Partnership (put both last names)

Who did you debate? Please include school and student names

If you were neg, what aff was read? If you were aff, what major arguments did they make? Please include as much detail as you can (full plan text, advantage areas, disadvantages, etc.)

Any other descriptions of the round? Judge/ what was in the 2nr/ any comments made verbally

What was your opponent's value/ value criteria (or other major arguments they made)

Anything else interesting about the round? Judge/ speed/ comments made verbally

Your name/ your partner name

Who did you debate? (include school and opponent's names

How did sides get determined?

What major arguments did your opponent make?

Was there anything else interesting that happened in the round? Strange judge, comments made, etc.

How did this round go in your opinion? Please include things like if you were long/ short on time, if you thought you spoke too fast, if your judge was engaged, etc.

Any other comments about this section? Were you against particular people that you want to make mention of/ strange judge/ etc.

Your name and topic of OO/ Informative

Based on your knowledge of the room, was your speech more series or less serious than your competitors?

How did this round go in your opinion? Please include things like if you were long/ short on time, if you thought you spoke too fast, if your judge was engaged, etc.

Any other comments about this section? Were you against particular people that you want to make mention of/ strange judge/ etc.

Your name and question (please write the question exactly - we will use them for practice)

How many sources did you use in your speech

How did this round go in your opinion? Please include things like if you were long/ short on time, if you thought you spoke too fast, if your judge was engaged, etc.

Any other comments about this section? Were you against particular people that you want to make mention of/ strange judge/ etc.

What event did you watch?

Who do you think won (or received the 1) and what did they do well?

If debate, who was affirmative/ pro?

If debate, who was negative/ con?

If debate, what were major AFF/ pro arguments?

If debate, what were major neg/ con arguments?

cadenhaustein@gmail.com

Caden Haustein, “Are mandatory arbitration clauses as a condition of unemployment unconstitutional in the US?”

Felt good. Definitely short but the judge was engaged. I think I spoke at a good rate

Charlie Beyer: Should the United States federal government increase global security research for infectious diseases?

For my very first speech, ever, it went well. Much better than expected. I was one minute short on time and there were a few moments where I hesitated. The judge seemed engaged, nodding and smiling along with me. I did well keeping a structure to my speech.

Grant Martin: What does the Army's failure to meet its recruiting goal mean for U.S. national security?

I was about a minute short on time, I was decently nervous, but lesser so than I would expect for the first round of the year. The judge was very engaged and made a lot of eye contact which did through me off at some points causing some pauses. One last detail that I would like to include is that I was more structured than I normally am, which is good. Over all, I am not confident that I was ranked highly in the room.

Grant Martin: In a post-COVID environment, should states scrap truancy laws

I felt like I did really well, I went to time and I think I confidently (at least for me) presented a good argument as to why we should scrap truancy laws, I thought I had a good flow (for me) and few fluency errors (once again, for me), however the judge was (seemingly) very unengaged, and did not seem to buy my arguments made.

I am conflicted on whether or not to include this, but draw was very messy, partially due to the fact of the people running it, but also very much so due to the noise level throughout draw, which made it hard to hear the people running it when they called us, and it created a very distracting environment for prep, I don't want to specify names, but our team (not all but probably most) was a large contributor to this environment, at one point someone even said "they are running this so poorly" very loudly, maybe this is not a huge deal, or maybe I am making a big deal out of nothing, but it just seemed very disrespectful and unprofessional to me personally, I don't want to trough anyone under the bus, and again I could be making a big deal out of nothing, however I just thought you would want to know, that is my soapbox, thank you.

they were very slow and alien like

V - morality. VC - utilitarianism. major arguments - cost + staffing/access.

Went pretty fast, made a very big emphasis on morals.

V- utilitarianism. Vc- human rights. Major Arguments- medicare is a human right, so sp is better

never gave resources unless asked or called out, treated it oddly like policy

Value: Utilitarianism VC: Cost Analysis.

