minnesota: “Same Difference.”

“Man, you look like Carlton Banks.”

This duo follows the first year of college for two black students from Chicago, and their struggle with societal, and personal differences. One of the students, it is later revealed, is the adopted son of two homosexual men, and one student’s father abandoned him at an early age. The fatherless student attempts to get a job in his first week of school, and once that is landed, he attempts to get the one intern promotion. He fails, which the adopted student attributes to his race. The most dramatic scene followed, where the fatherless student gave an intensely emotional speech about race. This piece touched on many big issues (homosexuality, racial tension), and was very, very good. It also had cadences like “The Wizard of Hip,” but the ones found in this piece seemed like they fit in with the rest of the story better. I could see this piece winning nationals as well, but feel that it was slightly less technically difficult than was “The Metamorphosis.”

My rankings:

1. The Metamorphosis: Clean, coordinated, perfect mix of drama and humor.
2. Same Difference: Good message, great presence, slightly less polished than 1.
3. The Wizard of Hip: Amazing cadence, fair drama, but off-topic at times.
4. Anna & August: Hilarious, cute, yet lacking the presence/polish of 1-3.
5. Crayon Map: Very dramatic, good twist, needed more big laughs.
6. Because I Wanted To Say: Lacked strong story, awkward straddled comedy/drama line.

Notable feats:

*Three teams are comprised solely of underclassmen (Wizard of Hip, Same Difference, Anna & August), and by a new rule for this year, automatically qualify for the 2010 national tournament.

*Four teams are from Minnesota (Eagan, Eagan, Lakeville, Duluth).

*The competitors from Lakeville North (Adam Bouchareb and Greta Besser) were last year’s National Champions. If they win this year, they will be the first repeat duo champions in NFL history.

If you disagree with my rankings, have thoughts of any of the pieces, have a notable feat I missed, or would like to voice your support for any of the competitors, please leave a comment below. This final round was a pleasure to watch, and all of the teams truly deserve the recognition they earned by competing on the national stage.

INTERNATIONAL EXTEMPORANEOUS SPEAKING Commentary by Liz Vieira

Speaker one: 147 Stacy Chen — North Allegheny High School (PA)
Do development and democracy go hand in hand?
Answer: yes.
1. Development leads to more open and free markets. Western support crucial to developing economies.
2. Development strengthens political opposition. Chinese civilians pushing toward democracy
3. International pressure for free government.

Speaker two: 276 Ryan Pollack — Mount Lebanon High School (PA)
Is globalization the problem or the solution?
Answer: the solution
1. Interdependant economies are healthy economies.
2. Globalization offers unique opportunities to developing world. Example of Latin american countries. Foreign investment and exports
3. Globalization facilitates spread of ideas. New Iranian culture of dissent.

Speaker three: 151 Luke Brinker — Topeka High School (KS)
From where will the world’s next big challenge come?
Answer: Iran
1. Significance in cause of democracy promotion.
2. Nuclear program causes tension in international community.
3. Iran’s support of terrorists.

Speaker four: 158 Cecily ____ — Lamar Consolidated High School (TX)
Are economic growth and environmentalism implaccable foes?
Answer: no.
1. Development of industry is conducive to environmentalism. Example of chinese industry adapting to environment.
2. Innovation in alternative and green economies. Example of car manufacturers marketing enviro friendly cars because of demand
3. International community protects environment in economic exchanges. Economic incentive to stop deforestation.

Speaker five: 250 Jacob Baker — Bellarmine High School (CA)
Can the world bank be the organization the world hopes it can be?
Answer: yes.
1. State renovation. Increase in social spending caused failure of political systems. World bank can help
2. Failed states happen because of global trade. Finance is primarily regional. Economically can expand oversight.
3. Early warning system for economic collapse.

Speaker six: 252 Will Rafey — Bellarmine High School (CA)
Are drug wars a good solution to the problem of worldwide drug addiction?
Answer: no
1. Strengthens drug cartels by driving costs up.
2. Drug war alienates drug users. Rhetoric depicts users as less than human and forces them underground.
3. Drug war diverts attention from more effective solutions. Need more harm reduction, and decriminalize/ legalize drug use.

