Notes

McMurdie is in the context of an insignificant state court in Arizona and Scalia is not legal precedent -- he is discussing the definition used by Alabama state courts. The Wright evidence is the most comprehensive and wide-reaching definition that takes into account the different interpretations used by state and federal courts. Given the lack of a nationally recognized definition

Votes negative

- 1AR spends too little time on negative; 2AR does a decent job at coming back, but ultimately fails
- Simply the 1AR needed to spend more time; arguments on the K flow. 10 seconds is way too little on the T.
- You have to realize that there is always a way out of a debate round -- we should've kicked the aff and criticized them for dropping the K. That was a possible way out.

Win as neg
- Root cause of psychological violence by demosntrating how economics underpins the oppression of
- Winning a conceded argument about how capitalism -- turns the aff solvency claims -- at the end of the debate comes to the permutation, the neg is winning unique net benefits about activist energies to rally support for anti-capitalist movements. We are also winning that the state is good for certain things that helps sustain public movements -- giving the neg weight on that scenario. Although the aff says they can infiltrate the state, there is no warranted explanation of what that entails or how it relates to the aff's claims about policymaking and politics.
- In cross-ex in 1NC was about how the alternative is communist horizon but the link is mutual aid bad. How does a communist praxis engage in anti-capitalist politics. 2NC was fine, Young 6 evidence is pretty solid. Create more specific debates about why perms in method debates are super violent (they have to combine certain methods which creates confusion, fatigue, etc. that creates new forms of psychic violence). 1AR spends too much on FW (which can be tricky).
2NR was fine, made all the right choices -- doesn't really understand the universalism link, so they choose the state link over this one. Need a better explanation of the universalism/Eagleton link. WOuld like examples of energy building, etc. later in the debate. 2AR does not spend enough time on the K (goes on case, but spends too much on it and focuses on defensive claims). The 2AR needed to explain why extinction does not outweigh -- why our specific framing comes first
- Tons of examples why communist movement building is crap for black people specifically (specific examples of communist praxis for black people being a dead end)
- Cap cannot explain gratuitous violence (basically, the aff should become more critical)


Loss as neg
- first tried to look at the Kritik and looking for an impact to it ---- tries to frame the debate around epistemology and representations, executing the debate like this is a good idea, but we have not articulated an impact. The evidence is a valid criticism of how rape kits are used, tested, etc., but he believes the aff when they claim that they are shifting away from technocratic institutionalism. They have a pretty solid link turn -- no terminal impact explained. Always good why those representations/epistemological bias creates worse impacts down the road.
- Rape kits reinvest faith into a technocratic-politics (which empirically fails), even if they are seeking reconciliation, we need to explain why. We need to have a reason why their representations lead to something crappy.
- You need to have reasons why the aff doesn't solve or else they have 100% solvency.
-2NC/1NR needs to line up more clearly with the 2AC's stuff -- I glossed over some of the more specific arguments for the Kritik
-2NR needs to do more ! work -- critique of subject formation of aff -- even if they win plan focus, but that still mean that their representations ensure that the aff won't solve in the long term.
- Have a top level thing on top to frame the judge for the round (they mishandled framework, misinterpreted the links, and dropped our terminal impact).

- Need a stronger FW than just holistic criticism


We meet -- we talk about anti-blackness


Vote aff on conditional ethics argument -- doesn't really want to vote for conditional ethics; didn't understand 1AR/2AR shift onto condo. Ended up voting on the conditional ethics -- the 1AR/2AR do more impact calc of conditional ethics against neg flex -- the perf con argument that the aff goes makes it difficult to be aff and that is not really contextualized by the negative (their neg flex answers are not contextualized).

Aff is winning external offense for why condo is ultimately bad for education. Voting in favor of aff bias, but that would be too judge intervention to contextualize this to why contradictory neg arguments are key.
- 1AR approach to T was overly defensive.
- To answer conditional ethics, 1) conditional ethics still exists in the aff's world (they still exist in the world of their interpretation), 2) aff also performs conditional ethics (appeal to consequentialism present in executive flexibility turns).

Votes affirmative
- 1AR was largely defensive on framework, but the 2NR did not capitalize that. At the top level, the negative is ahead on impacts -- they are giving us a lot of weight on the structural impacts of our larger theory of power. Articulate the alternative clearer, but it ultimately didn't really factor into the decision. Post-2NR, if they get up in the 2AR and extend sufficient framework offense on framework and something else. 1AR does right move on link debate -- the link debate is somewhat lackluster though (but he does give us our impact turn). Put that top level analysis about inevitability claims -- there is a risk that the affirmative is behind on implementation -- the negative has a lot of stuff on top level !s. There are like court rulings that get misinterpreted that cause calamitous consequences that deck solvency -- we would win there. Move the lines of flight argument from alt to "can the system find exploits to undermine solvency)." Number of other things going on too: 1) risk that the Young evidence doesn't flow negative (if you extract everything from Young, there is (aff should concede the Young 6 evidence on the permutation). Alternative needs explanation -- some fo the explanations in the 2NC are kind of wordy, make them more concise. What is good, however, is the rhizomatic aspect of our alternative analysis -- doesn't connect well with the Deleuzian explanation though. Stick with the fugitivity route -- Little Rock Central had a fugitivity aff -- probably can grab stuff from there to create a fugitivity alternative (alternative constitutes entering a realm of the invisible). That better connects with the rhizomatic thesis -- if the alternative is combined with a "multiplicity without unity" approach, it becomes impossible for the permutation to function.
- While we're ahead on some of the flows, we need to have to resolve the DNA discursive aspect -- if it's true that all we need to do is SCOTUS vs COTUS, etc. the thing that could solve this is a CP that has something that isn't necessarily criminal justice (due process CP that provides an additional rule over the use of DNA evidence -- it would function like a race audit CP, but it woulnd't be one; due process CP that prevents their harms).


No test case means that the Court has no solvency -- affirmative sets themselves up for failure in the cross-ex of the 1AC -- if all Supreme Court justices announce they don't approve of the Supreme Court, but that carries no legal weight. Judge can't explain how affirmative rules the DP unconstitutional, bruh total cringe. CP is insufficient