Kentucky RR '25 According to the Docs

Round 1

Binghamton CK vs Long Beach MO

Binghamton appears to be debating on paper or some such thing, so their debates are not very good for this exercise. Binghamton read a planless K Aff. Wiki labelled it "Survival."

Long Beach reads the Cap K. You have an almost infinite number of choices for evidence when reading the Cap K against a critical affirmative. My notes on Long Beach's are:

• The first three cards are very descriptive and not very argumentative. I assume the counter would be these are root case and impact style cards, but you can get better bang for your buck.
• I wonder how totalizing Binghamton was to read Burns 22 about unions being good. I imagine Binghamton said later you could find a union they agree with.
• Is this Gilmore 22 card better than Adolph Reed 2013^[1] or Jodi Dean 15^[2]? I would say it is not. Those other cards make the same point more directly and in a more explicit tradeoff kind of way. Is this Gilmore 22 card better than just googling "moments of resistance" and seeing what comes up? You tell me:

Everyday resistance stupid

Laura Bedford 22, Lecturer in Criminology at Deakin University, "In Defense of Class Struggle," Critical Criminology, vol. 30, 2022, pp. 213-223, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-021-09567-z

Rather than accept Thomas' invitation to elaborate an "'alternative conception of the world'," Ferrell (2019) instead asks whether resistance may be, in and of itself, the embodiment of a "better world," even if it is not a means to that end: "After all, a million moments of resistance emerging day to day, strung together by loose affiliations and emerging models, would constitute some sort of revolution, would they not?" Ferrell suggests that these myriad small acts "are little seed pods of potential, taking root—and taking us—where they will." Potential for what? How do they take root? Who is us? Are we, as subjects, unable to direct our future, or at least strive collectively for one? Along with Winlow and Hall (2016: 88), I would argue against this sort of fatalism: "human agents can of course change their social worlds for the better, as long as they are actually acting on real underlying forces, processes and structures rather than simply gesturing toward them." These "million moments of resistance" cannot be equated to precursors or contributions to revolutionary change if they do not challenge the material or social reproduction of an unjust society as it is. These "million moments" are no more likely to contribute to a revolution than millions of acts of charity, dumpster diving, graffiti writing, parkour and shoplifting are likely to "hoist the world with its own petard." More importantly, these prefigurative acts of resistance could take us left or right. Resistance to perceived unjust power and authority from the populist right (and also neo-fascists) is equally performative, invitational and prefigurative of a different world, and empowering for those engaged in it.

• Reed 22 is fine, but tagged wrong. That is essentializing identity bad, not individual strategies bad.
• Love 20 is better than Gilmore 22 and you probably only need one.
• The framing of abolition is dicey for me, what could Binghamton possibly be saying that would preclude them from abolition? Obviously there are link arguments, but ideally the alternative and the affirmative would be zero sum with another to give you as much permutation help as possible. What is the upside of this abolition framing?

Emory GS vs Kentucky GS

It is good when teams with the same initials debate each other.

1AC is Federal Workers. Yawn. The choice of impacts did make me chuckle. Trump with federal unions was around for COVID but sure, pandemic impact. And the EPA on their best day in the last 25 years couldn't solve shit, but for sure, clean air impacts. Like were these agencies doing all that much in October 2024? You can't write the advantage like this. The negative for sure can find a way to regulate air pollution without involving unions at all, I promise. Hunt air polluters for sport, to name but one off the top of my head.

The real test of this debate is what does Kentucky have for federal workers neg?

• Rates DA with no federal workers link
• Think you are missing an internal link on the politics DA
• NASA DA! Ok.
• ASPEC card that isn't about the topic, boo!

So NASA DA. Did it get extended? Hell no. Did the affirmative make an offensive argument on that DA? Not that I could see. Did the affirmative read any cards about NASA? They did not. Poor form not having cards about every agency.

This 2AC was generally setting up for a terror filled 1AR with the right negative block follow through. If you do not extend ASPEC or Coercion when the affirmative team does not read a card, what the hell is the point? The negative reads the positions.^[3] The affirmative calls the negative wusses by reading no cards and spending no time on these positions. You have to be ready to extend them in 60 to 90 seconds. Otherwise you are letting the affirmative punk you.

The Rates DA debating got decent on both sides. Going for politics, yuck. That has gotta be an affirmative ballot.

Georgetown AC vs Michigan BP

This debate purely from the documents is both confusing and stupid. We have to take a step back here.