NOTE: Will Rafey was in the final round of the National Tournament of Champions in policy debate.

U.S. EXTEMPORANEOUS SPEAKING by Zach Prax

Two quick comments before the round summary: (1) I am so glad I kept to my winter-weather gear despite Bietz tauntings, because WOW the theater was freezing, and (2) I was not particularly thrilled with some of the questions that were asked in the USX final round. I think that all of the speakers did a nice job considering that many were ill-defined.

In the end, I think that the judges will vote for whomever was best able to define the context of the question. Some were so broad that defining a very specific scope with which to evaluate the question will most certainly play an important factor in deciding the round.

Finally, congrats to the finalists! Making the stage is a huge honor.

Speaker 284: Has the US lost its superpower status?

Immediately, a very polished speaker. He answers that no we have not: the US still retains hard power, its competitors are lagging behind, and the world still looks to the US for leadership. While I think that the speaker does a nice job in saying why the arguments he’s making are true, I think more could have been done to establish why they meant his answer to the question was true – i.e. the second point is entirely focused on China, but why does the fact that China is lagging behind mean that the U.S. is still a superpower?

Speaker 269: Is the American dream still alive?

Very fluent speaker. He argues that the American dream is not alive whatsoever – the economy is bad, there is a marked decline in the middle class, and the US “has not prepared people for life in a flat world”. Like the previous two, he’s doing a nice job convincing us that his arguments are true; while depressing, I can ultimately see validity in his claims. However, I’d like to see some more contextual evaluation of the question: what IS the American dream? By saying it’s not alive…is it assumed that it can never be brought back to life? I guess I just think the odd question demands a bit more attention to its intention.

Speaker 316: Will the 21st Century also be the American century?

Relatively fluent and there’s some good quips in there too – I appreciated the humor but wish I had a little bit more time to laugh as he’s going pretty quickly. He answers that it will not be the American century (I guess I want to know…what IS the “American century”. The economy is not sustainable, there are foreign policy failures, and there are other challenges on the rise (I can’t read my writing for the last point :) ). The speech is definitely substantive, and lots of good sources being used. I would like to see some clarification as to how we know these challenges will continue. We’re told that they are long-term harms, but it’d be nice to see some further explanation as to how they will continue to dominate rather than asserting it.

Speaker 257: Can capitalism survive as an economic system?

Great delivery – and there’s very clearly some smart thinking going into the speech. He argues that capitalism can survive, but only under a few conditions: competition must be encouraged, rigid rules must be broken (or at least bend) and regulation must be sensible. There is a clear command on the issues, but at points the speech gets bogged down in examples. The first point makes a good argument, but I’d rather hear a more coherent evaluation of the argument followed by an application of the example rather than hearing purely about the example (General Motors).

Speaker 189: Yes we can…or can we?

I’d hate to see the other two questions that this speaker drew. As a whole, I think he’s doing a very good job with what he’s got. The speaker says we can, and lists three areas in which we can improve the US – education, the economy, and the war on terror. There’s lots of explanation of different solutions we could employ to fix these areas – but, I’d like to see some evidence as to how we know the solutions will work. Overall, a good speech.

Speaker 121: It is the best of times, it is the worst of times?

I’m guessing this was one of the questions that was thrown away by the previous speaker. Seems to me like this is a pretty textbook example of being forced to answer something based on a false dichotomy; but, the speaker makes a reasonably intelligible speech despite my issues with the question. It’s argued that it’s the best of times, as the US is pursuing very viable options in the war on terror, healthcare reform, and repairing the US’ tarnished image. I did like how there was an overriding organization (the existence of the potential for change. However, the issue of the economy was very noticeably absent – I would have liked to hear some analysis on how the economy is getting better / solutions exist, or at the very least something that explains why our current economic crisis won’t get any worse.

