Berkeley Boswell & Herpin Campbell Hall Dum & Dum 1 GOV This was a difficult decision as both the teams were very close, very courteous, and respectful of their opponents. The Government side listed their points, reasoned convincingly. The Opposition team shot the allotted time on one occasion. -- Nueva Kingsbury & Pasternak Stratford MS Yang & Zeng 1 OPP Refutation from the neg team was much stronger. Reasoning was more organized and clear -- Hillview Gummalam & Kalluraya Campolindo Chen & Seo 1 OPP Opp won b/c their primary arguments were more persuasive (including supporting statistics) and relevant to topic. Counterplan was also strong. Great job by both sides, very difficult topic to cover. Gov: interesting arguments presented. Could have used more information to support arguments at times. . Opp: Arguments clearly presented and supported; counterplan was strong and thoughtful. Nice job rebutting Gov's arguments. -- Campolindo Han & Murphy San Marin Schmidt & Gaidano 1 GOV Neither team won the homelessness impact. Governernment won on fire danger and protecting the environment. Opp had very little offense. Opp's population growth argument did not have much impact. -- Campolindo Lan & Russell Campbell Hall Varnel & Eick 1 GOV Unfortunately, Opp essentially set themseves up for failure when they proposed a mutually inclusive counterplan that prop immediately attacked. There is no debate as to whether controlled burns are in contention with banning residential development.. its not. And Prop #2 does a swift and solid job asserting that Opp is hardly opposed to the motion. All of the little quagmires were washes and quite insignificant. I gave it to Prop ultimately because it was clear they actively affirmed the motion while Opps advocacy was incredibly messy. Opp did not argue for their side, just advocated for a counterplan that does not even contradict prop. Therefore I had to vote prop despite the fact the actual responses were pretty even. -- Bishop O'Dowd Laniecki & Towne Juniper Ni & Sheng 1 OPP Opposition responded to every one of Gov's contentions and were able to refute the evolved Gov stance as well. A lot of Gov's case was based on statistics, with not as much impacting and so did not really stand against Opp's counterproposal. -- Friends Seminary Lev & Ros Campolindo Wang & Kang 1 GOV The opposition could not effectively refute the government with facts and figures. -- Campbell Hall Danna & Lee Berkeley Cobb & Lam 1 GOV Katie's speech gave good points that the debate stuck to for the rest of the round. Maya struggled to refute Katie's points and dropped some, which was called out by government. Arjun had good responses to the opposition, but Katie gets the higher ranking because she directly addressed the lack of warranting from opposition and dealt the biggest blow to their argument. Medina refuted all the points of government, however her argument contradicted itself, as she argued at first for this hurting the poor, and then said it's not cheap to live in the areas impacted. -- Irvington Komarraju & dhiman San Marin De Frenza & Poojary 1 OPP Well matched. Very composed, calm, good structure, tone, logic all excellent, please use time on clock, dig a deeper to battle your opponents, judge Jenny Birchfield-Eick 4303 -- Campolindo Shen & Benko Oaks Christian Kraw & Lan 1 OPP Opposition team presented their points very eloquently. Points were crisp and clear. -- Irvington Vajragiri & Garg Campolindo Shrauger & Marusich 1 GOV Both teams spoke well. The government team's points are more enriched and pervasive. -- Campolindo Aresteh & Cheng Hillview Satpathy & Gao 1 OPP Good job. -- Irvington Ramshankar & Magham Juniper/Stratford Lei & Guan 1 GOV Both teams were very prepared and very professional, thus making this decision difficult. GOV team however ultimately provided more evidence and examples (Habitat, cost, solution, definitions, risks, economic impact etc) and brought their argument to a larger world view vs the OPP team. The OPP team provided impressive data as well and it made their argument compelling. Examples to support the OPP argument were possible slightly more limited than GOV but those provided were historical trends, health issues, pandemic, data on where houses actually burned and a plan to mitigate risk in construction (retrofitting). Both sides provided very interesting perspectives and as a scientist, I'm interested in learning more about BOTH stances now after hearing this debate. So that is a WIN for both sides. Ultimately, the GOV was just slightly more convincing with their initial and counter argument, and thus the win today goes to GOV. Thank you for your great work. -- Alisha Parikh & Nav Shriv LynCox Reddy & Xu 1 OPP The opposition won because it provided a compelling counter plan (funding forest management and PG&E corrective action) and countered the idea that homeless people (which is not really the problem) could simply be moved into existing vacant houses. Government actually had the easier side to argue but should have focused more on the death and destruction caused by fires in WUI areas. -- Bishop O'Dowd Galvan & Gerardi Juniper Liu & Leo 1 GOV I am not sure what RFD stands for. -- Campbell Hall Tyberg & Keohoe Berkeley Montgomery & Yoo 1 GOV The Opposition team relied on unsubstantiated