Judge didn't seem to like the continuous "people of color" being reinstated constantly in the evidence, I think they thought we were maybe categorizing POC as poorer and disparaged communities.

cadenhaustein@gmail.com

Caden, “Apple stores and Apple orchards

It felt pretty good. I was nervous and made some fluency errors. The judge seemed pretty engaged. I probably don’ spoke a little fast but didn’t time myself

I was almost perfect on time, 9:54. I think I spoke slow enough, when I usually go too fast, but I did hesitate a few times.

This is my own thing, but I was not expecting 5 judges.

cadenhaustein@gmail.com

Caden, “Apple stores and apple orchards”

It felt very good. I was much more confident than the first round and didn’t forget any major sections. The judge seemed engaged. I spoke at a good pace.

Charlie Beyer and Reading Fiction

I was short on time this round, 8:15. I don't think I spoke too fast, I just forgot a section of my speech. My judges seemed very engaged.

They were students, my judges. There were five, though I think only one was a judge. I actually liked having other (debate) students judging me because I knew they would be brutally honest (peer critique).

Catholic Mary Sharp <3 <3 <3

Person McPersonface from Schoolie McSchoolface

They said NATO good we said nato bad

A whole bunch of marxist rambling.

Milton friedman was the judge

kassidyellis24@gmail.com

Kassidy Ellis/Hunter Maggard

We won toss chose speaking order

I tap danced and Hunter performed a lovely hula

We won toss chose speaking order

judge happened to be cyborg

That guy from you know where

They won the toss and chose speaking order

You know, that one argument

We won toss chose speaking order

Said electric cars will be more efficient then HSR but also said electric cars make up only 1% of cars on the road

9C- Ben Wolf and Graham Henry

We won toss chose speaking order

Racism- Damages economy- doesn't go the speed its supposed to- risky and expensive- raise taxes- cuts main gov't facilities (fire dep, cops, etc.)- Ridership-Debt

nothing weird the opponents were nice and the judge was cool

17C Akira White and Kayleigh Ray

We won toss chose speaking order

Econ good- city growth- improve quality of life- decrease foreign oil relations- increase connectivity- inflation- gas prices- econ struggling

our opponents made short and not well thought out speeches and it was really weird

Watching an elimination round

Watched round/ not in round

They read single fuel concept, JP-8. Average climate advantages and stuff. Not that. We read Italy but mostly focused on case. We crushed them on flow but they gave a regular lay 2AR and won

2NR was mostly case offense, the italy DA frankly was not that good

We read my starlink lay aff (just cyber advantages). They read a tradeoff disad which said "Russia has good AI" and that was literally it. They had no link, uniqueness, or impact. They also didn't have case. They just didn't have a case

2NR was "ummm.... Russia um.... cyberattacks.... ummm China" and was two minutes long.

They read a generic ethical AI aff on signature strikes

They said there was a link between military AI and consular services

William Chrisman - Jaden Tyra and Nathan Smith

3 off case, DoS CP, Eu Autonomy, DoD Tradeoff speechdrop code: 4RdeNe

Kept all three off case in 2nr and answered case

cadenhaustein@gmail.org

Caden Haustein/Justin Bates

We won toss chose speaking order

At first they argued gentrification/redlining and harms to minority/low-income communities, but in the middle of the round they switched to higher taxes being bad.

cadenhaustein@gmail.com

Caden Haustein, Justin Bates

We won toss chose speaking order

1. Most costly form of infrastructure, 2. environmental damages, 3. no ridership

cadenhaustein@gmail.com

Caden Haustein, "Apple stores and apple orchards"

It felt very good. I'm not sure about time, but my judges seemed relatively engaged. There was a large audience of competitors and spectators and they all seemed engaged and as if they like it.

cadenhaustein@gmail.com

Caden Haustein, "Do warrantless cellular phone searches violate the 4th Amendment?"