If you were a debate team or you were a coach of a debate team, how would you want to position yourself to your opponents and judges. To me it would seem like your ideal would look like:

• We read new arguments, we set the research agenda
• When people read new arguments against us, we have already thought about them (a personal favorite of mine)
• We can display a wide range of argumentative expertise

Debaters can entertain lots of ideas. I don't want to lambast someone's fun. Hey, someone's fun can create my own fun by giving me something for which to make fun. The circle of fun.

You can entertain too many ideas or the wrong ideas. This is especially true for a RR where the prep is a little more intense and you can groupthink your way into over adapting to your notions of a judge.

The affirmative side of this debate seems like a failure of coaching. This shit should not have gotten out of the squad room. You can trust me on this one as a guy who won debates on God is real. This is not how you do it. As some reports and later documents indicated, talking about this on day 1 of RR prep is one thing. But it is a whole different animal and sounds a lot worse when you have a live opponent who wants to beat your guts challenging you.

But more importantly you do not forego an opportunity to crush an opponent with a better resume than you on better arguments.

Round 2

Dartmouth CG vs Emory GS

New version of Sectoral Bargaining. Looks fine. Can't say Beauchamp 24 is an improvement over that Belfield 23 card everyone reads to impact democracy. Looks like a step backwards.

Does Emory have the sauce when negative? Welllll -

• Short Cap K. Meh. I think Emory read better cards at NUSO. Strategically is it a good idea to say capitalism is bad but also say the wages DA on the case? You cannot conditionally say capitalism is bad, it is or it is not.
• ASPEC with a "The" definition and a card not about the topic. The ASPEC recipe is one card about the topic and that is it. FAIL
• Fake T argument
• Federalism DA that could not survive a CX
• Midterms, fine. Link card is good. Jackson 25 is nothing. I like two impacts to midterms if the DA is well positioned, but fake laundry list (that is being generous to Jackson 25) and nuclear testing? Gross.
• Cities DA. Technically a new argument I think, but just terrible. No uniqueness. Impact card says..."In lower-income communities with less access to air conditioning, the lack of tree canopy has exacerbated the impact of the heat island effect." Is that an impact?
• One offensive card on the case.

So no, no sauce.

6 cards slated for midterms in the 2AC when that is the only thing they can go for? Ruh roh.

Kicking the cap K and saying the movements DA takes out solvency? When you could have just read a movements DA to start and extended that DA in not that much time?

Kentucky GS vs Georgetown AC

Kentucky reads same 1AC as NUSO. Sad.

I am starting to suspect Georgetown is a team that has a large gap between tag and reality. Example:

Fast automation causes extinction. It's a national and economic security crisis.

Cloud 24

The maritime industry is the lifeblood of our nation. Ports are the gateways for goods, military supplies, food and energy indispensable to economic and national security. As automation infiltrates ports they introduce vulnerability to cyberattacks.

NotPetya was a glimpse into potential devastation.

A cyberattack targeting ports could halt essential goods and undermine ability to respond to emergencies plunging the country into chaos.

Businesses would face shortages.

Risks posed by automation far outweigh any benefits.

This card is from the International Longshoreman's Association and just says automation is always bad because computers can get attacked. It doesn't say anything about pace. I understand why you would love a fast vs slow automation DA, but that is not what was cut.

This kind of thing happens over and over again.

Midterms DA with worse link cards then other teams read and a fake impact. Painful.

Broke the ASPEC rules, that was above.

Automation zeroes the plan. They're net-worse for all their impacts.

In an automated environment robots could reduce the effectiveness of strikes. This is troubling as collective bargaining without strike risks becoming collective pleading.

For sure.

Georgetown does extend a CP, two DA's and a T violation. They only read one more card on T so you know that is fake. I appreciate the ambition. Hard to judge from merely documents because you don't actually know what the 2AC said and you do not know exactly what the negative read or skipped.

It all culminated in a pile of automation DA cards where you got three fake port impact cards, four cards that just repeat the idea higher wages = automation with no scenario or magnitude or scope or anything^[4], two uniqueness cards about not the ports which is the only impact and then trying to say the plan causes hyper inflation. I am super worried about sectoral bargaining.

Michigan vs Binghamton

That's a lot of consequentialism and extinction first cards you got there for when your judge is Zahir. I will not be thinking about if a new bar has been set on consequentialism first vs K teams. Maybe Michigan did it, check the docs. Next!

Round 3

Georgetown AC vs Dartmouth CG

What do we know about Dartmouth negative strategy? They probably are going to read a politics based argument, but it won't be boilerplate Agenda DA. They are probably going to read a CP about the topic. It could be new. On this topic it is hard to insulate yourself so new broad topic CP is a reasonable bet.

