Wisconsin Forensics Daily

Congrats to Bill and the guys!!! Well done!

By Andy Nolan on Dec 8, 2007

Yes, awesome job Garret, Joey and especially Bill. It’s awesome that we won state this year.

By Jacob Swan on Dec 8, 2007

Great job to the gentlemen from Marquette; it was a great final round that I felt showed off some of WI debate’s best talents. It was a fun, exciting, and great season.

–Jon

By Jon Voss on Dec 9, 2007

I’d like to cross-apply this to all the state posts…

Thanks and Congrats to Mike Traas, Bill Batterman, Kay Neal, Chuck Malone and everyone else who had a hand in running the WSDT! It was efficient and relaxed at the same time. That’s not easily accomplished.

By John Knetzger on Dec 9, 2007

Congratulations boys! It’s great to see Marquette doing well in each division. You guys deserved it.

By Nolan Wanecke on Dec 9, 2007

Congrats Marquette!

Can judges/coaches post an explanation of what happened in the round? I really loved it last year when judges posted their decisions on WFD from the state finals round.

By Candace Kissinger on Dec 9, 2007

I was obviously not *judging* the round, just watching.

Marquette’s 1ac gave water-based assistance to Somaliland, which the Hilltoppers claim helps the CJTF fight terrorism and promotes democracy abroad.

Sheboygan’s 1nc strategy involved a couple of topicality violations, a politics disadvantage relating to the Armenian Genocide Resolution, a Diplomatic Capital argument specific to the Nagorno-Karabakh region, and a counterplan to establish a MEDFLAG operation in Somaliland while simultaneously banning the CJTF.

The 2NR went for topicality.

By Jon Voss on Dec 9, 2007

I judged the final. I voted Affirmative for Marquette. This is how I saw the round.
The 1NC topicality violation said that the Counter-Terrorism Joint Task Force works in Sub-Saharan Africa, and also in Yemen (which is not part of Sub-Saharan Africa). Sheboygan claimed that the use of the Counter-Terrorism Task Force by plan action was outside of the limits of the resolution, and since Marquette was claiming a terrorism advantage through the use of the Joint Task Force that any claim to this is outside of the resolution-ruining any predictability that could be gained.
Marquette threw out a couple we meets, that plan on face gives aid to Somaliland only. Marquettes counter-interpretation was that Aid has to be within Sub-Saharan Africa, but not throughout. Marquette says that Effects is inevitable, and that the Negative never specificies the amount of steps a plan would need to take to be untopical.
The 1AR extends the we meets and indicts the negative standard debate. He also extends that effects is inevitable and there is no disctinct brightline between the amount of steps needed to make one plan effectual.
The 2NR concedes that effects is inevitable, but argues that any in-round abuse because of effects should be a voter in any round. The 2NR goes for predictability and ground loss, also extends effects bad and the voters.
2AR extends the we meet, says to look to plan text only, and says that there is no in round abuse-so effects shouldnt be a voter, also extends that I cant vote on potential abuse.

Plan text says that the United States Federal Government should increase public health assistance by providing water assistance to Somaliland.
I vote affirmative because I think that plan text on face meets the negative Interpretation, moreover I think that the negative interpretation is more of an indictment of the affirmative advantage instead of the plan text on face. I also think that there is not an effective answer to the inevitability of effects and no actual in round abuse arguments.

That being said, I did relay to the negatives that had the 2NR gone for the Diplomatic Capital Disad, I wouldve signed the ballot negative right then as the 2ac answers were specific to a relations disad instead of a diplo cap disad.

Congratulations to Sheb and Marquette. Both of these teams had an amazing tournament and should be extremely proud of themselves.
I think this tournament is an indication of the bright future for Wisconsin Debate. Tim and Laurel are two outstanding debaters, who have great personalities outside of the rounds–they should be proud of going 6-0 in prelims as JUNIORS!
Additionally, Ive only interacted with the Marquette boys a couple times this year, but from those interactions I can see that those two are very intelligent kids with great futures in front of them.

By Matt Olson on Dec 9, 2007

2007 Wisconsin State Debate Tournament

VSS Final Round

Marquette BF (aff) vs. Sheboygan North KM (neg)

First Affirmative: Garrett Fields First Negative: Laurel Mills

Second Affirmative: Joe Balistreri Second Negative: Tim Knoedler

I was one of the five judges on the panel for the VSS Final Round at the 2007 Wisconsin State Debate Tournament. It was an honor to be a member of that judging panel, and it was my privilege and pleasure to judge the final round. It was a great debate—Garrett and Joe, Laurel and Tim—you should be proud of that round, not “just for getting there” after seven grueling, intense VSS debates in two days, but for the round on its own merits. In this round both teams were friendly to each other but focused on the task at hand. Each speaker gave two solid speeches relying good analytics and recent, specific evidence. In my opinion, the quality of each team’s presentation and arguments demonstrated (almost) everything that is good about VSS debate in Wisconsin. Both teams have represented, and will continue to represent, Wisconsin and Wisconsin debate well at regional and national tournaments this year.

The teams’ coaches, Bill Batterman of Marquette and Chad Stauber-Soik and Jon Voss of Sheboygan North, and their coaching assistants, deserve to be commended for their teams’ preparation, the quality of their arguments and presentation, and the recency and specificity of their teams’ evidence. You all did a great job. So too did tournament director Mike Traas, operations director Bill Batterman, tournament host Eric Van Ert, Nick Bubb and the volunteers in the tab room, Chuck Malone and Kay Neal of the WHSFA, and Laura Maly and Adam Jacobi of the WDCA. The tournament moved quickly, rounds came out fast, there were good rooms to use close to the tab room (which is essential in VSS), and all the teams I judged seemed to both have a good time and get a lot out of each round.

