On new args.

New arguments in the 2AR read at state and nat quals (referred to by initials only for privacy):

SS -- She's a repeat offender. I read the social contract on state quals as neg, she completely misunderstood the philosophy (this wasn't even philosophy; it's basic 8th grade social studies crap). When I pointed this out, she ran the new arg in the 2AR that we must look BEYOND the social contract and achieve net benefits. She also read new args against AS in the 2AR, though I forgot which ones they were.

AH -- He autoqualled to states with 5-0, so I thought he'd be pretty ethical at nat quals. Not so. He read a stock AC, I ran a pretty troll ex post conditionality NC. He said my arguments were nonunique, which he later repeated despite my refutations. In the 2AR, he told the judge to vote on a study that didn't even mention the world "conditionality" (I pointed this out in both my speeches, of course). He also told the judge to vote on the fact that the money in the neg world is only going to countries with already good policies like the US and Canada -- a totally new argument with a very simple response (Collier evidence completely contradicts this). Finally, he told the judge to vote on the definition of political conditionality, which he failed to extend in his 1AR.

SH -- I ran a stock AC with a definition of humanitarian aid as impartiality. She read another definition, which had another part, which she cut off, that talked about impartiality. Then, when I noted that impartiality independently takes out her entire case, she came back in the 2NR and read a new refutation to impartiality. Not AS unethical, but still pretty darn bad. I'll give her a pass because I extended an argument in the 2AR as a voting issue that kinda, but not really, was extended in the 1AR.

Note that ALL THESE PEOPLE went 4-1 or 5-0 at state quals, so they were all really good at debate in general. They could have been ethical. But they decided to break the rules of debate in front of people that did not know such rules.

Lay debate is a joke.