claims and failed to address the majority of the Government team's points, particularly when assessing the environmental costs. -- Oaks Christian Heth & Han Irvington Bandaru & Meswani 1 GOV Gov refuted all of opp's points and put a framework around all life instead of just human -- Hillview Jain & Jha Irvington Maddi & Perumalla 1 OPP The biggest argument comes down to the cost of the counterplan and who is better able to deal with fires since you both agree that fires happening is inevitable. I buy the Neg argument that less people in the area means that fires will be reported less which means you cannot deal with them as quickly. I also buy that increasing the supply of houses decreases the cost, making housing for affordable. I like the aff's non-unique response here that houses can be built in other areas but it comes out in the last aff speech so I cannot flow it. I also buy that these fire resistant houses cost 2% less since I'm never told why to prefer aff's anaylsis that if they were cheap why do we not have more fire resistant houses. Overall it was a close debate but I give it to neg for these reasons. -- El Cerrito Roberts & Moore Catlin Gabel Kruse & Stevens 1 OPP Opp responded to Aff with more creative and clear arguments. They moved with the aff's reasoning and structured their arguments around that. Both teams need to work on setting out a clear roadmap at the beginning and sticking to it throughout. Great job to all! -- Washington Andhare & Patra Campolindo Naylor & Phadnis 1 GOV Animesh: more argumentation, less evidence Indira: good structure, more clash Vidhi: good refutation, but expand on arguments from first speech, don't repeat what was said Meera: use more than one main point, don't use absolutes, reduces credibility -- Berkeley Owens & Syed Washington Nabar & Jain 1 GOV Opp contentions were fully countered by the Gov with facts and current information. -- Oaks Christian Heth & Han Campolindo Lan & Russell 2 OPP The alternate proposed by the affirmative wasn't convincing and was refuted by the opposition. The opposition refuted the government's points more effectiveley. -- San Marin De Frenza & Poojary Friends Seminary Lev & Ros 2 OPP - Gov didn't have a plan in lieu of the abolishment of the SCOTUS - Opp had a better plan - Gov could not counter all of the counters as well as the elements of the counterplan -- Juniper Ni & Sheng LynCox Reddy & Xu 2 GOV very close and tough decision -- Campbell Hall Tyberg & Keohoe Berkeley Owens & Syed 2 GOV Government arguments were stronger. -- Catlin Gabel Kruse & Stevens Campolindo Chen & Seo 2 GOV It was a great debate, very strong contendors. Both teams presented reasoning and evidence for their standing, but not enough to sway my decision one way or the other. So, my decision is based on the speaker's presentation and the structuring of arguments. Gov team's arguments were very well structured, presented eloquently so Gov wins my vote. Opp team you were very close - nice job. Good luck to both the teams for the next round -- Irvington Vajragiri & Garg Berkeley Boswell & Herpin 2 OPP Good job -- Hillview Satpathy & Gao Campbell Hall Danna & Lee 2 OPP The aff concedes that we are weighing this round based on who better upholds democracy. I buy the neg argument that since only 7.8% of cases that go to appellate courts are reversed that they are aff biased and thus not good for democracy. I also buy that the aff may not solve by not specifying the sentences of these appellate judges and I am not convinced that this is better than neg's CP so I vote neg. -- Bishop O'Dowd Galvan & Gerardi Campolindo Han & Murphy 2 OPP Marcus took two speaker positions so have him 2 speaker points. they are the same in case you only use one. Marcus had strong logic and case that gov did not challenge. Gov case logic isn't as strong as needs to be and they need to be ready to explain and dig deeper when challenged. All composed, calm, intellegent and great debaters. I see a big future for all of them. thanks -- Irvington Ramshankar & Magham Washington Andhare & Patra 2 OPP Opposition wins b/c their arguments were focused on overall purpose of SCOTUS vs. temporary/current situation. Overall, both sides did an excellent job, this was a very tough issue to cover. Gov: Speakers were very passionate and energetic, clear presentation of points. Opposition: Speakers were excellent and presented strong arguments. Nice job! -- Stratford MS Yang & Zeng Irvington Maddi & Perumalla 2 OPP The weighing mechanism of Net Benefit was stated and developed well by the Opposition and supported with examples. The Government could have made better use of their time. -- Oaks Christian Kraw & Lan Berkeley Castelli & Thompson 2 GOV The government team had a solid plan and specific reasonings for that plan (50 justices elected every 10 years). The gov. team made good arguments as to why the system that was put in to place initially no longer is valid for today's environment (i.e. life span of justices was in the 30's and now in the 80's -- therefore the time on the court is substantially longer). The opposition team had some good arguments against the government's plan -- such as the plan could lead to rebellion and also the voters should have more specific knowledge of the law in order to vote for a justice, but