2015 NDT Finals - Northwestern MV vs Michigan AP - Round Analysis Infographic for Classrooms — Watch with transcript
Videos
Shared
Debate
Practice vs AI
Research
settings
Videos
Shared
Debate
Practice vs AI
Research
settings
Videos
Shared
Debate
Practice vs AI
Research
settings

Videos

  • All Videos

  • Lectures

  • NDT

    College Policy

  • CX

    HS Policy Teams

  • LD

    HS Debate 1v1

  • PF

    HS Public Forum

  • Greatest of All-Time

  • My Favorites

  • Watch History

Research

  • Research Workspace
  • Card Search
  • Team Research
  • Leaderboard

Practice

  • Practice vs AI
  • Prep Workspace
  • Practice Partners
  • Practice Drills
  • AI Judge Decision

Coaching

  • Tournaments
  • Coach Workspace
  • Research Progress
  • Laptop-less Debating
  • News & Forums

Insights

  • Team Rankings
  • Debater Level
  • Topics & Video Statistics
  • Prediction Markets
  • Formats & Rules
  • Glossary of Terms
  • All Features
  • All Videos

  • College Policy

    College Policy

  • HS Policy Teams

    HS Policy Teams

  • HS Public Forum

    HS Public Forum

  • HS Debate 1v1

    HS Debate 1v1

  • Lectures

    Lectures

  • Watch History

  • Greatest of All-Time

    Greatest of All-Time

  • My Favorites

    My Favorites

  • WSD

  • ACC

  • Speech

Research

Practice

Coaching

Insights

DocsBlogGitHubGithubSupportPrivacyRedditReddit
Video library
Round Analysis'26

Playlist

2 / 2
  1. 1

    2015 NDT Finals - Northwestern MV vs Michigan AP

    Round · 2015 NDT

  2. ▶

    2015 NDT Finals - Northwestern MV vs Michigan AP - Round Analysis Infographic for Classrooms

    Analysis · d3v

2015 NDT Finals - Northwestern MV vs Michigan AP - Round Analysis Infographic for Classrooms

Aug 3, 20260.1k

AI Round Summary & Transcripts: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/1a7f01fe-d7c4-466e-857a-dacbbe8a6b7f Full Round https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoKowWVQ1wE Notebook Outline: https://notebook.google.com/notebook/8c655ab2-edb6-4c88-a017-c59c4175dd8e?authuser=1 Speech Docs https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/mx5orah6zqutbiv5etn3j/AJRD1SEYjTHFtranMoCKpVs?rlkey=ud5cxuzpd67axuhizejj4jo7m&e=1&dl=0 More Similar Videos: https://www.youtube.com/@artemisway-g2x/videos

Comments

Loading comments…

Speeches

20,186 words

Contents

69th National Debate Tournament — Final Round

Northwestern (AFF · Winner) vs. Michigan (NEG) · Hosted by the University of Iowa
Core clash: Congress counterplan + treaty-power (federalism) DA vs. state-courts multilateralism & trafficking advantages.

Each speech has a 3-point summary, then an outline. Reconstructed from a rough auto-transcript using standard policy-debate terminology.


1AC — First Affirmative Constructive

00:23 – 00:37

Summary

  • Plan: U.S. courts should rule prostitution legal under international human-rights law, modeled on Canada's Bedford v. Canada, with states regulating sex work as legitimate labor.
  • Advantage 1 (IHRL): closing the domestic treaty-implementation gap restores U.S. human-rights credibility and multilateral leadership — and, through family planning, addresses overpopulation.
  • Advantage 2 (Trafficking): ending the U.S. conflation of prostitution with trafficking, which other countries model, improves labor-trafficking enforcement and TVPA sanctions policy.

Advantage 1 — International Human Rights Law (IHRL)

  • Scenario 1 — Treaty Gap: State-court incorporation of human-rights treaties closes the U.S. "implementation gap"; domestic non-implementation undermines multilateralism and the credibility of U.S. rights commitments.
  • Scenario 2 — Overpopulation: Prostitution is a test case for the U.S. approach to rights; legalizing sex work as work revitalizes global family-planning and health leadership, key to a sustainable global population.

Advantage 2 — Prostitution / Trafficking Conflation (Palermo)

  • Scenario 1 — Labor Trafficking: U.S. conflation of prostitution with trafficking is modeled abroad and creates uneven enforcement; recognizing sex work as legitimate labor improves labor-trafficking solutions.
  • Scenario 2 — TVPA Sanctions: Domestic prostitution policy shapes how the U.S. enforces its anti-trafficking (TVPA) sanctions; a "middle way" replaces current abolitionism.

Plan / Advocacy

  • Mechanism: U.S. court(s) rule prostitution legal on international-rights grounds, citing Bedford v. Canada.
  • Regulations: States classify sex workers as employees, require safe-workplace rules, license third-party operators (not individual workers), and bar employers from coercing sex acts.

Solvency

  • Precedent: Court-driven legalization creates binding precedent; only concrete legal change grounded in IHRL resolves the conflation and signals credibility.
<details><summary><strong>Full Transcript</strong></summary>

The first affirmative. Uh before I start, I'd like to thank the tournament hosts, Paul Ballas, David Hankston, Kyle Vent, Chris Randall, Corey Stone, Sharon Hopkins, Paul Johnson, and all the other Iowa students and alums who worked so hard to make this the best NDT I've ever gone to. And it was just like an incredible experience.

The tournament staff, John Fridge, Kate Pleski, Fred Rosenbomb, Danielle Leak, Adrianne, Chris Palmer, Brushy, Ridge Edwards, y'all were all incredible. To my family, mom, dad, da, I assume yall are asleep, but you have been unbelievably supportive through these years of debate from early morning drives to Capel. To frantically checking the bid board, y'all are amazing.

Other people in debate, I can't go without thanking. Rishi and Gulakov, incredible partners those years at Starks were amazing. Mahoney and Peterson, you made me fall in love with debate and I can't thank either of you enough for anything. Sorry I went rogue and started going for the K. I will always be down to have sit down dinner.

Bloomie, thanks for leading me into my transition into college debate. You were an amazing partner and a great and are a great friend. I have to thank our opponents AP. You all have been amazing competitors throughout the year throughout honestly like many many years and I'm certain this debate will be no different to our judges the community at large and every team we've had the privilege of debating.

It's really been an honor interacting becoming friends with and occasionally yelling at all of you. Uh these last eight years in debate have been the best of my life. NU debate has been a family to me from debate day one and I'm honored to be s part of such a dedicated tightnit squad.

Um, there are too many people that deserve thanks that I can list, but I'll try to fit them all in. Jesse, Bed, Philill, Haley, Linda, Evan, Mara, Raheem, thanks for everything this weekend. Boldman and Mountain Jack, stay beautiful. Uh, y'all support and help means the world. Other members of the NU squad here, Pauline, Coach Slim, Coach Gallahan, thanks for being super frost.

Roel, you're the most sincere person I know. Thanks for being awesome. Connor, you are too smart. Uh, thank you for always being down at talk strategy. I can't wait to watch you all crush you next year. Warden, you're a brutal voice when no one else wants to be. Your strategic mastermind and amazing alum.

Lane didn't show up. Classic.

[Applause]

Thanks for being a good friend and good luck taking over the world. I have to thank all the NU alums, coaches, and just everybody who showed up this weekend. Garrett, you're an NU alum, but working at the camp is always incredible and you were awesome this weekend. Party, you're the best coach I could ask for.

You have a way of converting complex things into miles speak which was a rare talent I believe. LT having you around this weekend was incredible. I couldn't have asked for a better and you scrib and photographer. Sarah, thanks for everything this weekend. It was awesome. C Rob, now I understand why everyone loves you so much.

Uh thanks for everything this weekend. See, sorry I was such a [ __ ] as a freshman. Uh but it was awesome having you back this weekend. Rob, it's been awesome strategizing before and during the tournament. Uh Peyton, you're an amazing role model to have on the team. Thanks for not turning me into stone with your death stare when I was a freshman.

Uh Ryan, thank you for being a great friend. Watching you crime memories will be with me for life. Seth, the only word to describe you is that you're like total boss. Uh you're the only person who can write multiple advantages in a night and the cards don't end up concluding the other way.

You bleed purple and exemplify what it means to be a Wildcat. Fisher, your dedication to the team is astounding. I can feel your passion for NU and love. Thanks for everything covered. Um, classic. Andrea, couldn't have asked for a better addition to the squad. You murdered it from day one. This year was a ton of fun.

Button, you set the community standard for evidence. And by standard for evidence, I mean people just steal your evidence. Uh, your strategic vision is unmatched in your ability to make those visions a reality. Thanks for always pushing me and setting the bar so high. Vince, I am forever grateful that I ignore the impulse in my head when we meant to say that this guy is a nut job.

There are no words that can express the magnitude of thanks I owe you. You're the best coach I could possibly ask for. It's been an incredible guy. Arjun, these last few years have been incredible and I couldn't imagine going through them with anyone else. You're one of the kindest people I've ever met and are amazing friends.

Your two hours never cease to amaze me. You constantly say we're as hard as we're gag and you're really good at telling me when I'm being insane. The debating with you has been one of the best experiences of my life and it's an honor and a privilege.

[Applause]

I'm not sure. We're setting several timers before 9. Can you set the one parade? Yeah. Contention one international human rights life citation of law specifically US developing island development internally norms under scenario one is treaty gap state incorporation of international human rights treating us charging must be safe for the state law for even if domestic constitution reverse causal state failure to accept the service over the US US in the field implementation gap broadly undermine multil domestic implementation 90% of any engagement rightly commitments Central Burmer 201 in scenario two is over population prostitution is a test case for the US approach to human rights legalizing sex as work is critical buying law 2010 National Healthy Canada

mobile health risk US credibility and global family planning is collapsing. The only way to successfully implement human goals is for the US to revitalize national health. However, ever meeting family planning solves over populations ensures this goal a sustainable global population by 25 level after 25 emerging completion is accessibility over taxation tech consumption changes fail absent population 10,000 better population should also be British racol contention to his polo conflation due to anti-trapping vaguess in the UN protocols continues today but overings now mean it's the crucial time of reason trapping prostitution concept by expression of generation power US conflation puts its out of polmo now US criminalization prostitution under successful viewing strong that order prison the cultivation

issue as traffic polymer definition of the person state department is open to resolving trafficking inflation now but only concrete legal change based on broader IHRL Americans born sex or salsa modeling. policy. Obama organization GPR scenario one is labor trafficking current US inflation is modeled and creates uneven enforcement traffic policy data collection 2010 attention away.

This undercuts effective labor trafficking solutions to recognizing prostitution is legitimate sex work solution republic human driving incredible facility travel in the lines 201 service because control will eventually increase the thing that pay attention to me making nations international. Okay. Scenario two sanctions US domestic policy and prostitution shapes how it shapes how we enforce the TVPA sanctions middle way from current abolitionism the decades attracting policy on prostitution law in the human that results in a tendency towards to de prioritize labor traffic and pressure law criminalizes and criminalizes clients the law against India's international okay the United States uh state courtship should rule that pro or the United States court should rule that prosecution legal based on

international rights side of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in bed versus reverse Canada states to classify by second workers employers employers employers employers employers employers employers employers employers employers and employees create regulations for secure safe and healthy workplace not including mandatory health license for individual workers require licensing for third Operation exempting is single operator known for sex workers alike operator employ forcing worker engaged sex workers employer violates employment regulations solveny legalization prosecution key solving

</details>

CX — Cross-Examination of the 1AC

Michigan questions Northwestern · 00:40 – 00:43

Summary

  • Pinned the Advantage-1 internal link: which human right (right to health) and which treaty it is grounded in (UDHR).
  • Pressed how legalization actually solves overpopulation, and which states the trafficking/"loose-nukes" scenario relies on.
  • Established that the terrorism impact runs through organized-crime funding of trafficking.
<details><summary><strong>Full Transcript</strong></summary>

Uh so the first question is what international human right? The right to health. The right to health. Why why does the what treaty is that grounded in? The UN declaration the UN the universal rights. Okay. Um none none of the other treaties. Um I think that's the main one I just talked about.