It felt good. The judges were not very engaged and I did 5:45 minutes out of 7 minutes, so I could have added more evidence/analysis. I felt like the arguments were very persuasive.

V- Equality. Vc- protection for the least advantaged. Access was a big argument.

Did not make a single speech that was the correct amount of time. Fast talker, but unsure.

V: Maximizing the quality of live VC: Utilitarianism. Brought up access and mental health.

The AFF said that the improving of quality of life isn't the delay of death. They said that this debate has a moral obligation. They never attacked my cyber neg and tried to say all my evidence was wrong. Said cyber neg was irrelevant.

17C Alden Dougherty and Hank Word

We won toss chose speaking order

Rare earth metals- china - environment- indigenous people- illness and cancer

they just argued their case weird

V: quality of life VC: innovation

very rude opponent. tried to disprove john locke social contract with 1932 sypholis study being unethical.

V: Protect human rights VC: Social progress

didn't attack my case at all. I was a bit nervous so it was a little loopy, but I think it got across.

Jacob Hall & Youngha Rissler

Liberty - Richard Burns & Caroline Shemwell

They read GMOs, the plan text was, “The United States federal government should
substantially increase its security cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in
the area of biotechnology by facilitating the science-based promotion and distribution of
genetically modified agriculture and organisms."
Advantages were food security meaning that people would have more money and International security leading to nuke war extinction

The 2nr was the Italy DA and case. We ended up losing the round lol.

We won toss chose speaking order

Our opponents Dropped and we got a free win

We won toss chose speaking order

They reversed their own argument and changed their case. AND STILL WON

Kyler and Jacob. school 18 (school name wasnt shared)

They argued that vaccines were already being distributed and that they wouldn't help us.

We won toss chose speaking order

I don't remember, today is a slow day for my brain

chariot ryan, hannah evans

i dont rember i dont have my ballet with me

Ethical AI. We were not aware that they would read a diffrent case. so we did not know what to read. we did very bad for this round and overall lost the round

we overall had no idea what we were doing for this round but we learned from our mistakes.

We won toss chose speaking order

I ate sunflower seeds and drank a 5 hour energy before it

Henry and Saora. school 12 (name was not mentioned)

williams read the cyber neg on accident

Hannah Evans Chariot Ryan

They made basically made the same argument as us.

The judge was a high school student and didn't know what they were doing.

Kyle and Mike. school 23 (school wasnt mentioned)

Cyber attacks. They argued that by defining what does and doesn't count as cyber warfare, we can deter Russia from using cyber warfare. We argued that defining the line to cross we merely allow Russia to stay right below the line.

Kyle and Mike. school 23 (school name not mentioned)

They argued that vaccine diplomacy was unethical because its based on highest bidder rather than need. we argued that vaccine diplomacy was ethical because competition benefits the consumer.

Tanner Smith. Decision Petrification

I felt this round went good because the judge talked about it after the speech. she especially liked the conclusion.

Lillian Williams Question #13

It was very good i came up with some great ideas on the spot.

He was quiet but id say nice

I saw the 2nd place and i watched almost every thing except the 1st person because i was providing a friend about to go moral support

Watched round/ not in round

chariot ryan, hannah evans

i dont have my ballet so i dont remember

they did the vaccines case and they were saying that war wasnt as important as getting vaccines out. i think we did very good for this debate

the judge must have got us mixed up because they dropped multiple qusetions in cx and there rebudle was 14 seconds and wasnt prepared for our arguments

Tanner Smith. Decision Petrification

poorly. I walked in during someones speech because the room didnt have windows, then became super nervous because of how good that persons speech was.

Hannah Evans Chariot Ryan

We made the argument that we should push out vaccines because people are dying and we need the pandemic to be over.

They dropped their rebuttal I don't know which one but they dropped one.