I voted for the affirmative team from Marquette. In the following two posts I provide my comments on the round and the explanation of my decision. I broke them into two posts for what will become obvious when you read them. I hope that I have managed to get these posted quickly enough so that they are useful—I guess I’m slow with ballots and decisions even after the fact. The first of these two posts is what I call my “narrative ballot.” In the narrative ballot I wrote out the arguments in the round and provided comments (in Italics, which I don’t like but saw no easy way around using) in places. This is essentially a written rendering of my flow and the comments portion of my handwritten ballot, condensed and adjusted for narrative clarity. Anyone who has suffered through one of those knows what I mean. And I am now one of those who have so suffered, because as I was writing the narrative ballot I looked at the third (pink) ballot copy and had a difficult time making out what I had written. Hopefully this will be easier to follow than that was and contain fewer spelling errors. The second post contains the actual decision and my explanation of it. Of both I can only apologize for the delay in posting them and hope that they are not too long. If anyone would like either or both of the following posts as MS Word documents, email me and I’ll be happy to send them to you in that format.

David Henning

December 13, 2007

By David Henning on Dec 13, 2007

2007 Wisconsin State Debate Tournament

VSS Final Round—Narrative Ballot

Marquette BF (aff) vs. Sheboygan North KM (neg)

First Affirmative: Garrett Fields First Negative: Laurel Mills

Second Affirmative: Joe Balistreri Second Negative: Tim Knoedler

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa.

I think Sheboygan North won the coin toss and elected to negate

First Affirmative Constructive—1AC

Marquette began the debate by presenting their water assistance to Somaliland affirmative. Somaliland is located in the Horn of Africa, east of Ethiopia and southeast of Djibouti, directly south of Yemen across the Gulf of Aden, essentially the top third of Somalia. Somaliland declared independence from Somalia in 1991 after the Somalian central government collapsed. Despite conflicts over border regions with Ethiopia, the semiautonomous region of Puntland and Somalia itself, Somaliland is essentially politically and socially stable. The Republic of Somaliland features a democratically-elected government, little inter-tribal strife and a moderate Islamic society. Currently the United States does not recognize Somaliland as a nation or autonomous region.

Marquette’s plan increases water assistance to Somaliland. Marquette claims two advantages, democracy and terrorism, and says that increasing water assistance improves public health and health infrastructure in Somaliland. Improved public health in Somaliland will save 70,000 people a year who die from cholera, improved health and health infrastructure will decrease terrorist recruitment in Somaliland and decrease terrorism overall, and legal recognition of the Republic of Somaliland will strengthen Somaliland’s democracy and increase democracy throughout the region.

Marquette claimed that water assistance to Somaliland would enable diplomatic contact and then American, regional and international recognition of Somaliland. An independent Somaliland would be “the beacon of democracy to the Arab world,” encouraging other nations in the region to become democratic. The transition to democracy would stabilize the region and prevent a conflict from breaking out there, a conflict that could end in nuclear war.

Marquette also claimed that the US providing water aid would bring Somaliland into the Combined Joint Task Force, which is key to fighting terrorism in the Horn of Africa. The Horn of Africa is the next front in the War on Terror (how I hate that phrase—it’s like responding to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by calling World War II the War on Surprise Attacks), and on that new front Somaliland is crucial. Failure to fight terrorism here (in Somaliland and/or the Horn of Africa) will lead to international conflict that would draw the US in, resulting in nuclear war and the end of human civilization.

First Negative Constructive—1NC

Sheboygan North countered with two topicality challenges, two disadvantages and a counterplan. Sheboygan North claimed that the resolution mandates aid to nations in sub-Saharan Africa, and Somaliland is not a nation because the US and others do not recognize it as such. Sheboygan North’s second topicality challenge argued that the plan brought Somaliland into the Combined Joint Task Force, a group that includes Yemen, which is across the Gulf of Aden and on the Arabian peninsula, thus not in sub-Saharan Africa. Giving aid to Yemen would explode the topic and justify giving aid to anyone. This would destroy predictability and negative ground, prevent the negative from running DAs and other arguments, and eliminate topic-specific education.

Two disadvantages followed. The first was a politics disadvantage involving the Armenian Genocide resolution. Congress will soon pass a resolution declaring the 1915 massacre of Armenians by Turkey (actually the Ottoman Empire in its last days) a genocide. President Bush has just enough political capital to prevent this resolution from passing, but since political capital is finite, doing the affirmative plan would cost Bush the political capital necessary to stop Congress from passing the resolution. Passing the Armenian Genocide resolution angers Turkey, a key ally in the War on Terror, hindering American efforts in Iraq. If the US is not successful in Iraq, Kurdistan will secede from Iraq, which collapses into even greater violence and xenophobia. Turkey’s involved, the US is involved, terrorists are involved, and nuclear weapons are used (by the terrorists), resulting in a larger nuclear war. I’m pretty sure that the Armenian Genocide resolution was passed by the House a little while ago. Bush even used it to complain that Congress just wastes time. I don’t know about its fate in the Senate. After further review I was wrong about the passage of the Armenian Genocide resolution. It turns out that the House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed the Armenian Genocide resolution (H. Res. 106) by a vote of 27 to 21 in October, but the full House has yet to take any action on it.

The second disadvantage was diplomatic resources tradeoff with the Ngorno-Karabakh peace process. Ngorno-Karabakh is a quasi-independent ethnic Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan. Armenia and Azerbaijan fought a war over Ngorno-Karabakh from 1991-1994 that resulted in a “free” and ethnically-cleansed Ngorno-Karabakh. The region is currently occupied by Armenian and Ngorno-Karabakh troops, who also control several adjacent Azerbaijani territories. Azerbaijan and Armenia have been close to war for some time, and now have a militarized border with frequent skirmishes. There are serious efforts underway to resolve this conflict, and the US plays a (or even the) key part in that process. But diplomatic resources are limited, and the affirmative plan takes away resources and focus from other issues, such as the Ngorno-Karabakh peace negotiations. And those negotiations are essential, because failure to solve the conflict will result in war. In the previous war former Afghanistan and Chechen mujaheddin fought for Azerbaijan against the predominantly Christian Armenian army. Conflict here could quickly draw Russia in, through terrorist attacks in Ngorno-Karabakh, Armenia or Russia, possibly involving smuggled nuclear weapons from Pakistan, North Korea or elsewhere. Russian involvement in this war would quickly become nuclear, although that war would not necessarily involve the United States

Sheboygan North’s counterplan established a US Med Flight base (a sanitation base?) in Somaliland. This would be done by the US military, through force, at a “reasonable cost.” Sheboygan North claimed this would not be topical action, that any permutation would kill the counterplan, and the net benefit was that Somaliland was a perfect site for a US military base. At least that’s what I think they claimed. This counterplan was difficult to follow. It was never clear exactly what the counterplan did. Do the negatives have the US invade Somaliland or just pressure Somaliland for a military base? Does the counterplan solve for health claims the affirmative presented in 1AC? I’m not sure what the benefit of a US base is—I’m pretty sure the negative wanted to claim that it helped the Combined Joint Task Force fight Al-Qaeda and thus achieve the terrorism advantage that the affirmative claimed, but that was never articulated. Unclear delivery further added to the counterplan’s ambiguity.