So if you are reading a new affirmative you would prefer it has something to complicate CP debating.

Georgetown reads an affirmative about journalism. First new aff of the tournament?? Nice! We seem to have two Georgetown related obsessions. They love tagging cards whatever they want regardless of what the body of the evidence says. They love reading nebulous laundry list impacts^[5]

Kentucky GS vs Michigan BP

Kentucky is rolling one affirmative it would seem. Gotta stretch those wings!

Michigan uhhhhh, what are we doing here?

"The United States military should not participate in any civil militarized conflict on United States soil, without announcing this policy."

Does Michigan negative have the sauce? Not particularly. Did turn that Valtat 19 article into a whole DA. Will I be taking credit for flagging that two weeks ago? Sure I will.

Does Kentucky read the site and know that was coming? It appears not.

2NC overwhelmingly defensive. Yawn, no style points for sure. 1NR is obviously this competition DA. A reasonable argument.

Long Beach MO vs Emory GS

The 1AC seems mostly fine to me. Antiblackness, Afrofuturism, unions are bad. I will say I thought Bledsoe and Wright 19 was some great link fodder for the neg.

"While capitalism has always had a global reach" — It didn't always have global reach, it developed specifically and differently in a lot of ways. That glossing over and broad brushing could be links.

"This consolidation of capitalist power occurred, in part, as a response to the struggles of racialized populations and workers' unions." "As a response" is a stupid thing to say and I think grossly simplifies and misunderstands the logic of capitalism.

"Classed subordination is not the only (nor necessarily the most fundamental) form of oppression Black people face." Debateable!

So whatever the negative is going to read topicality, but what else could they talk about? They could argue about Afrofuturism. They could just say unions are good. I don't think pointing out a specific iteration of an institution was racist in a specific time and place settles the question of whether a society should desire higher union density or not.

If they read the Cap K they would need:

• AT: afterlife of slavery
• Capitalism drives antiblackness more than vice-versa
• Afrofuturism/micropolitics/individual resistance links

Emory opted to read a bunch of Reed and Warren cards. I assume because they could say the date was 26. These cards are not really that suited for what Long Beach is talking about. Not very focused, not very tailored, lots of highlighting redundancies. I presume they went for topicality, but make the affirmative sweat some more.

Round 4

Emory GS vs Michigan BP

Affirmative is Federal Workers with a new agency advantage. Hopefully you have caught on to the threshold for what Emory considers a new impact to that advantage. Getting caught up in a rat race with an affirmative team is generally annoying^[6] but it is not clear if these scenarios are that threatening or are good against CP's.

Now the real meat of this debate is the fact that Michigan is negative and Ryan Wash is the judge. Michigan opted to read one off disability K.

You could have three guesses before the tournament for what Michigan would choose to read if they were reading one off: capitalism, disability and settler colonialism.

So the main interesting question is - does Emory's 1AC provide any unique leverage against any of those positions? Did Emory think Michigan was going to do something else?

Put another way, if you knew your opponent was going to read one off disability K what is an ideal 1AC for that situation and how close did Emory get to it?

Binghamton CK vs Dartmouth CG

Did Binghamton adapt to Dallas? 1AC was on paper still.

I know they have been doing this for years but I really have to watch how this GND stuff works for Dartmouth in these K debates.

Long Beach MO vs Georgetown AC

Long Beach reads the same 1AC from Round 3.

Georgetown does read a K of Afrofuturism. Not bad. Then spends the rest of the 1NC saying unions are good and the K is too sweeping. This 1NC is like a B or a B+. There isn't really a novel argument to make Long Beach burn prep or anything and I would have liked to see a more combative card on AT: unions irredeemably racist.

"That proves the subject formation paradox and turns the fairness paradox." Gonna have to really investigate that one. What a sentence that seems loaded with meaning that is completely lost on me.

Round 5

Dartmouth CG vs Kentucky GS

Dartmouth increased the brain size of their internal links by about 12%. Impacts mostly the same.

If you were going to debate Kentucky, what would you guess was going to happen?

• Rates (or possibly other flavors of economy DA)
• Politics
• Case defense

Kentucky did in fact do all those things. But also said this:

Bargaining being "collective" is an ableist misnomer that reifies cycles of exclusion and silence.

With an alternative card that said this:

Beginning from these assumptions, the question of whether access needs are met cannot fully be answered via attempts at equalizing or accommodating (though these are nonetheless necessary elements of access in our present moment). It must be answered through the development of individual and collective (re)orientations, ways of being responsive to our primary interdependence.