POLICY DEBATE Commentary by Robert Parker

Nats Policy Finals Overview:

The AC advocates in Contention 1 that existing hydroelectric dams are bad. This is because they destroy biodiversity. The fact they creating a chopping motion means they chop up salmon populations. Moreover, the block rivers and turn them into stagnant lakes, this is bad because it disrupts migration and mating patterns. Destroying salmon sucks because it hurts fisherman jobs, disrupts the ecosystem, and native American populations rely upon them. The plan is to replace these dams with vortex technology that utilizes underwater cylinders that vibrate and draw water into them, and harness that energy for electricity. The solvency evidence was basic cards about how there are already movements to get rid of hydroelectric dams and vortex tech is efficient.

The NC runs 4 offcase (tax disad, 2 justification args, and a politics disad) and then advantages. The tax disad argued new tech and implementing it requires new taxes. These new taxes are the worst possible thing we can do and will destroy jobs, which in turns destroys economic stability, which leads to nuke war…naturally. The justification args were that there is no reason the AC is necessary to solve for hydroelectric damns (obama could always pass a law banning them), and that the states can solve like how in the NE they are creating cap and trade initiatives on their own. The politics disad was about how obama will face backlash from unions, republicans, and conservative democrats, in that event he will need to turn to China for support which will somehow destroy our trade in Chinese tires and weakening that economic partnership risks nuke war because there is less of an incentive to not attack. The NC finishes with a series of args on how AFF evidence is Euro specific, how destruction of some salmon doesn’t translate to the extinction of salmon, a turn that chopping up salmon is good because bears can more easily digest them, how species extinction is silly because it should’ve happened already but hasn’t, and how we are evolutionarily justified in killing salmon because we are more highly evolved. It’s just nature.

AFF strat from then on is arguing salmon population is hugely important because the NC ignores the arg about turning rivers into stagnate lakes and disrupting migration and mating patterns. They go for the biodiversity impacts, and contend that nuke war was empirically disproven by the “.com” bubble. The politics disad is silly because public and congressional support is behind hydropower, and the resolution states that the AFF must only show the AFF plan good, not comparatively awesome. They backtrack and argue that their impact was never on extinction, but rather reduction of the population, and that the fed is necessary because of licensing laws. They go for creation of new tech jobs, and bio diversity args on how to prevent the specific list of harms they outline as the ultimate reasons to affirm.

NEG strat is primarily that Shell says any risk of nuke war sufficient to vote off of, and there is still a slight risk because the AFF concedes that expanding hydro will require new taxes, which leads jobs collapse, will devastate economies and result in nuke conflict because trade with china will be harmed. They contend that the “.com” bubble only showed collapse of one industry doesn’t translate to the collapse of the entire economy. Moreover, they argue that specific AC evidence still didn’t show a link between some salmon dieing and all salmon dieing, that the AC evidence was specific to wave energy so it didn’t apply, and that despite the AFF args on how the economy is cyclic – we are uniquely on the brink of Great Depression 2 and we can’t afford new taxes now. The NC ultimately goes for nukes, and moreso loss of jobs when we affirm as the reasons why the neg world is comparatively better.

As an aside, the first speaker on neg was definitely the sexiest, and the funniest – maybe the two are connected. The second speaker aff had a sweet afro (for a white guy) and the second speaker neg reminded me of uncle kracker. Also, I don’t know why this is important but in cross-x it was established the neg debaters definitely are not, themselves, salmon and therefore don’t know their plight.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE Commentary by Carol Green

Starting out the week with 241 qualified Public Forum teams debated normalizing relations with Cuba. 81 teams made it out of preliminary rounds and when the lights went down in the BJCC Concert Hall on Friday, only 2 teams remained.

In the final round of Public Forum debate at NFLs took place at 2:30pm CST between Durham Academy (NC) and St. Andrew’s (MS). Winning the coin flip, Durham chose to negate the resolution. St. Andrew’s then chose to speak second.

The Con case consisted of the following primary arguments. Within case set-up, a burden was placed upon the Pro to show that an unconditional normalizing is desirable while the Con just needed to show it is undesirable to do so. The first contention was that lifting the embargo would prop up the Castro regime. The substructure included that the money would benefit the state over the people. Losing leverage was the second contention including that it would legitimize the Castro regime.