The first negative speaker also had one argument against the Terrorism advantage on case, that the affirmative can’t solve for terrorism in Africa,

Second Affirmative Constructive—2AC

Marquette’s second affirmative speaker began his speech by answering Sheboygan North’s topicality challenges. On the topicality challenge “Somaliland is not a nation,” 2AC had 11 answers. 2AC says aff meets neg definition, because the plan also improves public health in Ethiopia, which is a nation in sub-Saharan Africa. 2AC says Somaliland has a clear governmental structure and has US government support, which makes it a nation. Finally, 2AC argues that the negative’s focus on borders and definitions of nations is colonialistic. 2AC then gives three almost incomprehensible responses along the lines of “we’re not effects topical,” “effects are inevitable” and “effects are arbitrary.” These three responses would form the basis of much of 2AR’s argumentation on effects topicality.

On the second topicality challenge, aid to Yemen, Marquette’s second affirmative had three arguments of substance before putting out three blurbs on standards. Marquette argued that they do not give aid to Yemen, presented a counter-definition, claimed that Somaliland is within the boundaries of sub-Saharan Africa, and then said something about nation-specific topicality challenges. Clarity was an issue, especially on the three points on standards, which were “limits,” I didn’t get the second one, and “negative interpretation increases research burden.” This is why I stress speaker clarity and give speakers “clear” warnings. Analytics, especially topicality analytics, such as violations, standards, interpretations and the like, are difficult enough to flow (or explain) in the two or three sentences they consist of, and you don’t want to make it any harder for the judge(s) to get them down by speaking unclearly.

Marquette had 11 answers to the first disadvantage, Politics/Armenian Genocide resolution. These were of the standard DA takeout variety—Bush has no political capital, Bush is open to spending on lots of issues, case outweighs and that the affirmative solves the terminal impact of the DA. 2AC also argued that Somaliland is essential to democracy in the Muslim world and is the key to global democracy.

On the Ngorno-Karabakh diplomatic resources trade-off disadvantage the second affirmative presented short, standard DA takeouts—non unique, Bush is involved in Africa now, Bush is spending money now, no internal link—and then 2AC reads a five-response block on Russian relations. 2AC says that Russia cares about the affirmative plan, that Afro-Russian relations counter revolutions in Africa, that negative evidence about US-Russian relations is old and still in the Cold War mentality, that there is no impact to Russian relations, and it prevents “ ??? to evolve.” There was a clarity issue with that last response. This is the wrong block to read against this disadvantage, the thesis of which is that US diplomatic resources are limited and that plan forces a prioritizing of resources that means the end of US efforts to reach a peace settlement in Ngorno-Karabakh. The link for this DA has nothing to do with Russia or relations with Russia. Only the impact mentions Russia, which becomes involved in a nuclear conflict when peace talks break down and a new war breaks out.

On the Med Flight/sanitation counterplan, the second affirmative once again had 11 responses, all of the standard variety. 2AC responded with “perm, do both,” counterplan links to the DAs, something about US forces in the Middle East and nuclear war, that the affirmative solves for the CP’s net benefit with the terrorism advantage, negative evidence is bad, CP has no solvency mechanism, and a couple of one-line blurbs.

Second Negative Constructive—2NC

Going into Sheboygan North’s negative block, case was untouched except for the one response on the terrorism advantage, and the 2AC had covered 1NC’s arguments pretty well, except for the Russian relations mistake on the Ngorno-Karabakh disadvantage.

The second negative announced that he will cover both topicality challenges and the counterplan in his constructive speech. The second negative immediately kicks out of the first topicality challenge, Somaliland is not a nation. 2NC says OK, Somaliland is a nation, so this topicality goes away. 2NC also had one response to the 2AC colonialism turn, arguing that this turn is predicated upon border issues and definitions of what is and isn’t a nation, and that since the negatives now grant that Somaliland is a nation, this turn doesn’t apply.

The 2NC spends a little over five minutes on the second topicality challenge, Yemen is not in sub-Saharan Africa. Before getting to the line-by-line refutation of the 2AC, 2NC had a six point overview. 2NC says that under this topic you can only give aid to sub-Saharan Africa, and that the Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) that the affirmative talks about in 1AC is made up of ten nations, including Yemen. Yemen is not in Africa. 2NC says that this puts the affirmative in a double-bind. Either they can do their plan, as it is, including Yemen, and solve for the terrorism advantage yet be non-topical, or they can be topical and leave Yemen out, but then they can’t solve for terrorism. 2NC also states that an interpretation of the topic that allows for Yemen to be included in sub-Saharan Africa justifies an affirmative giving aid to whatever group or nation(s) the affirmative wanted to, anywhere in the world.

2NC then proceeds to the line-by-line. Where 2AC said they don’t give aid to Yemen, 2NC responds that the CJTF includes Yemen. Where 2AC gave a counter-interpretation that Somaliland is within sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), 2NC applies the double-bind from the overview. 2NC says that at best the affirmative is effects topical, since they only get topical solvency through non-topical action, namely aiding Yemen through the CJTF and thereby solving for terrorism. 2NC then gives 11 responses (it seems 11 responses is the number to give in this debate for some reason) on why the topic needs to be limited. These are the standard ones—topic is broad enough, research burden, education. 2NC also argues that effects topicality is not inevitable, that it’s a question of degree, that the terrorism advantage stems from Yemen, and that the affirmative’s entire interpretation that this is not outside of SSA, is abusive. Despite all these answers, I never really hear that topicality (or effects topicality) is or should be a voting issue.