Okay. Gotcha. Um okay. So what is the conflation that your advantage describes with trafficking? The criminal the conflation of prostitution and trafficking. Basically anyone or evidence indicates the United States opposes a definition. So the polmo protocol does not have an enforcement mechanism. The enforcement mechanism that has been used is the TVPA which conflates trafficking and prostitution.

That conflation has been modeled by several countries around the world which what our evidence speaks to. It says that the US domestically changing that through a legalization. I have a question over internal link. Uh, how does that address overpopulation or how does that address the goals needed to solve over? We have a great piece of bingo evidence that says prostitution that I just want to control.

Bingo. B I N G is the only card. N A B I N that card says that prostitution is the test case for broader millennium development goes goals specifically o over population and family planning because it's an intersectional site of different types of health, labor rights, all of these things that are relevant to the family planning debate.

It would send a signal broadly that the US would be successful at being able to implement that. Gotcha. Uh, which is the best like state courts key card in the context of advantage two or is there a state courts PR for advantage two? Okay. Um, got So, um, you didn't read the like successful Indian rise stuff?

No. No. Got it. Uh, cool. So, how does this enable access to nuclear materials or WMD? Our evidence indicates it gives the terrorists the funding capabilities to be able to do that. I mean, terrorists have had money. ISIS has $2 billion in cash. Why does money get to nukes? Money gets to nukes, but it allows them to buy the material.

Who do they buy? They hire they can hire experts. Yeah. Who can they hire? Like, be specific. Scientists, former What scientist? That's the opposite. Do you want the name? Obviously, I can't give you that because you're predicting that nuclear terrorism is going to happen in the US. Like, can you give me a state?

You know, if we want to read our loose nukes d for a state, which one should Yeah, I can toss you a couple probably a couple states in Central Asia like Kazakhstan, Russia, that don't have nuclear weapons. Russia, the so just bullshitting our Howard evidence says Pakistan also talks about al-Shabaab as several terrorist groups that could be involved in human trafficking, which is all in that Howard card that we read in the 1A.

Uh step by step. Cool. Uh we're going to spend the rest of the time just like getting some things squared away. Are you on CX time or prep time? Uh, still CX

</details>

1NC — First Negative Constructive

00:44 – 00:58

Summary

  • Read a politics DA (the "Wolf" bill / presidential capital), a treaty-power DA, and a judicial-budgets DA, plus three counterplans (courts, states, Congress) that copy the plan's regulations through a different actor.
  • Attacked the case: no nuclear terrorism, state courts fail and create conflicting interpretations, and international human-rights law fails to change state behavior.
  • Added a framework/presumption argument urging judges to reject the aff's speculative "linear predictions."

Framework / Presumption

  • Reject linear predictions: Vote on presumption; the aff's speculative impact chains have no bearing on the real world.

Politics DA — "Wolf" / Presidential Capital

  • Link: The plan is controversial and drains the political capital needed for a manufacturing / tax-reform bill.
  • Impact: That bill is key to manufacturing and to deterring Chinese aggression and proliferation → global war.

Counterplans — Courts / States / Congress

  • Mechanism: Each CP enacts the plan's regulations (sex workers as employees, safe-workplace rules, third-party licensing) citing Bedford, but through the courts, the states, or Congress instead of the plan's actor.
  • Net-benefit setup: Avoids the treaty-power and budget links the plan triggers; also a word-PIC on the aff's saying "Supreme Court of Canada" twice.

Treaty Power DA

  • Link: State courts interpreting treaties shatter the exclusive federal treaty power / supremacy-clause model.
  • Impact: Undermines treaty-making and U.S.–Russia relations → extinction.

Judicial Budgets DA

  • Link: Adding this ruling strains court budgets and resources; courts handle 95% of all litigation.
  • Impact: Underfunded courts slow growth (~$52B loss) → economic decline → conflict.

Case Answers

  • No nuclear terror: Acquiring, building, and delivering a weapon is prohibitively hard (Weiss).
  • State courts fail: Conflicting interpretations, no clear hierarchy; an extraterritorial upsurge turns the case.
  • IHRL fails: Empirically, rights law doesn't produce protection; U.S. moral authority is already lost (Syria, Russia, torture); population stabilizes on its own.
<details><summary><strong>Full Transcript</strong></summary>

Um, so before I begin, I'd like to say a few thank yous. First to the tournament. This has truly been a great NDT and I sincerely appreciate all the hard work everyone has put in uh in ensuring everything has run smoothly and to be honest, this is the probably the best ND I've been to.

So I think, you know, we should thank the University of Iowa. Uh the second thing

[Applause]

second are two people I forgot to thank last year and I feel terrible about it. Uh the first is Kyle Deming. He was my first debate partner in college and I you know I love debating with the guy. I truly rem miss miss some of the days of you know just doing weird stuff going for Africa war good and uh you know giving just basically being bad at debate and you know Kyle showing me the ropes.

Uh the second is Whit Whitmore. Uh he always stood for the under underdog. Uh and I I truly you know miss that he's no longer part of the the Michigan staff. Uh I'd like to thank Ellis. I don't know anyone who works harder at Tobade who's been more dedicated or committed in high school.

you know, he he was the one who was the one I tried to compete with, and now I'm standing here with him on the stage. Truly appreciative to have debated with him for as long as I have, and I love the guy, and I'm glad to call him my partner. Uh, I'd like to thank David Height.

Uh, the guy has made me a lot smarter. He's taught me what it means to debate, how to research, how to research things effectively, and just generally, he's a great guy, and I I think he's, you know, really deserving of all of our recognition. Uh, I'd like to thank Aaron Call. He made this possible.

He's the reason I got into the University of Michigan. Uh, as well as, uh, you know, the reason Michigan continues to be such a successful program. I'd like to thank some of the other Michigan people, Tommy, Dustin, Bri, Ryan, Maria. They've been instrumental in doing a bunch of work for us this weekend, and it was great to see that Michigan had three teams in the Elims, including Joe and Will, uh, who I'm, you know, very happy to call my friends.

I'd also like to thank the, uh, I'd like to thank Kurt. Uh, Kurt has been a great addition to the Michigan coaching staff. Uh, and I can truly call the guy my friend as well as my debate coach. I'd like to thank the other Michigan's debate coaches, in particular, Jason Peterson, who's been responsible for a bunch of great politics work.

Uh, I've never seen someone cut better politics guards, and I really, you know, implore everyone to try his, uh, barbecue. Uh, other coaches, uh, you know, Pipkin, uh, McCaffrey, Scotty P, uh, and as well as the rest of the mission co Michigan coaching staff, I really appreciate it. Uh, to my family who's supported me with debate throughout this whole time.

My dad's actually in the audience right there. Uh, you know, that that's, you know, responsible for being uh people in high school. Uh, Michael Greenstein was my coach in high school. Uh, he taught me to love debate, some of the the terrible arguments, you know, no neg fiat, and luckily I've moved away from some of that stuff recently.

I although I do miss the days of T combat troops a little bit. Uh, Zack Parker, uh, my high school debate partner, Flynn Maku, Alexa Schlar, uh, without the three of them, I wouldn't be the debater or person I am today. Uh the University of Michigan for providing scholarship money, alumni from the university, uh who have made, you know, the Michigan program the one that it is.

And finally, the community. Uh it's weird to be standing here for my last debate ever. Uh I've been doing this for eight years. I I love it and I hope to hope to be around for a long time. Uh so with that, I'll give a one and see.

[Applause]

orders. Adolf advantage one, advantage two. We're going to take another second of breath. Okay, we're done. Is everyone good to go? Yep. Reject the affirmative linear predictions vote presumption 12 after scientists have the wisdom away from any bearing on the real world legal need for psychological closure theory of gener should not be surprising the wolf and I person more small minority for legitimate and posted weekly for violent sexual exploitation PC is key to tax reform development although controversy trades off with Mr.

on the Texas show against the text should be a challenging key to manufacturing 13 transmission opportunity manufacturing abu global war and action aggression because they know the China research China proliferation of nuclear weapons count the United States court should rule the prostitution is legal and shar states that classify sex workers as employees and regions for sex workers choose a safe and bring a healthy workplace not including mandatory health screenings on a license for individual workers require licensing for third party operators accepting single operator a single operator own these before sex workers or less prohibit employers from forcing a worker to engage in a sex act provide recourse to workers but with employer violations those employees

violations the next counterpart that the prosecution is legal based on international human rights law setting the Supreme Court of Canada say citing the Supreme Court in Canada's decision in Bedford versus Canada and should require states implement the regulations of the previous counter plan which is legitimate because it was introduced it was already introduced in the speech act the third counter plan the United States Congress that should require the constitution is legal based on international human rights all citing the Supreme Court of Canada citing the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Bedford versus Canada and should require states to do the affformentioned regulations all of these counterp said Supreme Court of Canada twice we only intended

it for them to say them once now of the treaty A federal treaty power is strong. Now the plan shatters in 157 oblation jurisdiction state robs is into how treaties interpret law itself. plan shift to a constitutional model that federalism follow the constitution moves by president federal support making our choice not shed state authority in vision powerition federalally implemented under the treaty provision as some third reservo how international human rights laws implemented that's key to lacian back in 100 sugar so there was Remember the state can probably determine that a jurisdiction such reaction integrity nonsense recognition and application of the supremacy clause extinction farmer 15 more difficult Russia to use reassession next year judicial budgets

are strong banana branch relations are we for new folks been placed on the relationship the highest level organization always in the kind of budget policies partnerships of course I realize that the science needs that otherwise ignorance court finding president relation without effective advocacy of course need to get lost in the political process crossly the politics length the plan s relations because it causes mal controversy controversial rulings I mean no funding amy 14 must be coming back of cost of the political engagement comprising commercial rights value for leaders compared to any relationship potential effect independent ending PC finding it may be needed to preserve independence failure to mitigate court budget causes slow economic growth and 14

funding the justice is held hostage political investment fundament impact of every citizen safe to say is built on our enforcing the rule of law and equal access to justice management between the court lacks the resource to enforce courts because they handle more than 95% of all 95% of all litigation resource shrinks and delays increase also across the economy for increased litigation cost of development is a business or several size independently quantify the impact estimate loss of 52 billion from increase uncertainty the difference between high performing economy low performing economies system obligations will of contractual obligations will be metalism as impact the government economic civility, extinction, host the critical threat and growth as mentioned American self

around the world climate comments will not so themselves require leadership to perform polical responses no other countries even have the resource smart alter the alternative smart order the alternative the alternative is a is a world not allowed characterized by conflict and for the planet the next day the plan causes federal bankrupt the case holds all transis from ICJ this brought by the domestic effective view or withdraw by law when it is national government want to crushes diplomacy turns credible consent for international law but when judges without questioning judic speak with one animal by action to be accepted informing matters repeatedly by judicial liberty nuclear wars 99 prevention and comments will not police only by training

the capability I say something personal security man the world of any hope of avoiding warfare and of nuclear or other WMG now X advantage. No nuclear terror. This card is unbeatable. Weiss in 213. Although some desire weapons evidence of many good working serious choice after other means non existence is not going to help require significant time, resource expertise with no guarantee of recurs and nothing we have multiple errors.

There is no reason are missing in the remaining style assistance and sophisticated security weapon will be used. There's a detective reaction right now. Notoriously difficult technical notoriously difficult technical problem we discover the suggest extremely low technical successes means with mean more there's been a significant effort to increase action. What about how we organize how nuclear charism that is to scare me?

The first advantage state courts failed positing. The reason these crime says that interpreting fally working rights to making trade-offs have a supreme court there between nation multiple institution like a hierarchies. We are unlike national courts conflicting interpretations. The plan causes an upsurge and extr territorial towards that turns the case for region 13 state and incorporate international human rights in America long right advance human rights.

State for connect regimes a way to advance international human rights law for violation across the borders attempted a vessel that places human rights on a weager footing IHL fails land 5A a unique content analysis the mark between the principal of human rights that examined from 185 countries over 23 the growth and our human rights are the effect of law actual protection human rights foreign policy remain based on more than geostic interest and moral internationalis human rights deals cannot be separated from the broader impact of social change I alone protection human rights rights doomed globally posit 14 treaties equality loses the center Russia of of Venezuela against LGBT rights have taken place.

