Notes

Here's a picture of the actual "card" itself. Just for context, the top part is the tag (which sorta summarizes the main point of the article or evidence); then you have the citation; and lastly, you'll see the body. The body of the tag has parts that are shrunk because 1) the other team deemed that information to not be relevant to their point, or 2) the card doesn't actually argue for what they say it does.

Judge notes:
- pretty good debate -- ships in the night, but that will be in the RFD -- we live in a control society rather than a disciplinary power -- the neg's question was a referendum about which theory of power is correct. The neg wins this theory of power is correct because there is no challenge; since power is rhizomatic, that allows them to become more discrete and effective -- the fatal flaw of the affirmative is never challenging the neg's theory of power; they keep asserting that it is a critique of reformism or state engagement -- the K is critiquing their view of the state as singular, central, and fixed, which is now multiplicitous -- in a debate where the affirmative contests our theory of power, we need to diversify our strategy -- the neg is correct by saying that the alt is try or die; militant fugitivity like George Jackson -- "lines of flight" as a way to combat police militarization cuz its more effective -- weaponization would change onto tech drones away from current weapons -- the affirmative needs a better explanation of what "non-reformist reform" -- they shouldn't rely so much on the abolition K blocks -- last criticism, empty warrants to the quote "racism is existential threat," they don't explain what this entails and what this means for the round's impacts. The negative needs to diversify the links and have an external impact -- the impact is the aff failing, but an impact to conceptualizing -- a good block for answering "power not multiplicitous" would be good.