2NC had about two and a half minutes to cover the counterplan, and started with a six-point overview. The CP solves 100% of case, Med Flights will have the same effects as the affirmative plan, and that the CP has the perfect time frame for action, compared to the affirmative’s too-fast approach. 2NC also argues that the CJTF will fail in Somaliland. 2NC then begins the line-by-line by addressing 2AC “perm, do both.” 2NC says the affirmative cannot sever anything from their plan, and they cannot just permute their plan to ban the CJTF, because if you ban the CJTF the aff cannot achieve solvency on their terrorism advantage. 2NC then claims that severability should be a voting issue, for “fairness, because they don’t test the counterplan and predictability.” I’m not sure what that means, but that is more than I got on why topicality should be a voting issue. 2NC then claims that Med Flights are needed to solve for the affirmative case harms, that Med Flight operations will provide stability for Somaliland and are thus key to solvency, and that Med Flights would train medics who would train Africans to do the affirmative (purify their water). Finally, 2NC responds to 2AC’s claim that the counterplan has no solvency mechanism by claiming that Med Flights are the key to American soft power, and that the affirmative’s own evidence says CJTF should not be expanded, that it’s “perfect” right now.

First Negative Rebuttal—1NR

Sheboygan North’s negative block continued with the first negative rebuttal. 1NR would cover both disadvantages and the one solvency answer on the terrorism advantage in her speech. 1NR kicks out of the political capital/Armenian Genocide Resolution disad. Bush has no political capital, none, claims 1NR when agreeing to an affirmative take-out, so we’re out of the disadvantage. 1NR says there are no turns on it, so it goes away. 1NR will spend almost the entire rebuttal on the Ngorno-Karabakh disadvantage. A few observations here. Overall this was a very solid speech. What was a reasonable division of labor between the 2NC and 1NR became much better when the 1NR conceded the Politics/Armenian Genocide Resolution disadvantage. But 1NR is wrong when she says there are no turns on it. I see two turns from the 2AC here, that Somaliland is key for democracy in the Muslim world and that Somaliland is the key to global democracy. Had 1AR extended them they could have been critical in the round. Kicking out of a disadvantage (called “punting it” back in my day) to focus all your efforts on another disadvantage that you believe you have a better chance of winning is very smart. This helps the negatives extend their favorable time tradeoff with the affirmative—aff spent time on the not a nation topicality challenge and on the Armenian Genocide resolution disadvantage. Getting rid of those with a few lines allows the 1NR to multi-point 2AC answers on the disadvantage they will go for. This is again a favorable time trade-off, and it puts a great deal of pressure on the 1AR to adequately cover all your answers plus those of your partner on the arguments covered in 2NC. But you must be certain that there is nothing out on whatever it is you are punting that can come back and hurt you. And a smart 1AR looks for those sorts of dropped arguments to generate some offense in the 1AR, which is often a very defensive speech.

The 1NR then proceeded to the Ngorno-Karabakh disadvantage. A side note here—winning the battle of the name of your disadvantage (or CP or K) is a subtle yet crucial tactic. Never call your argument whatever the other team calls it. In this round Sheboygan North referred to this disadvantage as Ngorno-Karabakh while Marquette called it dip-cap (diplomatic capital). Calling the DA Ngorno-Karabakh helps it stand out from traditional trade-off DAs and brings to mind the war that could break out “within days,” whereas calling it dip-cap diminishes the argument to just one or another sort of bland trade-off disadvantage. Sheboygan North held serve and hence I refer to the DA as Ngorno-Karabakh. Additionally, if you can get the other team to refer to their own arguments by the terms you use (or they start doing so on their own) you’re part way home to winning that argument. Just make sure that the judge(s) know which arguments you are referring to.

1NR presented an eight point overview on the disadvantage before proceeding to the line-by-line. 1NR explained that there is a temporary peace in Ngorno-Karabakh now that is only sustainable with US diplomatic power. US influence is key to peace in Ngorno-Karabakh, but due to limited resources human rights policies trade off with each other and with other such policies, like the affirmative plan. A trade-off, even a small one, resulting in diminished US influence in the Ngorno-Karabakh peace process would have catastrophic effects, because Azerbaijan will attack Ngorno-Karabakh and Armenia within days of the collapse of the temporary peace. 1NR says that empirically this is true, as that is what happened when peace negotiations broke down in 1994 [?—I am uncertain of the year given in the card]. This new war will escalate quickly, spill over to the Middle East “within one week,” and will result in Russian use of nuclear weapons. Needless to say, the nuclear war that erupts from that will be bad. Although I never heard the “end of civilization” or “extinction of all life” terminal impacts that I expected to hear.

On to the line-by-line. As far as uniqueness was concerned the 1NR pointed out that the tradeoff was specific to diplomatic effort and not money or aid. Then 1NR attacked the 2AC block on Russian relations. 1NR says this was the wrong block to read. There is no Russian perception involved with this disadvantage, and Russian involvement only occurs later, when it becomes involved in the war that is the terminal impact. This disadvantage’s link is that diplomatic effort is zero-sum, using it in one place trades off with using it in another place. And in the case of Ngorno-Karabakh even a small tradeoff will be significant. 1NR extends that point with new evidence, has another card on the plan to settle the conflict and claims that it “turns the case,” somehow involving opposition, America or Armenia, and difference. At least that’s all I got on that turn. But the next three turns by 1NR were much clearer. 1NR claimed a democracy advantage by arguing that American participation in the Ngorno-Karabakh peace process will make the key difference in resolving this conflict peacefully and democratically. With the affirmative plan preventing resolution of this conflict, “the US will face an Islamist terror attack worse than 9/11.” 1NR also put out a turn on disease [treatment] infrastructure, claiming it is essential before the affirmative can achieve solvency for case, and that these turns precede affirmative solvency on case.