The Pro team had four parts to their case. The first was that the embargo is not effective now and embargos have not historically been effective. Second was that the embargo is punishing the people. Third was the revitalization of soft power. Finally was the ability to collaborate on research and development.

Throughout the debate, the Con contended that it was about a strong Castro versus a weak Castro and that normalizing relations with Cuba would build military and hurt the people of Cuba.

The Pro countered with a number is arguments that at best washed the arguments about where travel monies went. It was pointed out by the Aff that the Con argues travel will become the number one revenue source post-embargo and the Cuban government only collects 22 cents of every dollar. I don’t think this was a direct response to the Con’s argument of the government distribution and withholding of salaries of the Cuban people. However the Con doesn’t say this outright in either the summary or final focus. In my opinion this becomes a wash because in later speeches, neither team recognizes the opponents fiscal arguments and directly clashes on them.

The Pro presses for an example of a country where an embargo worked. Libya was brought into the round but was never explained by either side except to discuss how long it took.

On the soft power argument, there were assertions by the Con that this was not a pressing issue in Latin America and we have great relations which aren’t going to get better. The Pro response was that Cuba is the most decisive issue in the region and lifting the embargo could only improve relations.

In the final focus, the Con focused on the increase in money strengthens the regime. This causes us to lose political leverage and strengthens Cuba. Additionally it signals a victory for the Castro regime. I wish the discussion of the impact of a stronger Castro had been incorporated more into the speech rather than the reiteration of how the regime is strengthened. The Con definitely had conceeded examples of how the people are oppressed by the military that could have been used.

The Pro final focus pressed again for an example other than Libya of a lasting concession resulting from an embargo. The economic benefits and soft power benefits for the United States were extended along with the argument that Castro would be forced to stop scapegoating and take responsibility for his policies.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE Commentary by 2008 National Champion Todd Liipfert

Before I begin, I apologize for any mistakes in typing (hoping that there aren’t that many) and want to say congratulations to both debaters on making it to finals!

After a speech from Abraham Lincoln, in which he speaks of the importance of protecting the rights of every man and woman and the freedom we all enjoy every day, the judges for the Final Round of LD are introduced.

Now the Chairman of Tab for LD reminds us that the LD tournament started out with 330 competitors and now is down to only two and thanks those who helped run the tournament in Tab.

AFF: 175 – Jake Nebel

NEG: 232 – Shivani Vohra

Jake Nebel begins by thanking those who contributed to this year’s tournament as well as his debate career.

A piece of trivia that I am sure that Cruz will love: Jake and Shivani debated in the final round of both their first and last tournaments this year.

The affirmative case begins:

In the case, Jake constructs life as absolutely paramount and the most important right in terms of justice. He then addresses qualities of conscription both on a theoretical level and pragmatic, addressing both levels of important issues of the topic. The case is well done and based on both strong analytics and empirical findings. I think that the two levels will lead to an interesting debate as it forces both debaters to address multiple aspects of the resolution rather than over-specifying.

In the first CX, Shivani first begins by attempting to determine which is more important, theoretical or pragmatic arguments in order to better construct her next speech and attack the more important issue.

She then probes into the opportunity cost argument that Jake makes about football players losing more than those who were previously employed. The result of this line of questioning on both sides is left being a bit vague and unresolved.

After the CX, I think that the NC will probably structure responses around creating a hierarchy between the theoretical level and pragmatic one. And then framing the debate about one being more important than the other.

I think that both debaters held their own in CX and there wasn’t a clearly stronger debater coming out of the first CX.

Now, the Negative Constructive:

Shivani begins with her case with the idea that rights require that we make sacrifices to protect them. If I am to have my rights protected, I must fulfill obligations to make that protection possible. As a result of this idea, we must all equally share the burden rather than unfairly placing it on certain groups of people. Her case also talks about how it is important to realize that if conscription is unjust, it must be prohibited but to say that it is just is to allow conscription to be used but not forced.