US Islam will use a torture and continues to kill the land that has lost its moral authority their impact is economic. John Cner for 14. The US has recently rights violation in Syria, Russia, China, why 50 countries engage in torture. The truth is that right has failed. Others the right treaties have improved wellbeing the movement a hubris of hubris of development multi doesn't solve lang based on authority for problems which belongs to states while the source of crimes revolution are global because the multi dependent states multitude based on habit structures will not change over 13 binding obligation obvious convention and the obligation of the adverse consequences international law survey thumb screen 14 top officials issued

a report by multiple treaty the IC treaty 92 of virtually every country sign to establish establish the letter finds adding to add to the growing number formal rulings that surveillance programs are illegal no opt for population which more people need more that we such level poverty degradation work population emphasis on that these are prison structures and disallocations of a labor population will stabilize population holding program and six that of rapid growth is over with increased education organization and women work outside the home growth rates of fall almost every part of the world to reject the world population.

What might you say? 13 seconds. Uh app doesn't create a legitimate industry. People won't use doesn't create a legitimate industry. People won't use it. They don't have spillover for the polymeral protocol in the context of prostitution or a reason we're ruling on this president is key. Judges empirically don't follow precedents which we'll read on in the block.

There's no reason this goes over.

</details>

CX — Cross-Examination of the 1NC

Northwestern questions Michigan · 00:58 – 01:02

Summary

  • Probed the politics DA's uniqueness — whether any evidence actually shows the "Wolf bill" passing.
  • Clarified the counterplan structure (federal-Congress vs. state-Congress) and their respective net benefits.
  • Tested the treaty-power link: with whom U.S. diplomacy is hurt, and whether the uniqueness card is a decade old.
<details><summary><strong>Full Transcript</strong></summary>

Okay. Uh, as of the 1 and C, you have zero evidence that indicates external issues are likely to impact possibility of Wol's bill passing, right? Of which bill passing? Wol's bill. Uh, we've read out that the plan is controversial and that controversy is essential for political capital. What What evidence establishes that latter?

Go ahead. Pardon the one and see. Give me what part. Give you I'll give you a second to read. He says that. Uh, let me let me pull it up. Your evidence says the budget debates are shaping. You want me to me to do it or not? Yeah, sure. Okay. With Mr. able severance tax a cornerstone.

The stage is set for legislative force trading. The proposal uh the proposal is important. Uh when governor comes in, it's part politics, part horse rating. The government will likely get the tax. The tax is popular, but the budget debates are the answer to that question is no. You don't have any evidence as to the one that indicates external issues.

No, it says that force trading is important. Your evidence for the impact of the law says that if the local court refused to defer to the German assertion of primacy German assertion of primacy jurisdiction, the outcome mandated by article 7 of the NATO sofa, the state through the decision of the state judge would effectively force the US to breach its international treaty obligations.

What is what is the scenario for this? Your evidence is like if state courts were to rule against that's a selective reading of reverence. Zara says that state that was a full sentence which there's a whole article for the card that was cut in the broader context of an upsurge in state courts you know leadership means that those sofas are no longer legitimate because the states courts enforces things is more assertive.

What is the scenario what will the case be about that they rule that violates a sofa that violates a sofa? We want to read impact defense that those sofas violate international human rights norms. I want to read defense of this. Give me an example. We don't give you free impact on your bus.

Okay. Your parish evidence says that the extr territorial tors claim says that asserting state claims and state courts unconnected to treaty regimes is a short-term palative the claim is that why uh let's see it's not okay cool agree what is the scenario who with whom will our diplomacy be hurt if the court rules on I'm sorry what was your question with whom will our diplomacy be hurt if the courty hurt everyone the European Union China Russia why will the European Union why will be hurt with the European there there's no possible way in which we can negotiate treaties things like the Paris summit can you give me an example of a treaty but we'll negotiate

that they will be yeah the parasite okay the United States will continue to push the same policy after the rules of the plan why do they not view that as correct uh because the wait why won't they do why won't they argue is that when the state court challenges the executive or the congress the president no longer speaks with the un president says we're still going to push for the Paris court and the state courts don't have any that's no longer credible in a world in which the state courts are contravening explicitly what but as of the one you don't have uniqueness evidence for every country in the world right I mean we have uniqueness

evidence generally which everywhere else don't think that's true. Which one is it? Like Wilkinson 4 or Ross 99? Uh I mean definitely not Ross 99, but I think Wilkinson 4 pretty much substantiates that there hasn't been a 50 state. Okay. So your uniquest card is 10 years old. Yeah. Our argument is the magnitude of the link of the 50 states acting at once.

It's particularly bad. We're taking off. Oh actually, yeah. Let me just clarify. CPS are take out of bylaw. Congress do the plan and then state the plan. Yeah. Net benefit or status all condition. Yeah. Net benefits each. Uh so the basically the states all uh so the Congress CP all of the DAS are net benefit.

The federal Congress CP the state Congress CP all of the DAS are net benefits because they're all about the court. Uh with the exception of the whole DA which is about controversy. Uh the third counter plan uh I like the just treaty power and terms.

</details>

2AC — Second Affirmative Constructive

01:07 – 01:26

Summary

  • Answered every off-case position: the counterplans (perm + solvency deficit), the treaty-power DA (no link), and the politics and judicial-budgets DAs (legalization raises tax revenue; economy resilient).
  • Defended and extended the case: overpopulation trends, plus a soil-erosion add-on, a death-penalty add-on, and a U.S.–Russia public-health-diplomacy add-on.
  • Argued only court-created precedent — not a statute — becomes binding national law, so the Congress/states CPs don't capture the aff.

Counterplans — Perm & Solvency Deficit

  • State courts are key: 56 courts acting together create binding common-law precedent; a statute isn't binding national law the way court incorporation is.
  • Permutations: Do the counterplan / do both; incorporation spills over (death-penalty add-on); states filling gaps is why the U.S. can't comply with treaties like the Vienna Convention.

Framework / Predictions

  • Policy engagement good: Policymakers must make predictions; "reject predictions" makes it impossible for the aff to ever win and sets a bad precedent in an NDT final.

Treaty Power DA

  • No link: State-court rulings are routine and non-conflictual; no backlash; controversial rulings (abortion, gay marriage) empirically don't trigger the impact; the supremacy clause resolves.

Politics & Judicial-Budgets DAs

  • Turns / uniqueness: Legalization generates large tax revenue that solves the budget and capital links; no uniqueness for diplomacy; economic decline has no impact (2008 empirically resilient).

Case Extensions & Add-Ons

  • Overpopulation: Aff has better, newer trend evidence; a legitimate industry does form.
  • Add-ons: Soil erosion (extinction), death penalty, and U.S.–Russia relations via public-health diplomacy.
  • Trafficking / terror: Organized crime funds attacks; can't wait for the threat to materialize.
<details><summary><strong>Full Transcript</strong></summary>

Um, I also have to thank a ton of people for allowing us to get to this point. Um, the tournament I have to echo what Papis and Miles said, David Hinksman, Paul Bellis, Kyle Vent, Chris Randle, Cory Stone, Sharon Hopkins, Paul Johnson, all the other students, alums worked really hard, made this the best ND in recent memory.

Thanks to John Fritz, the entire ND taboo staff, the ND committee, and the board of trustees. Thanks to my parents for giving me this opportunity and putting up with the craziness of my life and providing the resources to participate in this great activity. Thanks to Lexington High School Zuo, Jack Tyler, Sarah Sanchez, who was and still is the best high school debate director in the country.

Sarah set the foundation for my success now and I doubt I'm very thankful that she took that time she did and came out deadly sick for the last I don't know how we made it this far kind of Miles carried me here um thanks to all the judges we've had who've given us great advice throughout the year people like Strauss Turner on this panel others who have spent probably hours maybe more than that responding to our emails So, I can't tell you how valuable those responses have been and in making us better debaters, and that's what makes to perform at our best.

Uh, thanks to our opponents, AP, uh, others obviously, uh, Minnesota. I just want to call you all out. You amazing debate. Last one. It's the craziest debate I've ever been a part of, and I envision this being a great debate to end the fantastic season. Next, uh, alumni and outside support for Northwestern debates.

Unbelievable. The number of messages I've gotten throughout the year from people who have no reason to really anymore is amazing. Advice from older alums, Warden, Tristan, Gotautle has been invaluable. Support and cards from others like Luke, Greg, Fred, Blaine, not being here, but still cutting cards has always been awesome. They're amazing. We couldn't have done it without them.

If I can give back even a bit of what I've received from NU alums, I'll be somewhat satisfied with my debate career. Um, the staff we brought to this NDT is truly unbelievable. Garrett, uh, I've loved leading lab with you the past few years, and you've proven to be an even better team logistics director this weekend.

Thanks for all you did to get us food and information on time. C Rob and LT, didn't really know you both before the NDT that well in person, but your willingness to help out and do everything asked of you shows how deep the IDU alumni ties run. C Mayor, probably the most dedicated Northwestern Wildcat I've ever met, and he did anything and any everything for the team this weekend.

So, thank you, Rob. Awesome to have you back with NU at this NDT. Thanks for all the advice you gave us on the K. Aiden egg. Sorry we didn't use any of it against Bosu. Uh Aaron Hardy, tech mastermind and dedicated to doing whatever is necessary to win. The great pre-round coach. Thanks for coming back.

I pleaded for it at the coast. I'm glad you came. Ryan taught me the tools of the trade to be a 2A and how to give a winning 2 using persuasion and flare rather than just sometimes substance which took up took up an NDT assignment uh despite being super busy. I think you work at Palunteer.

So, um, sure. I'm extremely thankful to have your co-work week the last couple two weeks ago was great. You've always been someone I've looked up to and your constant support and unrelenting bleeding of purple and white has always been amazing. Staff, you've been my a role model at NU ever since I've been here.

Your impact, despite being busy in recent years, has been huge with all your app advice and being willing to finish all the impacts to my app's terrible internal links. You have truly taught me what it means to be a Northwestern 2A and I can't express how thankful I am for all your support.

Peyton, you've been a constant supporter and even been around this year at a few tournaments while crushing law school at Harvard, which shows how dedicated you truly are to Northwestern debate. I couldn't have asked for a more graceful partner to debate with and you really paved my way in college debate and will be one of my best friends forever.

Thanks for being my rock when I've had up and downs and for everything you do. Sorry, it's meant to keep going. My NU teammates are amazing. NU debates a family. Like Miles said, we win and lose as a team. We couldn't have done it this year without all of them. First, our freshman Pauline and Mchugh have been great alongside coach Slim and Callahan who have been the most ridiculous card cutters I've ever seen.

There's a bright future ahead. I'm excited to see it. Our juniors, Rebel and Connor, Connor independently winning the semi with that CCP card, who have seriously stepped up this year as our team has been younger than usual and had a great run at the MDT and I'm ready to see you all next year crush it.

Jesse, Phil, Mara, Evan, Linda, Rachel, Mountain, Jack, Haley, Raheem. Although no longer really fully part of the team, have been super supportive and will always be part of the NU family. A lot of you came along this weekend when you didn't have to and crushed on scouting and doing anything we asked for.

We chose how deep the NU ties run. We all believe in a dream and strive for excellence rather than the immediate payoff. The reason I love the team is that people don't buy in because of what we do. They buy in because of why we do it. What we do just serves as proof for what we believe.

character, commitment, teamwork, hard work. Next, our full-time coaches have been the most unbelievable three I've ever worked with, and we wouldn't have been here without them. Bontton, I said this two years ago, I still don't understand how many cards you cut. Between your unbeatable case and amazing framework innovations and politics cards, I'm not really sure what you can't do evidence-wise.

And thank you for all you do, and you truly deserve all the accolades of keeping our NEG ship and probably even our app ship, to be honest, in order the past few years. Uh, Andrea, what can I say? You came into a new environment and immediately put your stamp on all of our prep, argument, strategy, and success while seamlessly fitting in.