1NR finished her speech by returning to the one solvency attack on the Terrorism Advantage on case. 1NR says all the evidence on the Armenia Genocide resolution and the Ngorno-Karabakh disadvantage prove that there are many harbors for terrorists, so that even if the affirmative would achieve solvency in Somaliland they cannot achieve solvency for the Terrorism advantage because the terrorists will simply move to a different country. Maybe Yemen, maybe Armenia, Azerbaijan or Ngorno-Karabakh.

First Affirmative Rebuttal—1AR

Needless to say, the 1AR is faced with a formidable challenge. 1AR is the most challenging speech in debate, both physically and mentally. 1AR must cover all thirteen minutes of argumentation from the negative block in five minutes. That is a difficult task under the best of circumstances, but in this round the negative’s strategy of dropping some positions to focus on others gave them a significant, positive time tradeoff, making 1AR’s task even more difficult. A good 1AR will cover, not dropping any of the positions the negative has gone for. A great 1AR will manage to generate offense with this speech, extending dropped turns or turning the negative’s second line answers. Despite the time and issue pressures, a great 1AR will manage to attack, to put pressure on the 2NR and give the 2AR several possible avenues of victory.

The 1AR from Marquette had 7 answers to the 1NR overview on Ngorno-Karabakh, focused primarily on whether human rights policies tradeoff and whether that will destroy the settlement talks and temporary peace in Ngorno-Karabakh. On the settlement/temporary peace, 1AR says that the terminal impact to the DA, as read by the negative, is only “Russian proliferation,” not Russian-launched nuclear war, that the aff solves for the settlement through US diplomatic leadership on Somaliland, and that there would be no US war with Russia since the terminal impact is only proliferation. If indeed that is the terminal impact, then I don’t see what the impact to the DA is at all, since Russia, then the Soviet Union, proliferated in 1949. On human rights policies tradeoff, 1AR says there is no 100% tradeoff, aff evidence on uniqueness (other diplomatic policies) is from December and postdates negative’s evidence, and that Bush recently committed $330 billion [that’s the number I heard] for increased HIV prevention efforts.

On the line-by-line from 1NR, 1AR answered very little. On uniqueness 1AR said plan doesn’t use the Bush administration. On the mis-applied Russian relations block, 1AR said there was no Russian war on the terminal impact of the DA. On the 3 1NR tradeoff answers 1AR only says there is no tradeoff, cross-applying answers from the 1NR overview. On the four 1NR turns, 1AR responds to the first turn, on “opposition [unclear] turns case” by claiming that it did not run case. There was no 1AR response to the other three 1NR turns or the 1NR claim that they preceded affirmative solvency.

On the lone case attack on the Terrorism advantage, 1AR says in response to 1NR’s claim that Armenia and Azerbaijan prove the affirmative can’t solve for terrorism (in Africa, at least as argued in the 1NC) because terrorists will move, that “the plan solves even if Yemen would launch a nuclear war from Somaliland,” [statement in context] and that the plan solves the terminal impact of the Ngorno-Karabakh disadvantage.

On the Med Flight/sanitation counterplan, 1AR first responds to the 2NC overview. 1AR argues that the negative had no evidence that said the counterplan solved for 100% of case and that Somaliland wants the US there. 1AR claims that plan doesn’t physically increase the CJTF, that it’s just an increase in perception. Where 2NC claimed that the CJTF fails in Somaliland 1AR said the aff was the only one with solvency evidence in the round. On the line-by-line 1AR answers 2NC’s severability response to the perm by arguing that the affirmative hasn’t severed anything, that they are not permuting the plan with the counterplan, that they are just testing counterplan competition by saying let’s do the counterplan post-policy, after (right after) we do the affirmative plan. Responding to 2NC answers on Med Flights, the counterplan solvency mechanism, 1AR says there is no solvency evidence that this counterplan would solve for affirmative harms, and that the CJTF is the key to aff solvency. The CJTF solves for the root cause of terrorism, something the negatives have conceded on case, which will cause a nuclear war. And in case there were doubts, 1AR extends that impact with a new card that says a nuclear war would be bad, that “no one wins a nuclear war.”

1AR moved to topicality, spending a little time on that first topicality challenge, the one that the negatives conceded, that Somaliland is not a nation. 1AR points out that the negative conceded this position and then referred to the last point from the 1NC shell, which stated that topicality was a voting issue but gave no reasons why except for something about “less topical,” and then explained that this was all that the negatives have ever said about topicality being a voting issue. That’s it for voters, said 1AR, because the negatives didn’t say anything else about why topicality is (or should be) a voting issue on either topicality challenge. This was a smart move, as this point will become very important in the rebuttals to follow. Surprisingly, 1AR did not respond to 2NC’s insufficient coverage on the colonialism turn from 2AC. This turn would have provided independent offense against the negative, something that could be impacted into something to vote on by 2AR. One card on colonialism bad would probably do. Or at least it would keep options open for the 2AR. If 2NR goes for topicality you’ve got that extra argument to use, and if 2NR doesn’t go for topicality you’ve still got it sitting out there as another reason the judge should vote affirmative.

On the remaining topicality challenge 1AR first responded to the 2NC overview. In the past I have complained about “overview abuse,” that it seems that there are overviews on everything, too many, and debaters should just get to the line-by-line. But as I sit here writing this “narrative ballot” a few days after the round, I find that these overviews are very helpful, putting all the important stuff in one place without junking it up with the many “above” or “cross apply” or “non-responsive” or whatever, stuff that is the hallmark of most line-by-line refutation. And at least there were no overviews to overviews.

On the Yemen/Effects topicality challenge 1AR coverage was thin. 1AR says that the CJTF currently does not have access to Somaliland, and the plan itself doesn’t change that. The plan increases water assistance, which means all the CJTF answers do not apply. Affirmative meets negative definition and interpretation. The plan does not increase the CJTF. The result of the plan is that the CJTF will be allowed to enter and operate out of Somaliland. Finally, 1AR states that the plan does not increase anything in Yemen. On the line-by-line 1AR says only that effects topicality is OK.

