Since the round is already finalized, I'm not going to go super in-depth. Harms:
The Aff was kind of shaky on these right out of the gate. I didn't see how they solved the problem, especially if their claim is true that Contempt of Court charges will deter illegal searches. If the evidence is never found/presented, how does that result in more Convictions than if the evidence is thrown out.
Secondly, our justice system has innocence as a presumption. I didn't like how the affirmative's evidence assumed that every one of the Criminals was guilty.
The Neg really capitalized on the weaknesses, and it could definitely be a winning argument. Disadvantage:
I'd have liked to get another look at the initial structure of the Disadvantage, but it is gone now. So I'll just go off what I remember.
It almost convinced me, but it was over-impacted. "Destroying America" is a possibility so remote, it negates the magnitude of the Impact. The Aff responses were weak, but the DA was weaker. Non-issue.Solvency:
The argument disintegrated into a messy discussion of fiat, but there are some things that stood out.
1. Fiating the future:
It can't be done. You can nit-pick and say, "tomorrow is the future" but that is missing the point. Your plan must depend on Solvency, Solvency can't depend on your plan.
2. Should vs. Could:
The Negative brought up great arguments about how the Supreme Court can't do what the affirmative team wants them to do. The affirmative's response was pretty much: "We are debating what we should do, not whether it will happen." But the point is that we should not
do things that are impossible.
Argument goes Neg.
Short Version: The Negative wins on Solvency.
Great round everyone