I'm confident in saying there's nobody else I would want on my side. Cutting a every a card on the topic, mostly because you cut all of them. Being able to balance during a ton of app work with totally writing the team's logistics has been unbelievable. I can't thank you enough. Finally, Fitz, this year has been up and down, but we couldn't have done it without you.

from the busyiness of the fall with miles in my job search to your house flooding issues that never ended. You still have always made your best effort to be a guiding force for the team. Your perspective on critique debates, plus teaching me how to be a 2A has proven invaluable. And outside of debate, I'll never forget all the D street meals and hearty talks because you're always you've always been my coach, but even more so recently, you've become a close friend.

Fitz understands debate team dynamics and knows exactly how to sculpt students into the right mindset going into every debate with me. He started my freshman year never shutting up about excellence. then gave me a bunch of samurai bushidto ethics quotes my sophomore year transitioned to sports and adversity quotes last year and this year he stopped doing anything but but he's been such an influence on my life that I'm the one quoting the duck when teaching our younger debaters I I don't think there's a higher compliment than saying that Fitz has continued the duck's legacy despite students like me never meeting him and I made the NU and has made the NU program even stronger by

massively increasing our involvement in things like the Chicago debate league sorry finally Finally, last but not least, I have to thank Miles, who I couldn't have done any of this without. He's been a beast from day one. From truly becoming a critical theory scholar and teaching me all about flux and the temporality of war.

I don't really know what those are still, but to always being there to help think through app ideas or let me shut down on his crazy let's hack the app by being silent the whole debate on the NEG ideas. These past two years couldn't have been a better end to my debate career.

I don't think I've ever said this, but I firmly believe you have been the best debater I've been lucky enough to see, given your flexibility and understanding of every argument type. It's been an honor to debate alongside someone who cares so much about this community and continuously works to teach others how to play this game the right way despite all the adversity we face.

Really going to miss debating because this activity has been my life for the last eight years group of people like Miles Ellis Papus the judges here who push me to be better every day and are willing to argue with me about everything and anything. That being said, I'm sure I'll keep bickering with my bias and debating conditionality being good or bad for years to come.

It's for sure. Um, and if I forgot I'm really sorry this went super long, but thanks for everyone who's helped us along the way. Okay. Uh I release a little by the way. Don't worry about I I advantage Polarmo K. I pick state, the wolf da, the low act, the judicial budget DA, the federal Yeah, everyone else good.

Yeah, IHL. I think it's just the one. It might be. So, IHL picked the federal Congress CP and then the state Congress CP. Go state courts work 56 acting together solves confusion that same paratics in Paris evidence is explicitly talking about state courts applying HR to violations within the US. This article is limited to suits against foreigners abroad like the ATS on the plan Paris 13.

In conclusion to avoid being misders, I want to limit this article sentence in my corn foreigners shopping method by which they human rights article not for them right the same for human right civil rights occurring United States focused on human rights in the nation US against foreigners for conflict occurring abroad similar to the ATS IHL works are posted into their defense and assume 50 state unified action human rights working their all causes don't matter we solve non-compliance which is what their all causes are about because the states filling in are the reason federalism concerns the reason why we don't aren't able to comply with treaties like the Vienna convention now that's another meal effort multilateralism

worse grammar is from 2014 about star power and smart better than their defenses. like hard power and soft power independently can fail which means their DAS have no impact on multilateralism solves the DA's women creating a smart approach that can only be compatible if the US reinvigorates human rights credibility know all causes those are all priced in to the system there's only a chance that the plan can effectuate a broader reinvigoration of human rights tech cannot be disused fast enough to solve general global family pending s that hedges their evidence is 10 years too old over population overestimated more 14 cl people over population has been ignoreed interest and talk to people which act does

create a legitimate industry states state citation of law becomes the law generally to be constitutionally binding nationally green allowing courts to not create action court abuse I human rights are CL courts constitution said I domestication work domestic courts pass not limited courts may use my safe civil rights law under the constitution have the same effect as federal law right accepted part of the CL these courts apply with common law over population Rivers of various level instructions on food and water increase survival 2 million l taxes to produce the large more effective costion ground the double cost extension resilience fails bomb beyond 325 even if everything else makes land in the world now best goes with

it their defense doesn't assume a massive internal link between conceded organized crime and human trafficking are the funding sources for these attacks yes the attack may not happen tomorrow But it is increasing the prey as no threat to real fair and 12 is a real terrorist who we can't afford to wait until the cow what a nuclear rescue for high university polical science nuclear mor should be the current system is woing in stopping any determin in the United States um I don't have time for this okay uh okay the role of should be political engagement political engagement in the topic of the consequence of alternative complexity the is policy making ally press because they are

unconscious complexity false policy makers have an obligation to error predictions using predictions and answers to make the truth be last power no permutation they both know all alternative and art prediction the rights if they continue some impact condition is bad encourages officer over see contradictions ling logical version reading the act can never win one seem to set a precedent especially in the finals of the ND I okay permutation to vote those obviously attributes to voting issue and makes it impossible to answer and applies to all their counter plans we get fully new answers from the one hour if they have any semblance of warrant for any of these claims or else affirm is always a

step behind distinguishing and narrowly applying politicizes I also approach that visa cannot a 14 by standard of j based on national USB human rights human rights in Austral US principle also human rights infusion is necessary to solve polmo trying the application of standards reveals the priority of folks criminal justice may view human rights protection is not in addition to exist applying the right the potential to use effective results the corporating substance human rights standard and sexism can counter these limitations by drawing attention to underlying uh violations the state I'm uh do I need something else before that?

Yeah. Permutation do the permutation count. I incorporation spills over to the death penalty 11 substance in the contary which finds robbery forces punishment law relations law US European allies relation countries for policy excuses 10 US relation terrorism Russia poverty cooperation of Europe become a common age to church or common ground is necessary to form a united front because there is something you fall into the wrong hands.

Next uh democracy beat uh permutation to vote also of the case gap state court incorporation of Charles key Martin in 14 state courts addressing tracking state court in the coming decade and state court pro is the comping issues by state courts state courts comprehensially developing state court the essential role of courts and addressing complicated issues failing to address the cases of traffic credibility and role of state court's permutation to both the shields camping in the court.

We believe on public court from politicians public great political danger. Then the next TV permutation uh do both links to all the DAS perceived the exact same way as the planned courts are key once you need to instill the right to solve polmo chapter which is explained on the underp um the DA the state courts don't affect WC in any way they have to produce the card connecting to state court decision shields black and 14 justice national legal sourc My story cont no state backlash no diseactions are routinely in nature non-conlictual routine interactions do not make any use of conflict between max cooperative interaction no political capital state levels renewable not finite the disadvant there's

no uh internal link to broader hijgemony or defense industrial bases other factors obviously check the full collapse the other low there's no link to these human rights stuff does not spill over malis the US manifest has a high degree of openness to answer too many questions all human rights polic A certain issue that is the law of public life specialist points in house treaty.

No neighbor capital does not matter default. Despite judges that Russia are no longer enemies chance for war zero trade of country equity nor Russia open the world. No way the Soviet Union never was the plan reinvigorates public diplomacy solved. Your top comments global component the report that strikes a beneficial medical health policy may be significant for public health policy help to rebuild US Russian bilateral class the budget citation.

of foreign law is good influence of bylaw is inevitable. better be formally and clearly stated which means there DA is inevitable but formally stating it means it's less likely possible for decision every Canada more secretly likely to altering foreign decision there's massive funding for a conservative wave already which means McGuire 3 money January 2016 election this week I'm informed about who is going to write the text help legalizing constitution obviously generates mass tax who solves the link Goldman 12 currently highly compress far away more safely economic future legalized prostitution no impact the economic decline 2008 dispute 17 trillion dollar class in the economy's empirically resilience as multi institutions can check the federal backlog there is

no uniqueness for diplomacy high which means that we get all new answers to these DAs because they're not full arguments in the one it seems tons of backlash to liberal court decisions now on abortion gay marriage Basley 14 time religion abortion Boston pack Georgia Iowa supremacy cause stops anymore state court tripping on I love supremacy clause was drafted to ensure reinforcement the court divide by states law cannot consider by the constitution by the empirical I ban fails Arizona State.

We obviously actually better link them and also to our first event. Where are we countdown from? 7:15. 7:15, Arjent. Last two cards you had were bananas. Yeah, two bananas. Last one. Thank you.

</details>

CX — Cross-Examination of the 2AC

Michigan questions Northwestern · 01:26 – 01:29

Summary

  • Forced a concession that the aff has no card for 50 states acting uniformly.
  • Pressed why only courts — not Congress — can incorporate treaties, and whether the supremacy clause applies to Congress too.
  • Tested the U.S.–Russia public-health-diplomacy add-on and whether relations meaningfully exist now.
<details><summary><strong>Full Transcript</strong></summary>

Uh she made a claim about the necessity of solveny advocates. Do you have one for 50 state action uniformally? Uh we have one for the states acting. Yeah. Where where does that exist for 50 to state uniformly doing something? Yeah, you're right. We didn't read one of those, but you all should at least have a card for Gotcha.

Uh what's the arg for why state incorporation is necessary? You've heard a bunch of heard that like it's good, but what's the necessary because Yeah, because there's treaty gaps, right? So several of these states in control states control the police powers on things like health, etc. That's a state's key argument. Why is it a state court's key?

Because a lot of these things are uh setting the context of IHRL which is that TWAN card I think I read on the and why is it that only courts can incorporate precedents locally? Um well we we read a piece of evidence in the 2AC that the courts are necessary because it's the only way to come by Dave 7 indicates under the supremacy clause the state courts have the obligation to implement IHRL and why does why does the supremacy clause not similarly apply to the Congress?

because it's okay. It does. No, it doesn't. Our argument, the 2ac that I read was like the only way for it to become binding national law, i.e. not overturned at some higher level. Seems like statute is pretty binding to me. The mealish evidence is about LOAC. Why does this apply to the treaty power because your card the first card is about the low act and how it impacts?

It's about Congress and the president and the federal treaty power. So your arg is just low. Our arg is that those treaty powers are distinct from IHRO. Okay. Uh impact defense. Uh does any of this assume Ukraine? The two AC cards do not. Okay. Why why does this respond? It seems like a lot of stuff's happened.

Well, they still have it still has arguments like we're interdependent with Russia. Anything that proves the failure of NATO to be able to deter Russian Okay. Uh Dewall evidence says health is important. This is the add-on you used to read for your marijuana app. What is the warrant for why you solve overall north south health gaps or why the app is at all necessary to solve any of this?

It's a massive infusion of IHL based on the right to health. Our argument is that's in the global signal or Davis. Where does your connect this to prostitution the mechanism the Davis evidence in the 1A as well as the whiteer evidence in the 1A connects those two together to global health diplomacy based on as well as the evidence which talks about why it would be necessary for broad millennium health development.

Okay. What does public health diplomacy do for USRussia relations? What does what do what does public health diplomacy do for USRussia relations? relations. It says that there's a common ground in health diplomacy that Russia and the US could use to overcome other differences. Is there a card that there's any basis for relations existing currently?

Like the US and Russia talk to one another about literally anything. Yeah, our card takes that into account. Reports describe US relations as stagnating, suggesting their relationship at its lowest point. However, there's still a latent potential for public health diplomacy as USRussian relations continue to be stymied by the same way. Health diplomacy has the ability to transcend politics and establish common ground.

What we're down to I don't know how much you took before the crossex. I think you said 645. Is that right? 645. Yeah. Great.

</details>

2NC — Second Negative Constructive

01:34 – 01:53
First half of the negative block — takes the case and the counterplan.

Summary

  • Took the whole case: extended "no nuclear terror" to ~0%, beat the soil-erosion, EU/Russia, and overpopulation add-ons, and pressed "IHRL fails / state courts fail."
  • Made the Congress counterplan solve the entire aff ("sufficiency, not necessity") with a better mechanism for promoting international human-rights law.
  • Answered the permutation as severance and set up the treaty-power net benefit (simultaneous action still triggers backlash and crushes congressional power).

Case — Advantage 2 (Trafficking / Terror)

  • No nuke terror: Compounding barriers (acquire → build → transport → deliver) mean ~0% chance; the defense is more recent.