Second Negative Rebuttal—2NR

I was surprised by the negative team’s decision to go solely for topicality in the 2NR. Going into the 2NR I thought the negatives were winning the Ngorno-Karabakh disadvantage pretty convincingly. 1AR had said nothing about three 1NR turns on the disad, democracy, terrorism and disease. Taken together, the very least these do is solve for case. While there may be legitimate arguments that maybe the democracy or terrorism or disease these turns are talking about aren’t exactly the same democracy or terrorism or disease as the ones the affirmatives claim, none of those arguments were made by the 1AR. Including the 1NR argument at the end of those turns, “turns precede solvency for case,” which was also dropped by the 1AR, these turns solve for all case harms/advantages and do so faster than or before the affirmative does. As Packers play-by-play broadcaster Wayne Larrivee would say, “that was the dagger” that I think could have won the round, or at least my ballot, for the negative team. Given thin 1AR coverage on the DA overview and the three dropped turns, 2NR had the time and ability to win this disadvantage, and hence the round, completely and convincingly. 2NR probably could have still gone for topicality (for a minute or two) and still won the disadvantage. At the very least, it would have presented the judge(s) with two independent options for voting negative (but see my comments on this strategy in my explanation of my decision in this round).

2NR clearly sets forth the two remaining topicality arguments, Yemen is not in sub-Saharan Africa and the affirmatives are effects topical. Both originally flow from the second 1NC topicality challenge on Yemen. 2NR says I can either vote on Yemen or on effects. Yemen is in the Middle East, and the affirmative must go to or include Yemen to solve. The CTJF has equipment and staff in Yemen. The aff is non-topical because Yemen is outside of sub-Saharan Africa. “A topical version of the plan could exist,” says 1AR, and although an example is not given, this all proves that the affirmative plan is non-topical.

Or I can vote on effects topicality. 2NR claims that the affirmative is clearly effects topical, because 1AR says that the terrorism task force (the CJTF) expands because of the plan, that the plan does not expand the task force. 2NR says that this is clearly abusive. And then in response to an argument I did not hear the affirmatives make, 2NR states that “since the affirmative says we never said why this is abusive here are five reasons it is” and proceeds to read them. 2NR says it destroys limits so the negatives can’t prepare, destroys predictable ground, hurts education by exploding research burdens, hurts topic-specific education and that I should vote on effects topicality.

2NR then moved to the line-by-line, first on Yemen/CTJF and then on effects. 2NR claimed that plan has no solvency if aff does not fiat Yemen, but that they do not exclude Yemen from the plan. The aff must fiat the CJTF, and that includes Yemen. The only solvency evidence aff has includes Yemen, even if they claim not to include Yemen or defend it as part of plan, because it is there, physically and geographically, and it’s a member of the CJTF. Solvency evidence says the CJTF needs to be expanded. The affirmative advantage is off the CJTF, and the CJTF is (includes) Yemen. On effects topicality, 2NR had five responses to the sole 1AR argument here, that effects topicality is OK. 2NR said the plan is effects topical because it is outside the Horn of Africa. This surprised me because previous speeches all talked about sub-Saharan Africa. 2NR is the first time I heard the phrase Horn of Africa in the effects topicality debate. 2NR said that an affirmative could be topical if they didn’t read or do so many steps, but that either way there is abuse in the round. 2NR said something vague about an internal link and then claimed that the affirmative had conceded that topicality is a voter. I should vote negative because the abuse has already happened, it happened when the affirmative did not kick out of the terrorism advantage immediately when they had the chance to do so.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal—2AR

The second affirmative rebuttalist had only topicality to deal with. 2AR made it clear that since the negatives went only for topicality in the 2NR, they conceded everything else. Hence, if the affirmatives win topicality, they win the round. 2AR responded to the Yemen/Effects overview first before moving on to the line-by-line.

On the Yemen part of the overview, 2AR said there is no link. The affirmative does not include Yemen in the plan. There is no potential abuse and no link to any of the negative’s topicality standards. This plan works through the US legislative process, the US gives aid to the Somaliland government. The plan does not increase the CJTF, or even mention it. As for 2NR’s claim that “a topical version of the plan could exist, 2AR responds “that one does exist, the affirmative plan.”

On the effects portion of the 2NR overview, 2AR claimed that the negatives have conceded that effects are inevitable and that every plan takes steps. The question of how many steps are OK, and even of what defines a step, is impossible to answer or define. What matters is that there is no in-round abuse, and that topic literature checks potential abuse. This plan is in the core area of topic literature, says the 2AR. It’s about how water is key to Somaliland’s public health and its national legitimacy. And although 2NR read five new, completely new, arguments on effects topicality being abusive, there is no in-round abuse. 2AR argues that the only way to evaluate abuse is through in-round effects, and the negatives have never proven any. The negatives never proved that they lost any ground or education. The plan doesn’t do anything to the CJTF, it only increases water assistance to Somaliland. Don’t vote on potential abuse, says 2AR. The negative proved no abuse nor even any potential abuse in this round. As for research and education, 2AR claimed that the affirmative has proved to be the best for both since the plan lies squarely within the topic area and specifically mandates a topical action, an increase in water assistance, to a nation within sub-Saharan Africa, the Republic of Somaliland.

This was an effective, persuasive 2AR that got the job done on topicality, which was the only issue left in the round. This speech concluded a fine debate, an excellent final round in the VSS division of the 2007 Wisconsin State Debate Tournament.

David Henning
Round occurred December 9, 2007
Narrative Ballot posted December 13, 2007

A note on citations. I have omitted citations from this and the subsequent post for two reasons—narrative clarity, and, well, I didn’t get all of them. I was also afraid that I got a few of them wrong. Cites come at a judge pretty fast—how long does it take to say “Smith in 4”?—which is why, again, I stress clarity and give speakers “clear” warnings. This is especially important when debating for a judge like me, who tells the debaters before the round and in my judging philosophy that I will not call for or read blocks or cards simply to fill in points on my flow that I missed because of a speaker’s unclear delivery. If anyone is interested in obtaining the citations for the evidence used in this round, ask either team (or their coaches) for them. I’m sure that they will provide them for you—they do that sort of thing all the time.

I see that the Italics used to denote my comments didn’t make it. Sorry! I guess that shows that I am still a technopeasant at heart.