I didn't feel those arguments were backed up enough with solid examples on how this could be detrimental to the citizens. -- Berkeley Cobb & Lam Irvington Komarraju & dhiman 2 OPP This was a fantastic round! Y’all are so talented and are going to do great. I ended up voting for the opposition team, mainly off their virtually uncontested weighing mechanism about political stability. At the point that the government team offered no alternative weighing mechanism, I have to automatically look at which arguments affect political stability the most. I think the opposition made a really compelling argument that without a Supreme Court and under the government’s plan, voting would fall greatly under party lines and at best, nothing would change, and at worst, the voices of the minority party will be stifled by the majority. Obviously, having an entire group of people’s voices be ignored is super problematic for any nation’s political stability. Although I was a huge fan of the government’s argument that there are a lot of bad people on power that have committed terrible atrocities and that they shouldn’t get to have as much power, I don’t think the government did enough to completely articulate how their plan would solve this issue; the way I see it, even with normal elections, history has shown that there’s always a chance that terrible people will be voted into power. I also liked the government’s argument that the Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions on the past that have been a step in the wrong direction for the country, but once again, it wasn’t clearly explained how exactly the government’s plan would effectively stop this from happening ever again. As you can see, the round was really close, and I could’ve pretty much justified a decision for either side. You all are incredible though, and with just a few tweaks here and there, I have no doubt you’re going to be incredible successful!! Thank you for a great round :) -- Irvington Bandaru & Meswani Alisha Parikh & Nav Shriv 2 GOV PM gave a strong foundation to the case, and thoroughly backed it up in the rebuttal speech. She layered her warrants thoroughly and followed through on ever point. Not only did she show why her case mattered in her rebuttal, but she also addressed the negation's points even outside of the context of topicality, which the rest of the speakers didn't do. The Member of Gov supplied good standards for why the case holds on the ground of topicality and backed up previous points. Leader of the Opposition made a fair point about the definition of abolish, however the poor support of this argument combined with a lack of follow through on refutations made for a weaker case. The Member of Opp seemingly contradicted himself at one point in the speech, and only served to restate the same points of the first speaker. -- Campbell Hall Varnel & Eick San Marin Schmidt & Gaidano 2 GOV This topic is very timely considering the current toxic political climate in our Nation and the potential for impact on the SCOTUS. The perspectives on both sides were very compelling. The GOV side had a very interesting approach to bring the people into the process with the 4 regional courts and using the popular vote to elect those courts who then work with each other to determine what to bring to the National level. The OPP side drew correlations from the past where the popular perspective or vote would not have benefitted the rights of those disenfranchised the SCOTUS and Constitution were meant to uphold. This raised doubt about popular opinion vs rights of the people. Both teams hit on the VERY fine points and critical to this debate. Both sides had thoughtful rebuttals and POI. The OPP side had a key point that the people bring cases before the courts and SCOTUS, thus the people are being represented ultimately. Also, that the governance of these rights needs to sit at the National level. The GOV side had a very convincing point where it was suggested that the electoral college is not acting on behalf of people and that it drives home an old English way of thinking that the people are incapable of governing themselves. As I write this, I question if the issue then is not with the Supreme Court but instead with the electoral college and how we elect our officials. Do we legislate off of the exception vs the rule; a single point in time of anomaly/imbalance or only when there is demonstration of a actual trend? I would like to hear more on this. While historical references were brought in I wonder if a trending would have made the case more strongly one way or the other in this very tight debate. Based on facts presented and rebuttal arguments, and the strong points on both sides, this is an incredibly difficult decision. Ultimately, my decision is to side with the GOV and based on the layers of bias that were demonstrated at all levels in their arguments, raising just enough doubt that the life time elected members of SCOTUS are indeed potentially no longer serving the Constitution and the Rights of the People and instead biased toward political views and influences. The OPP had rebuttal arguments that held up almost enough to shift the balance to OPP. But, ultimately, the GOV tipped the scale. -- Juniper/Stratford Lei & Guan Campolindo Aresteh & Cheng 2 OPP A well