Case — Add-Ons

  • Soil erosion: Huge costs, solar inevitable, doesn't solve; family-planning access solves overpopulation anyway.
  • EU / Russia relations: Internal link is from 2003 and off-agenda; reads relations defense.

Counterplan — Solvency

  • Congress solves: Congress passes the same laws and regulates the states → definitively solves the advantage with a better IHRL mechanism; "sufficiency, not necessity."
  • Credibility: Congressional legislation is the cleanest path to a national consensus (Mellish — treaty-body engagement suffices; courts aren't required).

Permutation / Treaty-Power Net Benefit

  • Severance: The perm includes action Congress didn't authorize; simultaneous action still triggers the enforcement/backlash link and crushes exclusive congressional treaty power.

Case — Advantage 1 (IHRL Fails)

  • State courts fail: Add confusion, no clear hierarchy → less consensus on international law.
  • IHRL fails broadly: Compilation studies beat aspirational authors; no modeling (democracies won't model non-compliance); rights law has near-zero causal influence.

Case — Overpopulation

  • Plateau: Development/pragmatism evidence says growth rates plateau; a specified "right to health" only adds confusion.
<details><summary><strong>Full Transcript</strong></summary>

Uh, I guess I'm the last one to do the thanks stuff. So, anyways, it's still important to repeat that I'm tremendously grateful for the University of Iowa for just being tremendous hosts. I agree with everyone that this has been a phenomenal NDT, not just in terms of the quality of competition, but also the logistics, the hospitality, everything has been fantastic.

And I'd like to thank Paul Bellis and Dr. Hingston in particular for that. That also goes double for the NDT tournament staff and committee. Uh, in particular, Dr. Rich, Chris Palmer, Brushki, all others that are involved. I appreciate all the hard work you put in. I'd also like to thank some administrative people from the University of Michigan.

Uh they made it possible, not only for us to be here, but also just for the debate team to exist. That includes uh Dean Laura Blake Jones, vice president for student life, Royster Harper, uh and any Michigan debate alums that make it possible for us to compete and travel. Uh so on some personal notes um I'd like to thank my parents and family back home.

Their unconditional supports made it possible for me to join this activity and and more importantly believe in myself enough to continue competing in it. Um you know never once did they complain about coming home for Christmas and you know highlighting parts the whole time. The expenses logistics of high school debate late night speed drills that are loud and annoying.

redeye flights. You know, debate is a slog and they haven't complained once about it and have been supportive the whole time. Uh I'd also like to thank my high school teammates back in Atlanta, uh the coaching staff from those days and really anyone affiliated with the debate program at Westminster. Uh it's a credit to their dedication and skill that they got me to stay on the team and set high goals for myself.

I I remember in particular uh back during my novice years standing in the squad room um and and admiring all the sweet hardware they had and you know just kind of joking around one of the juniors is like you know didn't know me but hey maybe you could be the next Steven or Rajes Jeadish or you know and and even though the person saying that was Rajes uh it helped me realize that I was lucky to have those people as role models and and mentors early on in my career because if I hadn't had them then I I wouldn't have stuck around.

Uh on that note, I'd also like to thank my lab leaders uh from the three years I spent at the Michigan Debate Institute. Um Hearnen in particular, but there are a lot of others as well that aren't here right now. They they had a crucial role in my development uh by teaching me to understand debate, you know, not just as an activity with, you know, no offseason and all that, but also as sort of a craft and a process that has its own value in that sense.

Uh for the same reasons, I'd like to thank sort of the judging pool root large. uh you know that's harder than the actual debating uh which is why I do so little of it. It's exhausting and the honest input and advice to improve is is why I got here. Um some other people I'd like to thank uh competitors and opponents we've had not just at this tournament but over the last eight years.

Uh it's all of you who make the opportunity meaningful uh and who challenge me to work hard. Uh without that it wouldn't be meaningful to be here in the first place. Uh the Michigan coaching staff. Wow. There are too many incredible people to live south right now, especially at this time of day.

But you know who you are. And I hope you know how much it means to me that you're invested in my success in my final tournament. Willing to stay up late, take inane requests, take crappy files I made and turn them into awesome things, fill in evidentiary holes, scout, get food, everything. It's it's amazing.

Um, there are also some Michigan Debate friends uh back in Ann Arbor who couldn't make it here this weekend, but unequivocally they've been a part of this process. We've been having people who were taking full course loads, still sending cards in the middle of the night, highlighting files, and I think that's a testament to the team culture and how much they care about the process.

I'd like to thank Aaron Call for building up such a great program and making it possible for me to me attend Michigan. Uh, and in particular, I wanted to single out David Height. Um, I'm the only person who has the privilege of having this much long-term coaching and mentorship from him. And he's the most selfless person I've ever met.

Uh, you know, I've been reading his cards and trying to make sense of his arguments for eight years now. He's never once complained about anything. Uh, and I think we're going to be really missing him next year. Uh, to the extent that we don't see him a lot. A couple final people I'd like to thank.

All of my past debate partners. Uh, so that's Julia Marshall, Day, Maria Lou. There are really only four people in the world uh who know just how difficult I am to put up with. And especially Papis uh more so than anyone putting up with me for the last three years, picking up my slack, coming up with strategy ideas and keeping me on task, not to mention just being a great friend and someone to talk, you know, about strategies or just life in general with.

It's been an incredible road and I'm really happy to be here. With that said,

[Applause]

That was I'm going to go too. I think you're doing it comes up there. Oh, it won't stage. I was going to do that. This is like a weird angle. Yeah, the speakers. Anyone wants a sneak peek of it? Starts with the 15 minutes. CS treaties advantages. organizational. All right. So the order is dec.

The soil erosion add-on. I have that on advantage one kind of near the bottom. It is. Um, and then the death penalty add-on, which I'm not even sure where that is, but I'm just going to stick in the same spot. One second. Yeah. Okay, we're done. No change to the order, though. So, after the add-on page, we're going to dub it.

It's the um Wolf DA state politics one. Federal Congress and the HR. Yeah, I just wanted to say some stuff. Um, just make sure K advantage two soil add-on other add-on wool Congress advantage. Y critique not going for that there was an out to begun with condom debate group and vote for a nature made opportunity cost of the plan one of artificially seal competition innovative research to be test against to check the expert out there.

Our assessment is arbitrarily confined to promotes off to the flame where two schools never believe in the deterren it's good to get log engagement good practical check one but every limit on our options is illogical skin fairness to east stand back their key distinction has been voted because they make the pre research they've said is good impossible and under the clash for reject the team because we can't read you the one seen unlike our arguments protecting the argument is fant because it is the plan itself now the advantage to stuff the now the advantage too the extent our terrorism defense our white se is more recent than all of their stuff combined is way better.

It doesn't matter how much effing money they have, they'll never get the nukes. Every state that has nuclear materials is strictly monitored not only by the US, but by international enforcement bodies. Even if they were to get the stuff, they would be able to convert into a usable bomb because of stuff like the palace.

Even if they were to get into a usable bomb, they wouldn't be able to transport it. Even if they were to be able to transport it, it would get caught in the process, they wouldn't get it to the US, etc. The compounding factors of all those means that there's literally 0% chance of this.

Now, the uh soil stuff, there are massive costs of this. literally all of agriculture in the US and globally means they don't solve any of this papis might read a one in our impact D card on this if he feels like it but that is all we need because if we went solar inevitable and it doesn't matter if they reduce population which is a demographic thing that changes over tons and tons of years and if the counter plan guarantees access to family planning then we solve it anyway the EU relations add-on you've got to be kidding me the internal is from 2003 I'm just going to read some EU relations defense and call it a

day because that is not a current issue on the agenda and if they read new evidence and what our answer Hamilton said black administries have to wor institutions are a global problem of the history as defense Transition first without products of the foundation relations of failure level actually I'm not even going to read that card cool um politics not going for conceit is not key to a however intrinsic reason to protect the team makes them possible for us to leverage ground all the best offenses process based special when they break a new app it's also illogical because you are not the federal government you are an individual deciding which is better now the counter plan

at the top uh they solve the entire app it literally has saw Congress do the same laws and impose regulations on the state which means it definitively solves that advantage and it also has better mechanism for promoting international human rights law. We have sufficiency but not necessary arguments which means if we win Congress as a viable way of bringing the US into adherence then it solves the entirely app and we there's only risk of an IHRL or state court related net benefit the first now I'm going to do all of the just sort of international law related solveny stuff here congressional action solves credibility and domestic incorporation of bylaw much better than the court 6

can resolve it and the US is not fully complied with law however it's going to be resolved by the court of the judicial responsible long committee apprehensive how the US is going to quickly prov US needs to travel in the quickest, cleanest and least kind of fresh way of reaching consensus for Congress act.

Congressional legislation will provide the best possible blueprint to provide the international committee with a long awaited answer is whether the US international laws are applicable. Congress must legislate so the US can emerge from its current legal fog with a national consensus that will build confidence cooperation home and abroad. Now the threshold for accessing anything related to the not the state courts have they read the impact internally is mellish.

Melish says human rights treaty body engagement is sufficient does not mention courts or state so they can't distinguish it as long as the counterp link extrapolation. And this also says treaty bodies. So they can't say they judge our treaties either. My black decisions are predicated on two AC mishaps. Future actions won't be as sweet as all 50 state court acting at once.

Anyway, it'll be confusing and not everything will consist approach subjects in which issues. So the judges the rest of the decision is complex judges highlighting countries arguments and choose practices diversity of nation why some haven't chosen the others omitted. And now the permutation debate obviously is per the count severance because it's a sync actor that is voted for like a net ground simultaneous action links because justices wouldn't know the congress agree triggering internal fear backlash constraints rulings and also crushes congressional power the exclusive right to make I treaty a comm amendments is the basis of our DA the per includes something that count did not authorize or rules on moods issue each of what would

trigger and it would just increase the enforcement independent enforcement link seven results getting the death sentence in English that they have already implemented the treaties congress doesn't start to share the enforcement sound judici Respect the act enforcement reinforced unjustifiable judicial architecture for making decision in these case involving domestic parties. Now the rest of this will just be the link today which will be handled in the one and now also their evidence about the Martin evidence they read is about status quo prohibition which the counteran eliminates and takes away from the states.

If anything that sounds better because it overturns the state bands that are hurting US adherence now which means that they can't retreat from it. Now also the next argument is that the perm shield less in the context of politics now treaty power will argument is based on the effect of state courts ruling on issues that are explicitly federal i.e treaty related issues which the counter plan alone is perfect to address.

Now the advantage one south extend the state court's fail argument our positive evidence is fantastic on this and they don't get any new one error positive indictes even though he's eminently qualified. We'll also concede recency matters. News flashes from 124 year Davis evidence is from earlier in the year based on older studies.

Now state courts fail. They've conceded that it just adds more confusion to the issue. This actually goes well with our confusion and treaty power and net benefits because it says that there's no clear hierarchical relationship. Nobody knows who's the ultimate authority on it which means that they just decrease the overall consensus on international law issues.

But even if we don't win that, we'll just win the all fails more broadly. That is our blunted evidence which cites a compilation of studies as opposed to the aspirational hippie wishes of all of their authors are positive says this means rights are doomed globally. They can't even name the damn treaties that they're talking about.

Sure, there's the UDHR, but there's a ICCPR and a wreck of other treaties that often have conflicting and positive provisions. It can never be resolved by something like the app. This also means no modeling an impact. Democratic states won't model non-compliance. Authoritarian ones will model anything. So, diversity benefits organizations decide to adopt our good forms a couple harmful face.

Other nations seek out for democracy the same rules anyway. Human rights credit is involved in public opinion, global norms and networks sound way more about issue warnings about the way encourages government to violate rights ignore oppression and undermine institutions by the world and legitimate American occupies that this was a redundant justification for policies made on other grounds governments to hear that little to do with us policy.