By David Henning on Dec 13, 2007

2007 Wisconsin State Debate Tournament

VSS Final Round—Decision and Explanation

Marquette BF (aff) vs. Sheboygan North KM (neg)

First Affirmative: Garrett Fields First Negative: Laurel Mills

Second Affirmative: Joe Balistreri Second Negative: Tim Knoedler

This debate was narrowed to one topicality challenge, essentially two issues, by the negative team. Conceded were case, the counterplan, both disadvantages and the first topicality challenge. Affirmative advantages, solvency, negative disadvantages and case turns, the counterplan, none of that mattered anymore. By concession or default, the affirmative wins all those issues, meaning the round comes down to one thing, the topicality challenge. Whichever team wins the topicality challenge wins the round.

And that team is the affirmative team, Marquette. The 2NR is right about one thing—the round comes down to Yemen and effects topicality. Let me start by saying that for me, the negative team’s strategy of going solely for topicality in the 2NR is usually the correct strategy if they intend to win topicality. It proves you’re serious about the argument, and it clears away all the nonsense like “education” or “research burdens” or that “it’s just a time-tradeoff” (which is somehow unfair to the other team—I always thought that an argument that got your team a favorable time trade-off was tactically sound) or any of the other objections one usually hears from the affirmative about topicality. And going solely for topicality in the 2NR is a strategy rarely encountered by 2ARs, which in itself can be a real advantage. I can’t remember the last time I voted for a topicality challenge that the 2NR covered for only a minute or two and then went on to other issues. Perhaps it is different for other judges. I can say that the last time I voted on topicality (in favor of the negative team) the negative strategy in the 2NR was nothing but topicality.

But that probably wasn’t the strategy to use in this round. I won’t go through every other issue in the debate here (you can see that in my “narrative ballot” in an accompanying post) but I do want to say something about the Ngorno-Karabakh disadvantage the negative team chose not to go for in the 2NR. I thought that the negatives were winning the Ngorno-Karabakh disadvantage very clearly. Their link evidence on diplomatic effort tradeoff was good, and they had solid evidence on the precarious situation in Ngorno-Karabakh and the importance of US participation in the ongoing settlement talks/temporary peace process in the region (I think it’s called the Minsk Process or Minsk Conference Process). The affirmative mishandled the disadvantage in the 2AC when they read a Russian Relations block that did not apply in any way to the Ngorno-Karabakh scenario.

1NR put great pressure on the 1AR by focusing solely on the Ngorno-Karabakh disadvantage. The 1NR overview set forth the scenario very clearly, with good evidence that a small tradeoff in US diplomatic effort will result in war, with Azerbaijan “attacking within days.” 1NR then claims that “the magnitude of escalation” will lead to nuclear war. There was also something said about Russian proliferation here, which led to great confusion on the part of the 1NR, the 1AR, and me. As a side note, if you’re going to have a nuclear war or destroy the planet in your disadvantage, really do it. Don’t just say that the impact of your argument is nuclear war; give me a powerful-sounding terminal impact to that nuclear war. How many people die in your nuclear war? For a good DA, all of them. The destruction of human civilization, all human life, the biosphere and/or all life on the planet is a good terminal impact. There is really nothing after that. I don’t think that our science is at the point (yet) where anyone could claim that the destruction of all life on our planet, or the destruction, physically, of the planet itself, could harm non-terrestrial life or their planet(s) in some way. And please provide a good, logical, evidence-based scenario for your war, with one (hopefully) memorable card on how horrible your disadvantage’s terminal impact will be.

Going into the 2NR I thought the negatives were winning the Ngorno-Karabakh DA. 1NR had three case turns, that US effort in the Ngorno-Karabakh settlement/peace process was key to spreading democracy, key to solving for terrorism and key to solving for disease, and that these turns preceded solvency on case. 1AR did not respond to any of these (1AR did respond to a fourth case turn, the ambiguous turn dealing somehow with “opposition,” but only to say that it did not turn case), and I thought that with those case turns 2NR would claim to solve for all of the affirmative harms and advantages better and faster and thus defeat the affirmative on a policy level.

2NR went solely for topicality, which, as I indicated above, is usually the correct strategy to win rounds on topicality. But it really is an all-or-nothing proposition then. There is no policy level. No wars, nuclear or not, no bodies on the flow, no weighing of impacts. In this round there weren’t even any real-world or in-round impacts to consider. Nothing for the judge(s) to vote on except whether he or she believes the affirmative plan is topical or not. Based on the argumentation in this round, I think that this affirmative plan is topical.

There lies one of the keys to my decision. The affirmative plan is topical. The plan itself, plan text. The (a) topicality challenge is not that the affirmative is solving for some harm outside of the topic area, but rather that the plan itself is not within the bounds of the topic or resolution. It is a question of jurisdiction rather than policy, which is what is clearly implied whenever the negative goes solely for topicality in the 2NR. But in this round that gets mixed up with both of the topicality issues that this debate ultimately comes down to.

On the Yemen argument, the negatives insist that the affirmative is not topical because they include Yemen, which is outside of sub-Saharan Africa. The affirmatives maintain that their plan does nothing with Yemen. After the round I looked at the plan text, the only thing relevant to this argument. The affirmative plan increases water aid to Somaliland. Yemen is nowhere in plan text. The CJTF is nowhere in plan text. No Yemen and no CJTF means no plan action is outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Negative arguments that the affirmatives “have to” include the CJTF and Yemen to get solvency do not bear on whether the plan itself, on its face, is topical or not. The affirmatives also claimed to derive no advantage from Yemen. The solvency-topicality double-bind, “the affirmatives have to include Yemen to get solvency, and if they do they’re non-topical, or they don’t do Yemen and have no solvency,” has little value if plan text doesn’t mention Yemen and the negatives then drop the solvency argument to concentrate on topicality. If there was any sort of geographically-derived topicality challenge that may have worked better against this plan, it might be one that argued that Somaliland or the entire Horn of Africa is non-topical because it is outside of sub-Saharan Africa. “The Horn” does seem to be a different and distinct region in Africa, one with a distinct name, a name that is not “sub-Saharan Africa.” Of course, the affirmative team could argue that the Horn of Africa is part of sub-Saharan Africa, but that’s a debate for another day with different teams and judges.