formulated debate on both sides. No much evidence though! Avoid names - No name attributions, just quote the source or designation. A spirited back and forth cross fire. -- Campolindo Shrauger & Marusich Juniper Liu & Leo 2 GOV The Opposition merely defined the Supreme Court and listed what it does and why it is effective without addressing points introduced by the Government, who elaborated fully with what they said. -- Campolindo Shen & Benko Hillview Jain & Jha 2 OPP Whether or not adding the reform element to the debate violates the debate rule is a subtle question, I think each team has a point, and I don't make my decision based this factor. Overall the opposition's debate is well organized and the arguments are solid founded. The government could improve in concluding the speech in time. -- Berkeley Montgomery & Yoo Nueva Kingsbury & Pasternak 2 GOV The opposition failed to rebut any of the government's contentions and the government effectively refuted all of the opposition's remarks. -- Campolindo Naylor & Phadnis Hillview Gummalam & Kalluraya 2 GOV Good round. -- Campbell Hall Dum & Dum Washington Nabar & Jain 2 GOV Government won because their argument was more structured and clear, and also passionate. Government should have responded to the argument about how will conflicts between appellate courts be resolved, but this is the only point they missed. Opp argued that abolishing the S Ct would remove third branch of government but they also noted the other courts would remain, which internally conflicted. Opp also argued that S Ct did not make the laws but also that they decided based on what the people want, which internally conflicted. On balance, Government had the stronger arguments. -- Campolindo Wang & Kang El Cerrito Roberts & Moore 2 OPP Opp had clearer and stronger plan, did a good job refuting Gov's points and introducing new system that would do essentially what Gov was proposing but in a more efficient way. Gov's weighing mechanism was also a bit unclear. -- Campolindo Han & Murphy Bishop O'Dowd Laniecki & Towne 3 GOV I vote Aff on the perm. I agree that the CP isn't functionally competitive and at the point in which there are no net benefits to just doing the CP or a response to the perm, the Aff wins on net benefits. I think Topicality could could have been leveraged by the Neg here as well as being careful that your CP doesn't link you into your own Disadvantage. Overall, great job everyone! -- Campolindo Lan & Russell Juniper Ni & Sheng 3 GOV Good points on the government side. Great evidence by the opposition but could not relate them to rebut the government points. Government framed questions and responses more sharply than the opposition. Was a close debate! Both teams did great! -- Irvington Maddi & Perumalla Campbell Hall Tyberg & Keohoe 3 OPP Opposition wins due to strong arguments that 1) gov/prop did not prove the points they were trying to make, and 2) strong argument that banning extremists groups would undermine democracy. Gov/Prop: Good effort to connect extremism to hate speech and importance of setting moral standards for society as a whole. Would have helped to draw more of a connection between extremism and hate speech earlier in the presentation. If repeated POI's are disrupting your flow, consider disregarding them. Nice job overall. Opp/Negate: Very effective speaking style, points well organized and articulated. Nice job. Consider more judicious use of POI's as over-usage can be off-putting and it can be more effective to use speaking time to make similar points. -- Oaks Christian Kraw & Lan Catlin Gabel Kruse & Stevens 3 GOV Good job -- Friends Seminary Lev & Ros Washington Andhare & Patra 3 GOV Great round.... Gov got specific and provided examples for logic that put them at an advantage. Opposition should identify more groups they are referring to. Opp extended case in a solid way but gov in the end pulled out more logic, clearer definitions and examples for the judge. These are all four Excellent debaters with big exciting futures ahead of them. Keep challenging, thinking and changing our world. Bravo! -- Campbell Hall Danna & Lee Berkeley Boswell & Herpin 3 OPP Ultimately, the arguments from the opposition was more convincing. Their definition of extremism was more convincing than the affirmations, and the affirmation was not able to refute their points about what is considered extremism. -- Campbell Hall Varnel & Eick Nueva Kingsbury & Pasternak 3 GOV The government team gave the strongest definition of extremist political party. They also did a good job of setting up the environment where they are not banning ideas or limiting speech, but banning the ability to organize. The opposition team could have developed a different definition of extremist to fit their position, but if they did, I didn't feel like it was clear enough. The government team also provided some good, concrete examples (Nazi, etc.), and I would have liked to have seen some concrete, historical examples from the opposition team that supported their view. -- Irvington Komarraju & dhiman Berkeley Montgomery & Yoo 3 OPP Opposition won because they were able to use a line of reasoning which proved that extremism is more indicative of societal problems. In addition they were able to provide a convincing argument that