Also uh we control unities for all their broader claims rights are being actually I'm not going to make that arc but uh more of on the IHR fail stuff studies new bar five human rights treaties are unlikely to have made any extra defense related obligation affecting human rights more likely more democratic wars cities very democratic legis have no effect sometimes even with human rights violations political constraints like budgets et compliance in the countries that matter for their impact posit forcing other countries under war can't afford most of treaties republic the most democracies How about global infection cleaning them up means raising turning people into forcing laws all the great cause that most countries can't afford.

You don't solve the people who matter for your impact. I sure all fails overarching and ambiguity and foreign aid solves any way possible for the vast majority of countries have no right for nearly all humanities right violation common people argue the solution is strengthened human rights all divide views the opposite human rights laws too ambiguous and true ambiguous for states with obligations they can't possibly keep rights no method for evaluating law doesn't do much more [ __ ] bad for economic development is the better way to go rights treaties are wrong there is zero causal influence on states and they're impossible to implement US credit is impossible thank god I cut updates posit for the

weakness of my human rights although another from the stud universation was not a treat in the formal sense not at the time believed that it created legally binding obligations right this big aspirational charter's emphasis on human rights have been a reaction to the most gruesome policy such as right which is too important then came the war with significant challenge international human rights torture is the court human right the right is worth international introducing the publication along with Russia abusive each of the six major human rights treats has been right more than 15 countries many of the mar human rights raised an aggression of how human rights laws actually inflict behavior powerful western countries including the

US do business with grave human rights abusers. We're not going for the tors argument that's separate from the treaty power issue which will be in the one and are the other arguments that I'm going to extend there that they don't access US compliance anyway. That is our cop evidence which says that we do things like torture people in our green world evidence say surveillance is obviously much higher on the radar than trafficking conflation which means that if the thesis of some issues spilling over ice skate then all any all cause would be enough to take out the app I'm going to send the overness to our Albert and population development and pragmatism evidence is much

better. It says that population might be rising but the overall rate will plateau and it'll be I'll check my assistance internationally. It doesn't make sense to read recent evidence on this because it's bad or demographic trends which happens is more than not qualified enough to address. Now they just add another layer of confusion to the issue.

Adding a right to XI right to health that they specify just makes it even more confusing. 124 the board is bigger than 50 years ago but it is because the right duties are economical clubs and communication deliveries with hundreds of poorly fight obligations countries people of as many as 400 international human rights right to work freedom religious wish notation privacy pretty much anything short right government a limited budget one human right for protecting another

</details>

CX — Cross-Examination of the 2NC

Northwestern questions Michigan · 01:53 – 01:56

Summary

  • Pressed why prior congressional approval is needed for treaties already signed (e.g., the Vienna Convention).
  • Drew out that the neg's "terms" evidence is about future treaties, not the existing gaps the plan fills.
  • Tested whether the impact defense assumes the Ukraine crisis.
<details><summary><strong>Full Transcript</strong></summary>

Okay. The 1's claim for IHRL is that the plan allows state courts to comply with existing treaty gaps. Why the scenario was called treaty gaps. Why do any of these prior congressional approval necessary for future treaty making args apply? Sorry, say that again. The 1A's argument was that there are treaty gaps. We've already signed treaties like the Vienna Convention.

the plan state courts implementation is necessary for the existing sense. All of your terms are about future treaties. Why do any of those cards apply? That would make sense if there was a treaty that says all parties to the treaty should legalize prostitution. If it's a treaty where there's some ambiguity and interpretation, the right to interpret what that treaty entails is exclusively the federal government.

The convention, the treaties that are evidence sites where where there are treaty gaps that need federalist intervention for the state courts to fill in. No, the argument is that the only people who get to decide whether stuff like UNDHR supports prostitution should be Congress because Congress is the one that signed the treaties.

Why does there need to be prior congressional approval for treaties that have already been signed? Because otherwise any state court could say I'm going to interpret the UNDHR or the ICCPR or another one of the seven other rights treaties to say there is an obligation any conflicting type of thing they want to impose on the state.

Federal government federal government must control prostitution. Now our argument is based on treaties. The argument isn't based on penal control, not the states. That's your call. This debate is about who should be the one to decide whether or not UNDHR supports prostitution. We say Congress. Okay. Uh new meer IHRL fails right now because the UDHR is not binding.

The our whole point is that the only way to follow through on non-binding commitments is for implementation gaps to be filled. Why are any of these IHRL fails in the abstract? Because the fact the fact so if your claim is that implementation is sufficient, then that won't be sufficient because other countries will just not perceive US benevolence as adequate to secure the development.

What countries what do you have that says that once we fill treaty gaps, countries will not perceive that as benevolent? Uh our positive evidence is pretty good on this. Says they're broadly seen in vague aspirational terms. We do so much other messed up stuff that they won't proceed. A singular act talks about that messed up stuff and says the reason those things happen is because we don't implement it based on our federalist system.

Like we don't allow the state courts to act which is what the plan resolves. It's not based on not allowing state courts to act. It's just like your entire solveny stuff. It's just like this is an area for state courts act. It doesn't say it has recency for overpopulation doesn't matter. Do you know when the last UN population report was?

Uh my guess is 2014. Okay. And your from 2004 assumes is that how? Uh it doesn't. The point is that it's making if that projection was different in 2004, how can your impact defense possibly apply? Uh because the argument is that those things change so slowly that the democratic demographic like if the demographic landscape can reverse that rapidly in 10 years, then there's no reason to expect it won't get better.

What have substantiates that claim? This is a logical interpretation of the evidence. I'm explaining the argument. You asked a question about it. One second. Yeah, sure. We're done. 220 for the tuner. Emailing it now.

</details>

1NR — First Negative Rebuttal

01:56 – 02:05
Second half of the negative block — collapses to the counterplan and the DA.

Summary

  • Kicked the politics ("Wolf"), judicial-budgets, and IHRL-pick positions to collapse the round to the Congress counterplan and the treaty-power DA.
  • Extended the treaty-power link: the plan is an ad-hoc assertion of state authority over non-self-executing treaties that opponents (NATO SOFAs) will exploit, wrecking treaty-making.
  • Built the Russia/NATO impact (Baltics, post-Ukraine escalation) and read soil-erosion defense and perm / solvency-deficit answers.

Kicks — Collapsing the Round

  • Dropped positions: Politics, judicial budgets, and the IHRL word-PIC are conceded away to focus the 2NR.

Counterplan — Solvency

  • Statutory incorporation suffices: Congress solves the implementation gap; mere citation is sufficient (Paris evidence); the aff has no card that state courts are necessary → solvency deficit for the perm.

Treaty Power DA — Link

  • Ad-hoc assertion: 50 states asserting power to interpret/enforce non-self-executing treaties durably changes legal reality; the plan offers no alternative model; opponents exploit it (NATO SOFAs / blowback).

Treaty Power DA — Impact

  • Russia / NATO: Treaty power is key to U.S.–Russia relations and NATO cohesion; post-Ukraine, Baltic miscalculation is uniquely likely → strategic nuclear escalation.

Soil / Case Defense

  • Erosion overstated: Simon evidence — erosion is lessening, not worsening; no internal link.
<details><summary><strong>Full Transcript</strong></summary>

Okay. The Wolf PA, the backlash disadvantage, the judicial budgets disadvantage, the IHRL pick, the state court or state congress component, the treaty power disadvantage, uh, and somewhere in the middle of a speech, I'm going to read a random soily card, so don't go on. Could you do it again? If you do it again anytime.

I'll do that one more time. Thank you. Oh, you did that. Okay. Well, no wolf at the top because that was already kicked out. Okay. Wait. Sorry. Can you slowly backlash? Lots of paper. Backlash. Judicial budget. IHRL pick. The state court or state congress count. The pretty power disadvantage. You have any idea where this thing is?

Wherever the add-on was, I'm going to read it. I mean, it's all right. Stay champ. Yep. Yeah. One second. All right, we're good. Okay. trees. Good. Good. Not going forward. links are specific to treaty powers the supremacy clause equally applies to the kind of plan because it's about it's about it's about state incorporation and doing local implementation the kind of plan submission to solve the judicial budget DA not going for conceition if it's submission to solve state budget says 50 billion to solve overall shortfalls no concally denied IHL not going forward permutations are test no solute they don't have a solid 56 means if they win this you should vote next there's no line for

what the together. We have this is this is a terine opportunity constituted creativity especially in response to a new affirmative and a test that is desiraability of the agent which is due to negative flexibility. Right. The counterpart permutation links of a treaty disable [ __ ] court interpretation of international human rights law making those treaties self-impation links in the counterp say court interpretation all of their data sis on the kinds of localism it says there's an implementation gap in the status quo is local governments don't implement federal treaties fiat obviously solves that argument as a result of statutory incorporation which is sufficient to solve their paris evidence as mere citation is sufficient to solve which

spills over to spills over to solve the citation of international human rights law which means if this is sufficient it spills over the JB7 is mere a rhetoric I know because we were going to read a state courts act that's why we have such a sweet negative it's about global implementation that solves the prostitution advantage because the twin governance system of prostitution if it's true of the prostitution on IHL grounds is enough and the count is both necessary to solve the aution filter soly deficit through the lack of the evidence they have the comparative between the two different actors and they they should have to present a card that says it's necessary but a solid

which means a rob it out no defense is old it doesn't answer miscal escalation with treaty powers necessary to solve US Russia for ways is the only center for extinction cuz only they have enough nukes to kill the planet. Focus of 14 attention to block the states level the NATO on the draw down of the world most international rules count for nothing and a detum rights law treaty powers of veterin states for only human race the cross of lost time and energy global human right nation man human rights grouping unilateral in position of even laws to incorporate international norms only the dissent for economic consensus period right we embrace multiateral solutions increasing by without cooperation

progress right without wise corporation to harmonize standards avoiding the risk of peacemail approaches human right universal after some sort of predetermined be careful of careful building a coalitions with different groups allied in different groups allied in purpose is now the link debate look they don't have a card that is about a treaty power which is sufficient the plan necessarily causes state interference with the treaty power says challenges are already active it's only a question of whether they succeed all 50 states collectively asserting the power to interpret and enforce nonself executing treaties drastically changes legal reality on the on a durable fee.

That means the Supreme Court declines your appeals ensuring the plans substantially changes a constitutional interpretation of a treaty power at all levels of government. The power to enforce a treaty necessary necessarily entails the breach as new and for the limitation of a judicial limitation positive international control over the means of treating transp with current understandings.

They can't access a nuance defense or a hypothetical limit to their impacts on treaty power. The plan does not present an alternative model just an ad hoc assertion of authority regardless of their intended opponents of key treaties like NATO sofas and blowback will take advantage of the plan to justify their own their own attacks.

That's Paul and a band breaker. Now I'm going to read the soil D no soil D Simon 97 minute about erosion the original prayers the flow foundational portion of crop so that no man practices and all the more crop rose less than no love the loss written at los erosion to be red man aggregate dated not concerns about the work of danger warning a false ro was it was lessening rather been getting worse now they add at the bottom there's no internal link discarded about drugs they have red card the constitution necessary sufficient solution from 2010 reverse causes about harm reduction they have no rushable do it in as whether a next artist is from

2013 it says that cooperation is not straight to solve it's not reverse call it doesn't assume Ukraine would change everything and 15 US should Ukraine while maintaining cooperation opportunization started the phrase is only a matter of time until tensions under remaining so corporation will rise a complex on the back burner it's also about Russian liberalization they have no cards that Russia will do so Marshall 14 debate Russia with How many new moral threat into a reshaping of domestic narrative around identity into a progressively more anchovist foreign policy Russia is threatening liberalization the same process also a field of growing cult war between the Russian Federation and the EU I'm going to read yes Russia war

cards for the rest of the speech a framing issue all of our ideas from 2012 doesn't assume Ukraine which changed the game that's our one and see we don't need to win NATO is more broadly capable just that [ __ ] in the Baltics perception of cohesion is better than the perception of infighting NATO not absolutely caution NATO mission utility high risk of older 15 official history makes sure the only way to stop a world in order to not to be fooled by protestations of innocence motives or a lack of ambition is uniquely likely in the Baltics.