On the effects topicality argument, 2AR makes a number of good points. 2AR starts by referring back to the almost incomprehensible arguments the 2AC made about effects topicality. 2AR claims that the negative has conceded that effects topicality is inevitable, that all plans require steps—how many steps are OK?, and what, exactly, defines a step?—and that the negative team has demonstrated no in-round abuse here. 2AR argues that topic literature checks any potential abuse. 2AR also argues that the affirmative plan is one of the most topical plans this year—after all, the plan simply provides water assistance (something that in this round is considered public health assistance) to a nation in sub-Saharan Africa. I tend to agree with that assessment.

2NR’s five new arguments on abuse are problematic at best. They apply, seemingly equally, to both Yemen and effects topicality. And they are new, completely new, which grants the 2AR at least a little lee-way in answering them specifically and also in answering topicality generally. And they are all theoretical—they talk about how the negative has lost ground or predictable ground and how this hurts research and topic-specific education and all that. What ground has the negative lost? What arguments can’t the negative team run because of this plan? What education has been lost? Is there any in-round abuse at all? 2NR presents no examples here. In my widely-available and properly posted judging philosophy I state that for topicality, I want teams to show me the in-round abuse. Provide specific examples of abuse that the affirmative is engaging in with their plan or with their interpretation of topicality. What has this abuse prevented you (the negatives), as a team, from arguing or doing? I really don’t see any abuse in this round. 2AR also tells me that I shouldn’t vote against the affirmative based on “potential abuse” grounds, both because voting on potential rather than demonstrated abuse is bad, and because the negatives have demonstrated no abuse, potential or otherwise, in this round. I am not a big fan of potential abuse arguments and have difficulty voting for them without clearly explained, specific possibilities for abuse. The negative team offers no examples of potential or actual abuse in this round, and I cannot vote negative on this topicality challenge without that.

In my judging philosophy I make it clear that I am willing to vote on topicality, but teams must explain why topicality should be a voting issue in this round. Like any other argument, teams must tell my why topicality is important, why I should vote on it. And I mean more than the one-word reasons like “topicality is a voting issue for jurisdiction, fairness and education.” I don’t know what that means or how to evaluate it. Any of those three (and others) could be fine reasons, if explained, for why topicality should be a voting issue, but I can’t (I won’t) do the work for teams and assume that it is a voting issue in this particular round.

Given that 2NR spent all five minutes on topicality, I guess it becomes a voting issue by virtue of its all-or-nothing status. The same reasoning applies to whether topicality is an (the) a priori issue, to be resolved first, before any other issue in the round. But the negative did almost nothing in the way of telling me why topicality should be a voting issue, generally or in this round, which seems really risky if you are pinning everything on that argument. And remember that the 1AR did the work here by going explicitly to the topicality challenge that 2NC kicked out of, pointing out that the negatives had only one response here, a one-line, unexplained assertion that topicality is a voting issue, with a vague reference to something “less topical” thrown in, was all that the negative team ever said about topicality being a voting issue. Had the affirmative plan done something clearly non-topical, like providing poor Americans with new cars or giving Play Station 3 consoles (and games) to every child in Albania (these are my hypothetical examples—not the 2AR’s), I am not certain that I could have voted negative on topicality given the (lack of) voters that were in this round. And had the affirmative claimed that the hypothetical, clearly non-topical plan(s) above somehow that plan would improve public health in sub-Saharan Africa, I don’t know if I could have voted on effects topicality given the new abuse arguments in 2NR and 2AR extension of the undenied, if almost incomprehensible, 2AC argumentation about the inevitability of steps or effects and the ambiguity of what constitutes a step or an effect.

Based on the argumentation in this round, I find that the affirmative plan is topical. Therefore the affirmative wins this debate.

David Henning

Decision rendered December 9, 2007
Written decision posted December 13, 2007

By David Henning on Dec 13, 2007

Just a slight clarification on the counterplan :).

Marquette’s affirmative provides water-based assistance to Somaliland; but their solvency mechanism for their advantages are recognition (democracy) and Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa expansion (terrorism). The argument Marquette’s affirmative makes is that the CJTF (combined joint task force, an American military organization in the Horn designed to fight terror)is currently banned from Somaliland–but an act of recognition, like the plan, would allow into Somaliland the CJTF and their terror-fighting capabilities.

The counterplan was to establish medical conflagration exercises (a type of military medical training) in Somaliland while simultaneously banning the CJTF from Somaliland. 1NC argues that MEDFLAGS are equally as effective at fighting terrorism (via softpower) and since the counterplan is still an act of recognition, would access the democracy mini-advantage.

The “ban the CJTF” part of the CP isn’t a CJTF bad argument–quite the opposite, our evidence argued that the current state of the CJTF is perfect. Since the CJTF isn’t deployed in many nations, isn’t over-extended, and hasn’t engaged in many “intrusive” actions, the people of sub-Saharan Africa LOVE the combined joint task force. Their evidence (Pham ‘7, I believe) seems to conclude that the CJTF is successful because it has captured the “hearts and minds” of Africans in the horn. The counterplan then argues that a liberal/quick expansion of the task force into Somaliland would undermine the effectiveness of the task force because it would be an act of aggression; something that the CJTF has never done because military experts KNOW that such an action would collapse regional support. Our permutation argument is that any permutation servers out of the Affirmative defense of CJTF expansion.

Dave, your explanation of the round is phenominal; I especially love the little historical facts thrown into the summaries. I think it’s really helpful to someone reading this who WASNT watching the round to know WHERE Nagorno is or WHAT the Armenian Genocide Resolution says.

It was a fun final round, a great season, and as Dave said, I felt that the competition illustrated some of WI debate’s best qualities.

–Jon

By Jon Voss on Dec 13, 2007

WOW!!!
In case you haven’t ever gotten a ballot from Dave, this is what they all look like. Every student knows exactly why he voted the way he did and what they can improve on next time.

As a coach, I always know that my kids are going to learn after having Dave judge them. I’m also going to get to pour over a really complete ballot.

On behalf of all of us, thanks Dave, for going the extra mile (or 5) for our students.

By John Knetzger on Dec 13, 2007