Jude Riemenschneider and River Harris

lee summit Luckas Gillette and Austin Bidwell

the aff read to add cyber to article 5. their plan text talked about proposing the plan to nato. They talked about fiat and how they could fiat through it past through nato.

Why should other countries observe a workers right to strike unconditionally?

pretty good. unfortunately I wasn't able to do any research because the building didnt have wifi and i left my phone in the commons, however I got a question that could be answered by appealing to a persons morals.

Tanner Smith. What can be done to mitigate desertification in africa.

Good. my speech was over 4 minutes long and I was able to use my phone for research this time.

Tanner Smith. How consequential will this months upset at the Brazilian run-off election be for the future of the Amazon.

it was definitely the weakest of my four IX speeches, I was the last draw so I only had two options, and I really struggled to give the speech more then just an answer.

Jude Riemenschneider and River Harris

Kiki Wood and Theodore Casey from Pembrook Hill School

They had topicality and turkey genocide disad

Their reason for topicality was biofuels didn't match the merriam websters definition of biotechnology

Tanner Smith. How will the recent Swedish election impact Europe.

It went okay. I was able to draw a connection from the winning party to a neo-nazi group, so I talked a lot about how Sweden could be taken over. It was definitely an extreme catastrophization but it made a good speech.

we don't remember what school or what their names are besides the part of them being female presenting and second year debaters

first speechdrop from was 3tcEJR But they only read the first about russia esscalation plan text "The United States federal government should increase its security cooperation with NATO in the area of cybersecurity by amending Article 5 to include “or cyberattack” after every occurrence of “armed attack” and increasing security commitments in the area of offensive cyber operations." they didn't have anything on amending art5 besides the plan text.

they thought that article 5 already included cyber

River Harris Nervous Wreck

i spoke too fast and didn't have it fully memorized. i was nervous

Compared to others mine doesn't have very many obvious jokes

Kassidy Ellis/Hunter Maggard

We won toss chose speaking order

No way to make HSR happen

I did not like my opps they were lowkey disrespectful.

Charlie Beyer, Reading Fiction

I was perfect on time, but I when I spoke, I was nervous, so I fidgeted a lot. My judges weren't that engaged and I found out after the tournament that most did not like my topic.

I really, truly can't remember anything from this weekend. I know they presented an argument about Chinese vaccines failing, but this weekend is a blank, anxious memory.

I had to help my partner for almost every round, neg. or not. The judge mentioned that is the ballot.

We screwed up this round. Any argument they could make, they did.

Again, I was horribly prepared. My 2nr was ten seconds

the judge looked very interested in the topics and my opponent was very nice

the opponent had very strong arguments and very good cross ex

my opponent repeated alot of evidence in every speech that i had disproved

she seemed very new and not that expieranced but she did good but had weak cross ex and was under time

Kaeden and Adalea - Willard

https://media.speechdrop.net/uploads/fwop4C/0/JP-8%201AC%20Biofuels%20Kaeden%20and%20Adalea.pdf

The judge was just a normal person who didn't know anything about debate, asked us about it after the round. 2NR wasnt anything special, we mostly talked about how the aff doesnt solve because JP-8 is already being used, and how it triggers the Italy DA.

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

Grant Martin: Dose accessibility infrastructure need progressive improvement.

I had a hard time keeping it under 7 minutes, and I probably spent too much time on the struggle of getting my brother into buildings.

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

Charlie Beyer and How will cutbacks of OPEC production effect relationships between OPEC members and Europeans in need of oil?

I think it well. Time could have been better but my judge seemed engaged. I felt more relaxed (being tense was critique on a past ballot.)

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

Charlie Beyer and Reading Fiction

I was short on time, just shy of eight minutes. The judge seemed interested, they kept smiling when I said things. I think it went very well for the first oo of the weekend.

I was a little late, simply because I had to run across campus.

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

Charlie Beyer and What path can the largest emitters take to reach their NDC goal on reducing greenhouse gases?