banning extremist political parties is undemocratic, due to democracy's core tenets of free speech. Government did not successfully counter the idea that extremism is relative. In addition, while government did successfully set up the definitions and weighing mechanisms that set the tone for the debate, they did not counter the opposition's assertion that their definition of extremism was false until the closing speech. For these reasons, Opposition won. -- LynCox Reddy & Xu Irvington Bandaru & Meswani 3 OPP The debate just came down to the definition of extremists. Opp was clear and precise in showing how this definition could be normative and a slippery slope. Gov contradicted their own definition several times. No other points were that relevant since every speaker talked almost exclusively about the definition. -- Berkeley Owens & Syed Irvington Vajragiri & Garg 3 OPP Thank you for your excellent preparation and presentations today. Both sides offered compelling examples and perspectives as well as counter arguments. Ultimately, my decision was with OPP due to having more robust counter arguments. It was a tough decision. -- Irvington Ramshankar & Magham Bishop O'Dowd Galvan & Gerardi 3 OPP Opp. refuted all of Gov's contentions and made a very effective counterplan. -- San Marin De Frenza & Poojary El Cerrito Roberts & Moore 3 GOV Both team made excellent speeches and it is a close call. The RFD is as follows, The gov team made a clear definition of extreme party at the very beginning of the speech. Therefore the claim of the opp team that extreme is purely subjective is not very convincing to me. Noela's two speeches are very well organized, and I really like her using pace and gesture to enhance her points. Both teams are a bit underuse of their time, which could be improved in the future. -- Campolindo Shrauger & Marusich Oaks Christian Heth & Han 3 ALL WIN double bye -- Campolindo Aresteh & Cheng Hillview Jain & Jha 3 OPP The opposition team did a good job, but keep track of time. The gov team did a good job. -- Stratford MS Yang & Zeng Campbell Hall Dum & Dum 3 OPP Opp team provided crisp definition for the terms they used to argue the resolution. They formulated the arguments very well. The presentation was great, very appealing reasoning, and provided examples to support their stance. Gov team did well too, but could improve on framing their arguments in a more appealing manner. Good Job both teams ! and all the best for the rest of the rounds! -- Campolindo Chen & Seo Berkeley Castelli & Thompson 3 GOV This was a phenomenal round y’all are incredibly talented and have super bright future. I have no doubt you’re going to go very far in this tournament. This round was super close but at the end of the day I vote for the government off their pretty clear framework of saving lives. Although I actually ended up agreeing with a vast multitude of the opposition’s arguments, many of which were grounded in really great logic and analysis, there wasn’t really any substantive offense that came from the opposition that had to do with saving lives. I definitely think the opposition could’ve won this round if they had simply had said something along the lines of “you can stop a political party, but you can’t stop a violent ideology through just banning groups.” Going off that point a bit more, I really don’t think the government completely showed how banning extremist groups would stop all political violence, but I do believe that any marginal number of lives saved is enough to warrant a vote for them. I really loved the stigma and MLK arguments that came from the opposition side—I just wish you fleshed out the impacts of these arguments a bit more and compared them against lives. For example, making an argument like “equality is just as important as lives” or something like that could have been super helpful. However, the government did say that they were only talking about violent groups, but I think the opposition could have challenged this definition a lot more. Overall, a fantastic round for everyone involved. I feel lucky for having gotten to judge all of you! Best of luck :) -- Hillview Satpathy & Gao Campolindo Naylor & Phadnis 3 GOV Aff was better able to creatively respond to Neg's arguments. Both teams did really well, Aff did a great job at remaining calm and focused during arguments which was reflected in their organized responses. -- Juniper/Stratford Lei & Guan Berkeley Cobb & Lam 3 OPP Opp argued that banning voices is antithetical to democracy, a compelling argument. And, they argued that education is better than banning. Gov argued that extremist groups can be harmful, like the Nazis. Opp had a nice refutation to the Gov argument that PETA would be subject to the ban (i.e., PETA is not a political party). But Opp never discussed why we need to ban extremist political parties specifically (such as, by discussing which extremist political parties today are causing harm). And, Opp did not refute the 1st Amendment argument - how can speech and organizing be banned? Government went over time in their third speech - please keep an eye on time limits going forward. -- Juniper Liu & Leo Washington Nabar & Jain 3 OPP The Opposition stated all the definitions and the weighing mechanism. Also, the Government restricted itself to