Her responses to the affirmative echo the ideas of her case which is very strong because she organized all of her responses in a very strong attack at the premise of the affirmative case. An especially good argument is her response to the football player vs. unemployed person asking why the unemployed should be forced to sacrifice while the football star isn’t. Also, Shivani stresses that the debate should probably focus more on the theoretical ideas rather than pragmatics when she says that problems of implementation can be fixed and aren’t as important.

Now the second CX:

This CX is also demonstrative of the skill of both debaters because they both are holding their ground and making answers to be consistent with their positions. However, Jake stresses the idea that if we are not in the military the negative case says that we are neglecting obligations of the government.
In the 1AR:

Jake first begins by reading potentially damning evidence to Shivani’s case from the author that she is basing her idea of rights and obligations on. His evidence is from the end of the article in which the author states that there should not be a draft. Jake then goes on to explain how both of the criterions are the same and that any violation of justice and safety must prohibit any action. He then focuses on the theoretical issues in the affirmative case and seems to be stressed for time while defending and bringing his points from his contention 1 back into the round.
In the NR, Shivani comes back strong by developing and defending her case from the arguments that Jake has made. She stresses both points from her contention as reasons that we must have military conscription as an option on the table. Her first voter is based on the idea that if one person has to sacrifice their rights then because of equality all must. This is a strong point in conjunction with her argument and economic hierarchies on the AC about the football player vs. the unemployed. Then she talks about how in times like WWII the draft was absolutely necessary to protect life and thus has to be just in those situations. Finally, she makes her third voter the issue that when we have conscription there will be less war because more people will be at risk so we will be more hesitant to participate in conflicts. Therefore, she better protects life because there is less war when you have conscription.

Finally, the 2AR:

Jake exploits the critical importance of the evidence he read against the negative case that reverses her framework back on her. Military conscription is not something to be forced but there are other ways to fulfill our obligations and responsibilities to the state. This becomes his first voting issue followed by his second voter which debases the argument Shivani makes about military conscription needing to be reserved as a last resort because he offers many alternatives that do not harm life as much as conscription does. Finally Jake concludes by stressing the inequalities that conscription leads to with his football player and unemployed example. He stresses the fact that one has more to lose than the other by joining the military and so it would be unequal to force one to.

After the round:

I think that the round comes down to a few issues on either side. Shivani has strong arguments coming from her case (especially the idea of last resort as in WWII) as well as the turn about less war on the affirmative case which went unaddressed in both affirmative rebuttals. However, Jake also finds strong arguments in his voters, mainly his discussions of the Duket (sp?) evidence that he read against the negative case and thus turned her arguments against her as well as his inequality argument that constituted his third voter.

In my opinion, I think that the way in which we decide the round is a little confusing as coming from both debaters as arguments are impacting to many different issues with the right to life both pragmatically, as Shivani’s dropped turn does, and the ideas of inequality, as Jake’s sub-point B does with the football player stuff. In the end, if asked to vote, I would vote for the affirmative because at the end of the round, I think that Jake’s responses to the negative case are sufficient to give alternatives to the draft in times of military need and that her argument about responsibility is answered by the card he reads. Then, in the absence of a way to evaluate the turn versus the affirmative sub-point b, which I see Jake winning presented in either the NR or 2AR, I default to what Jake said in the 1AR about Shivani’s observation: any violation of justice means that an action cannot be used and qualifies as a reason to vote for the affirmative. I see this at least referenced to with Jake’s powerful last words: “Liberty is an unacceptable price for safety.” At this point, the harm that comes from loss of liberty excludes the turn that Shivani has in terms of the decision calculus for me.

However, this is just my opinion and the judges could definitely (and probably) see the round in a different way. In either case, congrats to both debaters on a great and very close round!

Popularity: 4% [?]

This entry was posted on Friday, June 19th, 2009 at 11:33 am and is filed under Individual Events, Lincoln-Douglas Debate, NFL Nationals 2009. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.