For sure.

If we are going to put platitudes together and pretend they are CPs such as this:

The United States federal government should:

• establish mandates for corporations to adopt long-termist solutions

You need to add "if the corporations decline the USFG will hunt them for sport."

Dartmouth reading new inroads into the Rates DA, nice. All you can ask for. We used to link turn the agenda DA, but I guess that is too much to ask for in one 2AC.

Michigan BP vs Long Beach MO

I am not the biggest hegemony good person vs K's. If I was obsessed with reading catastrophic impacts and I thought I could make them matter in a debate I would probably talk about cyber war. Hegemony is too played out, K teams are too familiar. Talk about cyber war and make them catch up with something they have heard less about. They probably have less ground to draw upon than hegemony bad as well.

Oh yup, here are the hegemony bad cards in the 1NC. Not my favorites, but I bet the affirmative could have made it harder for the negative to fill up this 1NC.

Pretty typical 2AC stuff from Michigan when they read the big aff. DML knows how to cut a card, that guy's still got it.

Georgetown AC vs Binghamton CK

Not looking like much of a doc debate. Wonder what is going on in here. I do not think climate change is a very good K aff these days. The well is basically endless for the negative. There are paths of less resistance. But not entirely clear what Binghamton said in the 1NC sooo, next one.

Round 6

Michigan BP vs Dartmouth CG

Everyone seems to have agreed in advance this is going to be a K debate. Is there some reason gig workers needs unions more uniquely than another group? That is unclear. It is actually probably more unfortunate to read an affirmative that says status quo antitrust has harmed unionization in gig economies. That kind of legal narrative seems to play more into the hands of what the negative is going to say when they inevitably go for liberal reforms are coopting and pacifying and people should opt for more militant strategies. The affirmative is sort of demonstrating the feebleness of unionization for the negative.

Dartmouth 1NC on the LPE K — Tomlins 21 and Klare 81 are meh, seen better. The other 3 cards are pretty good.

I don't think we have achieved maximum angle against "don't do unions K" but I do not think this 1AC brings many unique inroads to the table.

Long Beach MO vs Kentucky GS

Don't say Afro, nice!

Notes about Cap K above, this didn't get there.

I still have not seen a set of evidence that makes me go wow! vs an affirmative team that says unions bad/irredeemably racist.

Binghamton CK vs Emory GS

Who knows? Maybe need to submit like 250 word summaries of debates to the wiki to help fill gaps like this.

Round 7

Dartmouth CG vs Long Beach MO

A portable lesson from this debate is when you take away the low hanging clash arguments expect to hear about fungibility, pornotroping and "your aff is ok, but you shouldn't be the one saying it."

Kentucky GS vs Binghamton CK

For lack of me knowing things reasons. Some debates just resist the gaze!

Emory GS vs Georgetown AC

Reading federal workers for the whole RR, that's 0 style points.

Not sure saying "Federal CBRs strain flexible agency response" and "Non-delegation causes extinction" against the agencies good affirmative is the way to do it.

Going for topicality??? Georgetown continues to confound.

Takeaways

The affirmatives were sectoral bargaining, federal workers, unions for X (journalism and gig economy), Afrofuturism and Binghamton's affirmative.

To break away from that model on the affirmative you probably would need an affirmative that is a subsection but is distinct enough on the mechanism you cannot boil it down to "unions for X."

One topicality debate against a plan and it was about federal workers?? Sure, I guess.

That above list of affirmatives is not a very burdensome one for negative teams and yet that ball did not move forward very much. Dartmouth went for a CP against Georgetown and...the rest were either K's or DA's and case for the most part. Some of the DA piles left a lot to be desired from the negative.

Before results were announced I thought Michigan won and then the other top teams would be Emory, Long Beach and/or Dartmouth.

Actual results:

• Georgetown
• Emory
• Michigan

Goes to show the talking part is pretty important for deciding who wins and loses.

On to the Clay!

---

---

1. Django Unchained, or, The Help: How "Cultural Politics" Is Worse Than No Politics at All, and Why ↩︎

2. "Red, Black, and Green," Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society, Vol. 27, No. 3 ↩︎

3. With evidence! To make it seem more credible I would assume. ↩︎

4. Also not about ports. ↩︎

5. We will not be using the phrase polycrisis here because that is the phrase of a charlatan and deceiver. This shit is random laundry lists without good enough mechanisms to solve anything let alone everything. ↩︎

6. You answer a bunch of impact modules and they just keep churning out more. ↩︎