the specific case of USA on many occasions. -- San Marin Schmidt & Gaidano Campolindo Wang & Kang 3 GOV - Both the teams had fairly limited arguments - Counters for both the teams could have been more deep and thoughtful - Would have liked to see more aggressive push back from Opp on various data points brought out by the Govt e.g. 95% of the Muslims are extremists - The Opp needs to take counters to the next level esp. on any data, any definitions or assumptions made by the Govt -- Alisha Parikh & Nav Shriv Campolindo Shen & Benko 3 OPP More facts than argument in Gov case, needed more structure in what would happen and who would be impacted. Opp lacked a link between banning extremism and fascism -- Friends Seminary Lev & Ros Campolindo Han & Murphy 4 OPP Opp team provided couple strong points in favor of their argument. Though one of the points was pointed out to be new in later round - but I believe it was not completely new- just a restatement in a form. So, I am using the point for my judgement. Gov team provided good counter arguments reg climate change effect mentioned by Opp team. But lacked some supporting argument on their points for supporting their argument e.g. i did not see enough supporting statements for the point about improved economy. Overall great debate. Good luck to both the teams for the rest of the rounds! -- Berkeley Boswell & Herpin Oaks Christian Kraw & Lan 4 GOV Both sides did a great job. Opp gave great responses, and had good points, but spent too much time on communism and not enough time on the material of the motion. Prop gets credit for proving nothing inherent about private sector is good or bad. -- Campbell Hall Tyberg & Keohoe Campolindo Lan & Russell 4 GOV . -- Campbell Hall Varnel & Eick Bishop O'Dowd Galvan & Gerardi 4 GOV via Forfeit Forfeit -- Hillview Gummalam & Kalluraya Irvington Vajragiri & Garg 4 ALL WIN audio issues -- Berkeley Montgomery & Yoo Hillview Jain & Jha 4 GOV The government had a more effective refutations. They were able to turn the opposition's points about centralization into argument for a more capitalist market, which was more convincing. They were also able to explain the negative impacts for a nationalized system more effectively. The opposition failed to refute the government's point about the failures of the national government historically. -- Juniper Ni & Sheng Campolindo Shrauger & Marusich 4 GOV Better arguments. Both more convincing. Leader of OPP did not use his time so well and could have really nailed it. The AFF team had contagious energy and passion. -- Campolindo Chen & Seo Irvington Maddi & Perumalla 4 GOV well matched debaters. gov side nailed down points that held up logically and with back up report. Opposition had strong case as well but i think using examples of nationalized energy success over other industry would be more powerful. the weighing at the end brought it home with increased taxes, gov shut down and unrefuted innovation point. Very close debate. All wonderful with ability to change our world for the better. Keep competing! Thank you -- San Marin De Frenza & Poojary Oaks Christian Heth & Han 4 OPP Comprehensive RFD given after round. Opp team carries the most concrete impact in the round (environment) thereby better meeting the burden of net benefits accepted by both teams. Solid debate overall! -- Catlin Gabel Kruse & Stevens Washington Andhare & Patra 4 GOV The opposition was not able to refute the government's points and did not come up with any kind of counter plan. -- Campbell Hall Dum & Dum Hillview Satpathy & Gao 4 GOV Awesome round everyone! I agree with the government's argument that the scope of impacts to the US is far greater than would be just to Alaska. I really liked the arguments about green energy and economic growth as well. There was a lot of muddling of the arguments on both sides and things got a little heated at times, so just always remember to step back a bit. Overall though great round, but I do have to give it to the government under their framework of util. Both teams are super talented and have super bright futures! -- Irvington Bandaru & Meswani Campbell Hall Danna & Lee 4 GOV Impressive and honorable debate. Both sides were prepared, factual, passionate, articulate and thorough. Both sides used a structured approach and refuted points made by their opponent. The thought and delivery were excellent. The OPP side provided some excellent points around government acting quickly, for common good of people, imposing standards for the better, and contributing to social welfare (clean energy, no exploitation & greed as seen in industry). The GOV side made important points on the benefits of encouraging not nationalizing innovations in energy sector. Points were made & refuted where innovation is reduced or not possible at government level, where the expertise to innovate sits with private sector, and where private sector competition drives down cost were key on the GOV side. Ultimately, while a very close call, the points made by GOV shifted the scale in their favor. -- Bishop O'Dowd Laniecki & Towne Irvington Komarraju & dhiman 4 OPP Opp gave examples of how nationalization had worked in the past (coal, railroads) but did not give any details about why this was true. But, Gov did not refute that there were past