Now it causes nuclear war and affecting 15. every presidential Russian technic would be a normal exercise without notice turns into an assault would put NATO credibility online a failure can embolden Russia in a major regional war in a nuclear arms ban uniquely likely to isolate Carnegan 15 the US nuclear test Russia 15 missiles uh I'm not going to read that card strategic nuclear escalation is likely without particular scenar caused escalation 15 mil west of the Baltics large war euro waration the Middle East would user much more geopolitical climate of kingdom in 1930s nuclear change in the great start of conventional war marked in conventional war

[Applause]

[Applause]

</details>

1AR — First Affirmative Rebuttal

02:08 – 02:17

Summary

  • Held the line on the treaty-power DA: the plan fills existing treaty gaps (not new treaties), LOAC is a distinct body of law, and the perm's simultaneous action shields the link.
  • Argued only court precedent creates the transnational judicial dialogue the case needs, so the Congress CP leaves a solvency deficit.
  • Defended the case (newer overpopulation trends, no consensus on trafficking's definition) and pressed theory (intrinsicness / new-affs-bad).

Counterplan — Solvency Deficit

  • Courts are key: Only judicial precedent creates transnational judicial dialogue; Congress is at most a "blueprint," not precedent for state-court implementation; the supremacy clause binds state courts (clarifying the CX).

Treaty Power DA — Link Defense

  • Existing vs. new treaties: The aff acts on already-signed treaties; the neg's offense is about new treaties.
  • LOAC ≠ IHRL: Their spillover evidence (Bond) is a separate body of law; the perm's simultaneous action shields; vote on zero risk.
  • Ukraine empirically denies: Ukraine threatened NATO without solo nuclear escalation.

Case

  • Overpopulation: Aff trend evidence is newer; the neg's is from '99/'35 and too old.
  • Trafficking: No consensus on the definition; the plan supplies it.

Theory

  • Intrinsicness / new affs: Intrinsicness is a voting issue; reject the neg's new-affs-bad and excess conditionality.
<details><summary><strong>Full Transcript</strong></summary>

All right. The order is the Okay. Okay. Cool. the ISO advantage, the law pick, which is where I'm also going to answer new apps bad since that's what we're doing. Um, okay. Uh, the state legislator's counter plan, the Congress count plan, and then the DA. Yeah, one more time. Management, the law pick.

I'm also answering you as bad there. State legislator's counter plan. Congress counter plan the legislator DA on top of all that the budget wherever intrinsicness is a voting issue is okay that's the first thing you're saying Yeah, it's actually exactly one minute because you had 225 and 224 to start or other way around.

You cheated yourself out of second. All right, we're good. In reject should be applied on all these sound that I advance we have conceited on some page that we say for incorporation by law question whether or not they'll do it ad hoc or man the question which means that they ask state courts are good they create transational tradition dialogue which one evidence all their optimism means they incorporation be solves inflation evidence So it becomes national ultimately become the convers we don't need to win that we saw the TV aration reducing the other claim of part of the United we don't need modeling impact it's about attack le dial necessity later too old way more research

the question we didn't trade human rights all this evidence about country right forms is fundamentally relevance about it's about incorporation incorporating car mult now I know you lied about cutting up uh I know you collide about any posit I can tell you dehy cut that guard all that positive reference is not super impact it is all about oh incorporating new treaties our plan is about status quo treaties pretty on the question all causes bring now population we are better on the trends of this we are we are better trends on this question our evidence is far new matters in this contextual error is from 35 indicates old destroys the entire capacity there evidence from 99

means that it is far too old in the [ __ ] consensus. The consensus term does not seem that that there is a consensus solo definition of traffic the United means the plan is to give the eye law pick. Uh yes we have yes we have some students also line there wasn't the art was not that voting issue is that we don't we get new arguments they they were not able to see why the catal was all the case the state legislature all the links and the capital said we don't all about federalism the state generally using IHRL their link about federalism and treaties between the state incorporation links to it as well state court

national dialogue incorporation will be locked on transition dialogue means can create effective lever future dialogue development applies to be the congress beast one only court actions present and future a corporation Ilating gats and inflation one supremacy clause in the moment in crossex a little bit awkward but it's only because it's a factual mistake the state court the states the supremacy clause is not applied to states only state court or just no obligations obligation state are bound now the uh calendar because they didn't have any evidence or explanation they want to see what I want to see why they only otherwise encourage to send back and result otherwise it makes it possibility for me because they

can take back all the arguments of block doesn't all the kids indicates that Congress that Ryans say that the Congress has the potential to be a blueprint but only the cause is precedent for state courts implementation future IHL ruling state that this argument is all about treatments indicates by boost our credibility on IRL but only gaps the plan international dialogue is cripful this actually hard only links to the limit it's an ad hoc incorporation by means we will not we will site random countries which is exactly what that evidence is talking about but our parish indicates in a world transition dialogue we can coordinate our incorporation of law which means that this is the count

but not to the count we're not going discrimination both solves the link. It's all about all of our arguments about existing existence all seems new treaties. There's a critical difference because they're linked to the blue and corporation disabled solve the link because they get a green light for Congress. The fact they have one card that uses the word prior coincidentally does not mean that evidence testing board from the question simultaneous action means there's no overstepping bounds on the part of court on the part of the board.

You should be willing to vote on zero risk and benefit evidence explicitly says the permitation links to their internet benefit. You should disregard the model of the encourage bad race only type argument safe for impleation one by direct development safe international consideration global international law incorporation you work to self accept otherwise treaty and Hold up.

Okay, it spills over. key called 11 phenomen CIA C one which also no link to the need never mind um we implement human rights Treaties comport with their purpose not obligations super congress Jun three with that purpose there is no we can't profession they can't absor all about lowac rulings evidence parts is all talking about bond in the status quo they can see the m life special which means that lowac will not is a fundamentally separate body of law which means the HRL incorporation does not spill over cost.

I think the one was pre-effected. do not have any evidence that established the PR of the court to rule on something like this as their burden David action national less likely to be interfere card and interfere NATO affairs our country never Russia it's empirically proven by the outbreak of Ukraine there says that Ukraine threatens NATO not that it's solo nuclear working so admiration after no escalation US resolution near um that number

[Applause]

uh 220 Two zero.

</details>

2NR — Second Negative Rebuttal

02:20 – 02:28

Summary

  • Went for the Congress counterplan with the treaty-power DA reframed as a pure "federalism-bad" net benefit — letting state courts reinterpret signed treaties (UDHR) hands states a veto the federal government never authorized.
  • Argued Russia outweighs on magnitude, probability, and timeframe, and that even without LOAC, wrecking NATO accesses the impact.
  • Beat the perm with six answers (simultaneity, judicial federalism, mootness, right-to-violate, citation, mutual exclusivity) and denied any 1AR solvency deficit.

Impact Framing

  • Russia outweighs: The only accidental-nuclear-war scenario; short-term and more probably escalatory than the "amorphous" human-rights impacts.

Treaty Power DA — "Federalism Bad"

  • Reframe: Not about new treaties — if state courts define signed treaties, anyone can assert a right; the 1AR answered the wrong DA (LOAC / Bond don't apply).
  • Unified voice: Only Congress can exclusively define treaty meaning; durable fiat means the shift never gets challenged.

Counterplan & Conditionality

  • Conditionality conceded: Can kick the CP or keep components; the CP resolves the violations, so state courts are unnecessary.
  • Six perm answers: Simultaneity (no follow-on), judicial-federalism bad, mootness (dropped), must-have-right-to-violate, citation bolsters the CP, and one-system mutual exclusivity.

No Solvency Deficit

  • Congress is sufficient: Closes the gaps (sufficiency vs. necessity); a more reliable actor and better expression of national will (U/Wilkinson) — and it legalizes prostitution too.

Case

  • State courts fail / IHRL fails: Newer positive evidence; "dialogue" is noise across 400+ asserted rights; overpopulation rests on the legitimacy of sex, which the CP solves.
<details><summary><strong>Full Transcript</strong></summary>

All right. So it's the treaty power DA the uh state congress the federal congress then the advantage uh so it's basically the 50 state congress one and then the federal congress one Awesome. The one AR blitz through the over shouldn't give the two credit or much room for extrapolation. They've conceded a couple magnitude questions that should frame your evaluation.

First is that Russia outweighs it is the only scenario for accidents. Now nuclear war. They didn't extend enough impact defense. They conceded that show of strength from NATO and the Baltics is key. any risk of an incursion or that or something that would erode it outweighs the app because it causes nuclear war in the short term and it definitely is more likely to be an escalatory scenario than all of the amorphous human rights scenarios which means that it also outweighs our probability.

I also can see the two trans case arguments that is our Lucas evidence and our parish evidence which is not only does the DA alternative because we create the perception of incoherence once it starts messing with our foreign policy and causing other people to challenge of things based on random interpretations of universal rights declarations based on policies they don't like but it would mean that we are no longer seen as a credible actor.

Even if we do things like resolve compliance gaps, we would no longer be relevant those things. The bond argument doesn't apply to this at all. Our argument is purely a federalism bad. A clan bond ruling was consistent with it and also means they're low. I guess lexical argument doesn't apply. They're fundamentally answering the wrong DA.

This is straight up a federalism bad. DA, there needs to be a unified voice and that is only possible if Congress has the sole and proclusive authority to define what the treaties mean. Our argument isn't based on new treaties that would be ratified or anything like that. It's purely just the argument uh that if the state courts can decide what the treaties that we've signed like the UNDHR, etc., Then anyone can just assert a right to do anything and use that to have a successful case in the sake or to the extent that they spill over a citation that is sufficient to trigger the DA but the counterplay alone prevents it which means you should

prefer it our power and current evidence could not be more specific on this and says that it has to be exclusive federal right and it uses the language of trade-off. So it means that if they include the state court action that they shred this treaty power durable fiat ensures that it never gets challenged.

It means that they're no longer that the decision about who and what it means to comply and who does our compliance gets delegated to the states. That is also the basis for their supremacy clause but are new evidence that is a bad model. We need to have the right to be in breach because that is exclusively a federal authority.

But the plan fundamentally pulls the rug out from under that. Now all the arguments they make at the bottom are just shoddy extended impact defense. But they've [ __ ] seated a rack of arguments based on our copchan cleans and sano evidence which says that there's a high potential for escalatory nuclear conflict.

They have spills over to it by wrecking NATO which means that even if we don't win the lowac argument we would still access an internal link to the DA kind of plan. Not going for this one. However, we'll continue the federalism argument as the basis of link argument. The counter plan resolves all the violations that we would be charged over.

So, state courts would be rendered unnecessarily. These are state courts good arguments, not state court key claims. So, they can't cross to the other claim counter plan. Now, the other counterp I'm at the top there now. All right. I think I'm going to do the premise step first. At the top, they've conceded the thesis of conditionality, which means you can not only kick the counter plan for us, but keep components of it.

As long as we win that they are not the optimal choice, that is sufficient. So for instance, you could just have the counter due to the prostitution component which solves all of their the stuff about prostitution being a legit industry polarmo etc. Or we can just win that this world outweighs. Now there are a couple arguments that they're mishandling first is it occurs simultaneously.

So they can't claim that they are just followon implementation of federal legislation. The state courts wouldn't know that at the time of the ruling. So it can't be a follow-on claim. It would still be them asserting a state right to do these things. Second is treaty power comes from Congress and the executive.

It is a judicial federalism badda. They authorize the states to challenge the supremacy of the federal government. That is their argument. This gives states a voice to say that any of the nine human rights treaties can obligate us to do something that the federal government never gave them permission to do because when we signed the UNDHR, we obviously didn't intend to legalize prostitution.

Third is muteness. They dropped it. I know it's an analytical argument, but you should dare negative on this because if the counterpart actually brings us into compliance by forcing the states to legalize, then obviously there would be no standing for someone to have a case in a state court to begin with, which means it definitely wouldn't solve any of the confusion arguments.

It would just cause the worst of both worlds. Fourth is we have to have the right to violate actmen on the other page the perm would not accept that because it has the states act even if the federal government does or doesn't it would still be the states claiming that that is their aim.

Fifth is we agree most of their cards are about citation that bolsters counterpart sovereignty because we don't need a formal and trying court president but it doesn't take out the link because the argument is that citation should not occur unless Congress has declared that the president is based on private actors deciding that non- international treaties mean something that they don't want them to mean and that being successfully lobbyed in the court.

