I’m leaving these unedited, so it’s pretty rough. For context, judges write these after they watch debate rounds and deliver them orally. So, you’re sorta just jamming out your immediate thoughts as quickly as possible without sacrificing making a coherent stance. I thought it’d be useful for you to see how I process dense information quickly.

RFD MH

I vote negative on framework because it frames out weighing aff offense and asks prior question to evaluating the aff impact turns.

The negative wins a couple ideas: procedural fairness is the most important way to think about education - the interp that best preserves clash is the best path to debate-specific education.  The negative also problematizes the counter-interp through indicating it does not provide a precise interpretation of what it means to aff (ie: there is no clear definition of a closed-system so it’s not possible to know if it’s competitive with the neg’s interp).  Additionally, there are some clear impacts weighed by the negative that say when the aff is basically the neg, the result is the collapse of debate, which means it can never achieve the benefits of open system anyway.

For the negative - you’re money here.  Not a lot of issues, other than closing the door even more.  For example, you’ve got a free TVA but aren’t explaining it.  Government regulation of NFTs means there is centralization of the process and that sorta ruins the point for many investors and traders.  Also, perhaps push back on the dichotomy of code- yes code operates in binaries as a function, but in form it produces conditions, triggers, and eventualities - you can manipulate code in various ways.  Also, code doesn’t foreclose presentation - you can represent yourself through avatars of your choice. Also maybe the aff means more people learn code and that’s empowering and good. Also maybe the aff pushes people offline because its too limiting.  Also, just because we have the same experience in debates as shared resolutions, we don’t ever experience those things the same wya - closed systems don’t mean closed experiences, we are still us.

So, to be completely thorough I’d beat them at their game too.

RFD MH P1

I vote negative on T, but it’s little unsatisfying in this round.  For example, in the block, the nature of the violation gets a bit lost.  What are the specific actions of the plan text that do not constitute military engagement?  What’s the TVA - what could un peacekeepers do that would constitute military involvement?  Also, the extra T aspects of the plan are the most obvious parts of the violation are the areas that make the most sense - the blockade and the doing anything other than mil engagement, but this part of the story is extended but not explained.  That’s annoying!  Similarly, the aff isn’t telling me the story of how they are a mil operation until the pmr - protecting citizens might be a defensive action, but it seems reasonable here, and that should be the main focus of the MG.  SO, I think the T debate goes negative but not for like super clear reasons, it’s for kinda murky reasons.

As for the rest of the debate - I think the DA is pretty clean and it turns the aff. Small arms = conflict gets worse, turns the aff.  Disease spread turns the aff and outweighs.

I would advise the MO to be a little more clear about what unconditional means in this instance, ie: a perm doesn’t mean we aren’t going for it , it means it’s not an opportunity cost to the plan, so we are going for it.  Because when people say the K is conditional, they often mean we can extend a perm and not go for it - I think it opens a theory angle to the pmr that I’d be a little worried about if I were you.

I think each team needs to dig a little more into the clear story being developed under each position.

GGI Round 6

I vote affirmative b/c the case demonstrates that the affiirmative’s participation in simulation is justifiable given their representations.

I feel the debate sort of breaks down in the block a little bit - the MG is very effective at challengin the thesis of the K - and so the PMR misses some chances to be strategic in extending the right arguments - ie: the solving for colonialism as a good way to think about simulation.  And the perm debate seems WIDE open - I feel like the PMR is sort of taking the most difficult and narrow path to the ballot available.

Similarly, the negative needs to peel off the shell more to say why simulation is bad, in and of itself - not the specific nature of their simulation.  So, these arguments about Pakistan remaining in debt post-plan are much less compelling than the wya simulation distances us from truth and causes us to extract from the real in problematic ways.

As it stands though, the affirmative wins that given the state is Inez, and given that simulation also surrounds and contextualize the negatives alternative, that simulation isn’t really worth caring about - everything is just expiereicen and so it’s about the particular ways we represent/engage in simulation.  They win their aff, there is no offense as to why it’s a bad idea/worse than the status quo.