successes, saying only that it did not mean it would work this time. Opp refuted the Covid argument nicely with job creation. Also Opp argued that green energy would be the focus of a nationalized energy program. I did not understand how taxes would increase due to nationalization, as Gov argued - this could have been explained more fully. Gov argued that government interference is bad because it creates distrust, but why? This was a very close debate, with both sides arguing well. -- Berkeley Castelli & Thompson Campolindo Aresteh & Cheng 4 GOV Great job by both teams. Very good research -- LynCox Reddy & Xu Berkeley Owens & Syed 4 GOV Both teams gave very good speech. The government's arguments sound stronger to me because they are founded by very good examples. Anne is good at using pitch and gesture to enhance her points. -- San Marin Schmidt & Gaidano Campolindo Shen & Benko 4 OPP The opposition had clear speeches and arguments. -- Berkeley Cobb & Lam Stratford MS Yang & Zeng 4 GOV The PM explained the points pretty thoroughly, however she hurt her own arguments by not making them distinct, and forcing them to all rely on one idea. The Opp Leader brought up good points, yet failed to delve into any nuance, overall harming the opp case by leaving room for easy rebuttal. The Gov Member spent a lot of time repeating word for word things she said earlier in the speech, this time could've been much more effectively spent dissecting the particulars of the Opp. The Opp Member gave a lot of repetition of facts, but little to no reasoning/warranting. -- Washington Nabar & Jain Irvington Ramshankar & Magham 4 OPP There were a lot of POI requests (on both sides) that caused the speakers to sometimes lose their train of thought, and it was disruptive to the judge to get the flow of the arguments. Some of the POIs did not seem very necessary. I gave the win to the Opposition because I thought they gave the clearest arguments and their reasoning made the most sense to me. -- Campolindo Naylor & Phadnis El Cerrito Roberts & Moore 4 GOV A closely argued debate on both sides. Government presented more contingents and rebuts like capitalism, entrepreneurship, jobs and better life quality where as opposition tried to support the fact of climate change by rebutting all the points of the government. Both the sides had a POI and a POO with great clarifications, questions and responses. Good debate! well tried by both the teams! -- Nueva Kingsbury & Pasternak Juniper/Stratford Lei & Guan 4 OPP Both sides needed more structure in their argument, but ultimately agreed with opp that it isn't a given that Trump will win the election and beyond that, it wasn't linked how exactly Trump's reelection would lead to more oil spills and a net cost to humanity -- Campolindo Wang & Kang Alisha Parikh & Nav Shriv 4 GOV I'm voting for the Gov. I think the opps arguments - climate change, exploitation, and prioritization of social good > profit are all responded to by the end round, and the only argument left is the Gov's economic efficiency decrease argument, so I vote for them on that. Would've loved to see more clear warranting, weighing, and signposting. -- Campolindo Han & Murphy Campbell Hall Tyberg & Keohoe 5 OPP Beck Murphy was unable to show up for the debate. The government made some very good points but the opposition was able to disprove the foundation of them. -- Berkeley Montgomery & Yoo Berkeley Boswell & Herpin 5 GOV Given verbally -- Juniper Ni & Sheng Campbell Hall Varnel & Eick 5 OPP Opposition won due to the their assertion that if a candidate's private life affects their public duties, it is public information. Because this point was not refuted by Government, it was a major decision as to why Opposition won the case. In addition Opposition was able to successfully use the weighing mechanism of net benefits that Government introduced to argue that releasing health records of a candidate to the public would harm the most people. These are the main two reasons that the opposition team was more successful, -- Bishop O'Dowd Galvan & Gerardi Oaks Christian Kraw & Lan 5 OPP The Government was not able to back their claims with any evidence. The Opposition refuted each of their points very satisfactorily. -- Irvington Vajragiri & Garg Catlin Gabel Kruse & Stevens 5 OPP Opposition won due to presenting a better supported case for their position--strong use of specific examples to help illustrate points they were trying to make. Very close call, however. Prop/Gov: Strong arguments (and ones I generally agreed with more at the outset) but felt there could have been more support/evidence cited to support positions. Neg/Opp: Very nice job gradually persuading me through use of examples . Great job to both teams! -- Oaks Christian Heth & Han Campolindo Chen & Seo 5 GOV The Aff was able to convince me that the people who are serving the people need to give up their privacy when conflict to prove that they can serve the people in the right way. Gave some of the examples which the Neg did not refute. Aff made it clear that nothing of national security will be shared but the neg was bringing up the topic of sharing the location and other personal information. -- Campbell Hall Dum & Dum Friends Seminary Lev & Ros 5 GOV Good points on both sides. I think that Government