I also can't get these arguments about state courts not taking up other issues because the whole thesis is that they energize those things and cause them decide more often. Sixth is the power level. It's one system either federal or subfederal if that doesn't prove mutual exclusivity. I don't know what does the supremacy arguments I all explained above.

It doesn't answer any of the DA claims. Now there is no real one AR solveny deficit. We solve all of their dialogue arguments. Remember the sufficiency versus necessary distinction. The only card connecting it to the impact. I said that we need to close the gaps. The Congress closes the gaps. It's solved their entire argument.

The dialogue is unnecessary. If they're already in agreement also we solve the president argument better. They've considered all of our U and Wilkinson evidence which says that our Congress is seen as a more reliable actor. It's a better expression of the national will and it would express a political consensus whereas theirs would just be a really lucky day where all 50 state courts decide to rely on something which means that they don't solve the perception of credibility as well as they think they do and it also legalizes prostitution.

So it solves all of the other stuff. It's sufficient to create the president and bring us in line which means there is literally no solid deficit in any tiny risk of deed the perm is enough the card and perm to a separates because the actor link thresh of the national control the entire of the treaty of the entire empowering the national government certainly does the question of whether the states have to the treaties national responsible weapon responsible others And at the same level independent don't need the res.

Okay, that'll do advantage. State courts fail. Our positive evidence is too good on this dehight site start with a comma. So you know I cut this [ __ ] Our evidence is more recent than theirs. And it says it doesn't matter if they create dialogue because that dialogue will consist of intellectual diarrhea that doesn't resolve international concerns.

They just assert a new flavor of the week right which is worse. For instance, in one crossings they said the rights to work. We read a card that laundry list over 400 different such rights which means that even if they bring us into compliance that doesn't create an expectation even if it did it wouldn't spill over to other countries.

are morphs against this moi but it's far a better description but what would happen as is the so many evidence which says that the people who are violating treaties internationally will never stop violating because they're dack asses and the people who comply won't matter as the claim that the school treaties distinction is a relevant argument is based on them extending school treaties to do things that we didn't intend to authorize at the federal level now the overpopulation argument is exclusively based on the legitimacy of sex the counter solves irrespective of whether or not it access the president argument now there are a couple logical arguments that are shaping out their multilater arguments they've conceded that

they were violating tons of treaties anyway which means that they don't solve That is a couple of big ones.

[Applause]

</details>

2AR — Second Affirmative Rebuttal

02:29 – 02:36

Summary

  • Made multilateralism the controlling impact: transnational judicial dialogue (Davis) overcomes past credibility problems and empirically resolves Russian escalation through forums like NATO — outweighing the DA.
  • Argued the Congress CP can't solve because cross-fertilization needs judicial precedent and no CP plank funds prostitution, while a conceded card (Slaughter) makes the DA's federalism impacts inevitable anyway.
  • Closed the treaty-power DA: the plan fills existing gaps, LOAC is distinct, the perm shields, and Ukraine empirically denies short-term escalation — plus a conditionality "judge-intervention" argument against a shifty CP in an NDT final.

Case Outweighs — Multilateralism

  • Judicial dialogue: Cross-internalization (Davis) overcomes prior credibility damage (torture already priced in); multilateralism resolves Russian escalation — empirically, NATO and other forums prevented Ukraine escalation.
  • Try or die: Overpopulation → soil erosion → extinction with no neg impact defense; family planning only via the plan.

Counterplan Can't Solve

  • Courts only: Cross-fertilization requires judicial precedent; no CP plank funds prostitution → can't access Advantage 2.
  • Inevitable link: Conceded Slaughter card — states already incorporate law implicitly; better to be explicit, so the DA's impacts are non-unique.

Permutation & Conditionality

  • Perm shields: Simultaneous action = one national voice (Newman / Wilkins); low risk should be no risk.
  • Judge intervention: A CP the neg won't cleanly kick creates a "multiple-worlds" debate and forces intervention — improper in an NDT final.

Treaty Power DA — Final Answers

  • Existing gaps / LOAC distinct: The plan fills already-signed treaty gaps; LOAC ≠ IHRL, so no spillover; courts never rule against the executive.
  • No escalation: Ukraine empirically denies short-term escalation; red lines / hotlines check; no uniqueness (IHRL collapsing now).
<details><summary><strong>Full Transcript</strong></summary>

Okay. State advantage. A little louder. Thanks. Yeah. IHL advantage. The Congress CB. Everybody state incorporation of state court incorporation of Iowa is that cost bill over to conceded one argument transational judicial dialogue is the word for that there. This means that their counter plan is ad hoc and links more to their DNA but not the plan.

Miles spent a ton of time on this. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel totally, but that means when we access a veteran internal link to multilateralism, our argument is that the implementation gaps exist with existing treaties, which is why a lot of their offense on the treaty power argument will not apply because there are treaties like the Vienna Convention, which Congress has already signed and approved.

But we cannot implement them because the police powers are delegated to the states to act which means that those states must act in the federalist system which is the barrier through which the plan overcomes obviously and that does not like to the broader expansion of law and the states incorporating in every random way which when all their links are based off state courts uh can work effectively their evidence is not about the plan uh they only have cards about the right to work argument is broader than that.

It says that the international right to health combined with the right to work is necessary to solve multilateralism. That's our Davis evidence we want to see. There's not solely a human rights credibility impact but rather our Davis evidence says the cross internalization of judicial dialogue impact which overcomes the past human rights credibility issues because those are factored in.

People have understood that things like torture etc have happened. They've questioning whether the US can turn the page. Our argument says that our me says that that is possible and that multilateralism is successful if it is pursued in that strategy. The state courts are necessary which Davis is reverse cosmon and fantastic who examines results to the count as well.

The multilateralism outweighs the DA and resolves any combination of Russian escalations empirically proven that working through multilateral forums like NATO AC and etc have all prevented escalation in Ukraine etc. which is the reason why RP packs a cap on theirs which are also external scenarios through which cyber terrorism etc and our multilateral thing have given could escalate and cause war also the prostitution also also it's the only way to have family planning services successful successfully solve things like soil erosion which they don't have any impact defense too which caused extinction our evidence is much much better and much more post says that inevitably there will be a 100% chance that you will die because of

things like overpopulation which means if try or die necessities we win any of these internal links the counter plan does not solve these typ of internal because you need cross fertilization which can only be established through judicial precedent which is what all of our 1A and one evidence says which I am not going to reinvent the wheel on because I don't remember all the sites the counter plan there is no plank of the counter plan that does any part of prostitution funding which I don't understand how they can access any part of the second advantage the states do not challenge the federal government in terms of their uh in terms of their terms argument this

is what the prosec all of our no link cards say it's rather they fill in the gaps two pieces of fantastic one items was conceded First, the slaughter card from the 2C was also continued which says that states inevitably incorporate law into their decisions which means all of their impacts are inevitable. It's better to be explicit about it than implicit which is what is happening in the status quo which they have never entered in this made second or coup evidence says that the executive executive always the states can act with in IHL provisions without taking away executive powers to their distinct lex special measialis because the police powers are delegated to those states and things

like health and privacy and the right to work which is why prosecution's unique moodness was not dropped. They happen at the same time which will be explained now on the permutation which shields the link there. I need to move this there. Newman card is fantastic. The perm read that for the perm shields for us.

It says that that once commerce has implemented anal obligation. The courts are free to rule on that. A they have one card that actually the permit happens to say the word first. But Wilkins gets a card from diplomacy day says that simultaneous action of the permacine as the nation speaking with one voice which shields link.

But there's no no warrant for why simultaneous action cannot just be seen as the courts following the coronics incorporation of the two and our sounds good on simultaneity but clearly evidence clearly does not assume the unique nature of fiat and the fact that actions happen at the same time. Second, they can see the low risk of permutation should be no risk.

If they have if they don't have evidence that specifically says the perml links to their net benefit you should not vote for it encourages a bad battle of only a risk decision breaking for divorce debate from literary encourages do not have debates mutness does not make sense there's a difference between states codifying right via ruling in congress can't they don't have evidence on that question which means it's not an argument they say that we have the right to violate proves that they don't solve any of the case or spillover which are clean above don't kick the count for them if we win this a choice to not make this argument it causes two or two

hour to debate the multiple world phrases the threshold too high for the act and too low for the net kills negative decision making it causes judge intervention and takes the debaters debate out of the debator's hands which should not have happened in the finals of the NDT. There is definitely a solveny deficit to the first advantage of explain largely above.

But our argument says that citation by the courts is necessary for judicial precedent crossization. No other issues uh outside of those there aren't other issues outside of existing treaties. It is the counter play is definitely not sufficient because there's no way the congress can fill implementation gaps that they've delegated to the states due to federalist concerns which is why the Wilkinson evidence is not conceded our coup card in the one says that it's not going to be 50 different state IHL rather it says that they would be unified empirically proven by past decisions which they have card zero on the bene evidence answers this new card in the 200 says that the supremacy clause empirically

allows the states to sign IH to proves that their reading of that card is wrong treaty uh We did not concede the magnitude question. It does not escalate. And Miles made a great fantastic argument that all these impacts are empirically denied by Ukraine crisis. NATO was unsuccessful at preventing that from happening and it didn't escalate which proves that there's no short-term escalatory scenario.

Things like red lines and hotline red lines and hot and connect and communications check which is what all of our bets evidence says as well as our hot evidence does not turn the case. They have not do not have any uniqueness. IHRL is collapsing now due to treating gaps like the Vienna Convention.

They also do not have the same internal link which is what Miles said because LOAC is different which is why there's zero link to this DA. All of their evidence is based on the contrivance between LOAC IHL and the plan IHRL. Only our evidence speaks to the difference. Any of you who judge on war powers know that those are clearly distinct.

Our evidence says that their evidence is only about the bond decision which proves that it's not the same as IHL or choice evidence says that that is why it does not spill over broadly. It's about uh new treaties. All of their the plan fills in existing gaps. The states fed gave the rights.

The courts won't rule against the executive ever which is why that these things never spill over the right the right to break in still exists with low uh I was explained above the NATO impacts empirically denied our capital evidence from the choice he is fantastic and dangerous the last war he made it that they've empirically not friended conflict in the region from breaking out but those conflicts have never escalated moment after Heat.

Heat.

</details>

Decision: Northwestern (Affirmative) won the round.

Generated — check it against the video before relying on it.

Related videos

2022 NDT Finals - Dartmouth SV vs Michigan PR - Round Analysis Infographic for Classrooms
Round Analysisd3v

AI Round Summary & Transcripts: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/b2fc9995-b65d-49cb-ace8-4ace88048f7e Full Round: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx7Xx_6exzk Notebook Outline: https://notebook.google.com/notebook/3d9b069c-86d6-4a6e-a103-6269dc3ae905?authuser=1 Speech Docs: https://opencaselist.com/ndtceda21/Dartmouth/ShVe More Similar Videos: https://www.youtube.com/@artemisway-g2x/videos

Aug 3, 20260.0k
2026 NDT Finals - CSU Long Beach OM vs. Emory GS - Round Analysis Infographic for Classrooms
Round Analysisd3v

AI Round Summary & Transcripts: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/1e535e19-99fd-4552-a49a-b19c606a628c Full Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T77G1CdZx9E Notebook Outline: https://notebook.google.com/notebook/c9268ae0-96d3-4bd0-af93-5bcb51dff41a?authuser=1 Speech Docs https://opencaselist.com/preview?path=ndtceda25%2FEmory%2FGaSo%2FEmory-GaSo-Neg-9.-NDT-Finals.docx https://opencaselist.com/preview?path=ndtceda25%2FCSULongBeach%2FOrMe%2FCSULongBeach-OrMe-Aff-09---NDT-26-(80th-National-Debate-Tournament)-Finals.docx More Similar Videos: https://www.youtube.com/@artemisway-g2x/videos

Aug 3, 20260.6k

Queue

Nothing queued. Add a related video with itsbutton and it lines up here, to play when this one ends.

DocsSettings