I was pretty good on time for a novice speech event, almost seven minutes. The judge was engaged and I think I repeated a little too much.

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

Charlie Beyer and Reading Fiction

This round went very well. I moved with purpose and I caught the judges attention. I stumbled a little and choked on a few words. My judge seemed engaged.

I actually got to watch another platform speech before my own, and it was nice to see another speech.

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

Grant Martin: should the Biden administration increase immigration quotas for high skilled workers.

I was very redundant throughout

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

They had no value, it was largely economic benefits and how single payer would cut costs

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

V of societal well-being with VC of pragmatism, C1 was that the VA does not work, C2 was tax increases, C3 was gov says who gets care.

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

River Harris and Bella Woods

15A and i don’t remember their names

they ran a UN cp the plan text was united nations do the affirmative instead of NATO they made the argument they can use fiat since it went though the un security congress.

the neg said our link card in 1ac was pointless since it went was talking about a country that doesn’t have a lot supplies. then on climate they said that we don’t do enough and they can

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

River Harris Nervous Wreck

a lot of people are double entered

Watched round/ not in round

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

Watching an elimination round

19c, his HI was a retelling of Aladen, he had very well-defined characters

Watched round/ not in round

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

Sems of HI in the Craig Building

Pretty good, they all knew their pieces and they had them memorized

Watched round/ not in round

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

I thought that 19c did exeptionally well. He did a great job with the acting bit, and I think he deserves to go really far in HI

I thought that the events that we did watch went pretty well. The only thing that I caught is that one of the girls switched accents twice in the middle of the HI. But that was the only real issue, and it wasnt even that big of a deal.

Watched round/ not in round

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

Charlie Beyer and Reading Fiction

I think this went really well. I reached nine minutes and I didn't speak too fast. My judges were very engaged and I think their reactions were good.

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

Charlie Beyer and Should we engage in NFUs against Russia's aggression in Ukraine?

Well. I only hit four minutes on time but I didn't repeat myself, which was good.

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

1NC---Deleuze Bad, Ballot Pic, FWK, Cap good, Reform NATO, Ban Laws

2NR---Reform NATO, Deleuze Bad

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

1AC---TEVV 1NC--T-A5, Vagueness, Security, DoD DA, OSCE CP

2NR--Vagueness (wrong 2NR choice)

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

1AC--OCO's 1NC---Public Perception CP, FFC CP, T-A5, DoD DA, Security K, Vagueness

2NR---Public Perception CP, DoD DA

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

1NC---FWK, Tech Pic, Sorcery Pic, NATO K, University K, Deleuze Bad, NATO CP

2NR---Tech Pic + Presumption on case (but like really bad)

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

Aiden Simpson The Good Mother By: Elise Sharon

ok, I went a little over time but I think I still went a little bit fast.

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

1NC---NATO does alchemy CP, Cap K, FWK

AidenSimpson2222@gmail.com

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

Aiden Simpson The Good Mother By: Elise Sharon

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

1AC---Huawei 1NC---Disclosure >:(, T-A5, DoD DA, OSCE, Security K

2NR---OSCE CP w/ Case turns

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

1AC--NEW Turkey aff 1NC---New aff disclosure good, Vagueness, T A5, Security K, OSCE CP, DoD DA

2NR---New aff disclosure good

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

1NC---Deleuze = Set Col, Presumption

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

v: social welfare vc: fundamentalism

talked about quality of life and how we need a morality of action. Taxation would be bad and providers would be worse off. Used rural argument and how hospitals in areas who need won't be accessible.

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

started talking about how we fought in ww2 and because of that we are the best and care the most about our people. talked about past presidents. they talked about making a just society and people who "who is considered human enough to get that right."

MoState/ Deo/ Westminster

v: health equity vc: resoes social contract

really strong arguments with access and eco burden. talked about kidney disease and access to treatment and how it's been improved in taiwan, mentioned ckd.