takes this because of their more nuanced approach on the right to privacy. Gov is able to access its impacts (show why its points matter) by showing why the right to privacy is ceded when you become a politician. I don't really think that the Opp side's refutation of privacy being in the Constitution is mechanized well (explain why the right to privacy is good to an individual). The national security point is a bit of a wash for me, but I end up buying gov a little bit more when they say that information needed to create a secure nation won't be disclosed by a politician's private life. I think that gov fails to address the network of lies argument properly, but I don't think it gets impacted enough to really weigh significantly into the round. For both teams, a stronger understanding of what would and wouldn't be considered part of a candidates right to privacy would've made this round better. Great job though, I think it was a good debate, I'm just a negative person. -- Irvington Bandaru & Meswani Campolindo Lan & Russell 5 OPP “Presidents who died in office were good presidents! “ “Unfair discrimination” “Abuse” Both sides were strong. This was a close call. In the end, neg was more convincing. -- Juniper Liu & Leo Irvington Komarraju & dhiman 5 OPP The Opposition team clearly stated their refutations. -- Campolindo Shrauger & Marusich Hillview Gummalam & Kalluraya 5 GOV A spirited and challenging back and forth back fires. Government had great facts, evidence and confidence. Opposition went maverick and did great with POI and POO but could not frame questions and responses more sharply than the government. Good debate! As a judge thoroughly enjoyed the effective identifying and challenging argument by both sides. -- Irvington Maddi & Perumalla LynCox Reddy & Xu 5 GOV Thank you for your endurance today and staying strong and passionate in your arguments late into this evening. You all crossed the finish line strong! Both sides presented structured arguments and provided examples. You stuck with your points thru the round and remained vigilant in your stance. Both sides refuted the opinions of the other side. Ultimately, I sided with the GOV because their examples and points just were stronger and more convincing. Regardless, you should all be proud. Get a good nights rest. -- Hillview Jain & Jha Washington Andhare & Patra 5 GOV The PM brought up good points with much evidence, however, failed to impact a lot of the warrants and claims properly or left holes that were exploited later. Their rebuttal speech also was pretty solid, but it didn't completely address why any of this matters. The Opp Leader made his argument too convoluted by failing to provide or confirm a definition that made their case arguably different, which made his points weaker. The Gov Member makes the most solid arguments, supported by many warrants and impacts. Their argument is especially improved by their recognition of the lack of distinction between the opp and gov. The Opp Member stands out from the Opp Leader with her warranting of a previously mentioned opp point. Their rebuttals overall were valid, but not well impacted. -- Campolindo Naylor & Phadnis Campbell Hall Danna & Lee 5 OPP Both team gave excellent speech and debate and it is a very close call. The affirmative team spoke more fluently and had better pace and expressions. The opposition team made more convincing refutations to the other sides' points, and it is the deciding factor in my decision. -- Berkeley Castelli & Thompson Irvington Ramshankar & Magham 5 GOV The government did a better job refuting the opposition's main points, especially in the closing. The opposition's point about the media was confusing and the government's refutation effectively convinced me. The government also brought up relevant and recent news and was able to use them to their advantage well. -- Campolindo Shen & Benko Berkeley Cobb & Lam 5 OPP Gov just talked about the bennefits of knowledge generally as opposed to specifically when it comes into conflict with privacy. Opp WON the incentive argument about candidates. Prop got confused and talked about criminal records when those are already public. Prop did win on medical records though. -- Hillview Satpathy & Gao San Marin De Frenza & Poojary 5 GOV Good round! Found that the gov's argument that elected officials give up some sense of privacy by running for public office held throughout the round -- Alisha Parikh & Nav Shriv Juniper/Stratford Lei & Guan 5 GOV I voted gov because the argument that there may be a worse president (who will make worse policy decisions for the next 4 years) outweighs the potential for their privacy to be exposed 1 time. -- Washington Nabar & Jain Bishop O'Dowd Laniecki & Towne 5 ALL WIN no show -- Stratford MS Yang & Zeng Campolindo Wang & Kang 5 OPP Aff failed burden in not giving vc. More engagement on negation for aff arguments. -- El Cerrito Roberts & Moore San Marin Schmidt & Gaidano 5 GOV Gov. won this round because in their first speech they brought up three contentions, all of which went unchallenged. The neg provided evidence against on example brought up for one of the points, but that was not sufficient to contradict the point or the case. -- Campolindo Aresteh & Cheng Berkeley Owens & Syed 5 GOV via Forfeit forfeit --