Round 5

Edina MN vs SPA DW

The Round

AFF

AC: Love it! Love the style, the format, everything about it. At this point of CX, just tell the NC that you don’t have a card that predicts the future for this specific questions because no one writes about it.

AR: Another great speech. You do an amazing job of coverage and responding directly to the arguments. Feel free to toss in a turn on the flow. I see a few that aren’t labeled, I’m not worried about that type of jargon.

NEG

NC: Good case. Asking for magic future predicting evidence is a bit much. I get it you want them to predict the future.

NR: One bit of concern on the NR is that you keep telling me that Maduro is the root cause of the problem. But do you prove that Maduro is going to be removed.

Time out! You are going back to an argument that the Venezuelan people in Florida want military action but you haven’t read that evidence yet you act as though you did read it in case until you are asked for it during CX and then it takes you 2 minutes to find this evidence?

AFF SUMMARY

Typically not a fan of a big line-by-line for the summary but you do a great job of doing a line-by-line and also a summary at the same time. I like the extension of the Water contention as it was very under covered. I would pre-empt any analysis and remind the judge that anything they bring up in their summary here would most likely be wildly new.

NEG SUMMARY

So you tell me there are two voters in this round, you spend 2:50 on the first voter and never get to the next voting issue. Also, does Renden actually respond to water? That sounds super new in the summary and I don’t remember that at all.

After reading the line in case I’m not 100% sure that helps you at all. You are just saying it’s mismanagement that has caused water issue (aff says it’s sanctions) but that card doesn’t save it solves.

RFD

Framework

Good round. The framework is absolutely cost benefit analysis (util).

Arguments

I think the neg has opportunities in the final focus but spend nearly a minute just reading back the case and not responding to the actual impacts and arguments. This leads to a time issue at the end.

Food

So let’s say that the Venezuelan economy did rebound in less than 30 days as the neg says. I’ll give you 100% of the weigh of the impacts of Renden so the neg saves the lives of 280k people. I’m not sure the economy can spin around that fast but I can’t call the evidence and Aff didn’t read it to me in round so it is what it is.

Humanitarian Aid

The aff is 100% winning the malaria argument. This is absolutely extended in summary. Remember, the aff went Neg Case, Cont III and then Cont II. Yes it was out of order but absolutely was extended. So the aff solves for an impending crisis in Venezuela of nearly 2m people.

This isn’t hard math for me. I buy the aff weighing analysis that we can worry about the economy later if it’s really going to turn south (which I tend to agree it might not but I’m giving the neg the full weight). I affirm.