Increasing access makes it really hard to prove solvency, so I think D is out. You can’t create a program; only increase access to the education. I would not even know where to being on the aff besides vouchers for private schools. Maybe something about charter schools could be here. I think increasing access for secondary education in prisons would be powerful, too. With the lack of a case list and the possibility of a new aff every round I would suggest staying away from this.

Reducing the role… that could be anything, so E is probably a bad pick. With the lack of a case list and the possibility of a new aff every round I would suggest staying away from this.

C is most likely the best resolution. I limits the focus of the resolution down to some interesting literature. It does favor critical affirmatives and allows for the neg to run straight up or more critical but I am (obviously) fine with that. The resolution is also uni-directional.

Basically, I would say one resolution is good, two are almost there, and two are something I would want to stay away from. I hope you all can “C” where I am going with this

Chad Meadows
Western Kentucky

On a quantitative/qualitative level what do you consider to be substantial?

I was just discussing this today with another coach, but I think this topic was excellently crafted.

E. The USFG should substantially increase assistance for organic and/or sustainable agriculture in the United States.
This topic makes my inner hippie happy, excited even. The affirmative has a ton of ground here. Any plan that increases assistance (whatever that is – write answers to topicality) for organic and/or sustainable agriculture works. You get to choose local, state, or nationally focused plans. Think about increasing neighborhood gardens, subsidies for organic farms, and shutting down Monsanto… vote aff all day, every day. I also think this could spur real micro-political change outside of round. Education from this topic could help everyone in an awesome way.
If you are neg on this topic, have fun. It is a big topic, more so than most of the others, but it is manageable. Organic and sustainable are kind of similar enough that it is almost one topic. There are a lot of solvency arguments to be had as well as generic arguments to be discussed. As I previously mentioned, assistance allows for some procedural debate. It is an increase topic, so counter plans are back on the table, too.

Information exists to be shared, not monopolized.

On top of that, are they afraid that someone might use their card because it is good? Really? The best feeling I had as a debater was when 3 schools were running my natives Aff at nationals. Sure they tweaked it a bit, but they were still using my files.

To me, if someone does not allow a competitor/judge to take down the cite, electronically or otherwise, I think it shows a lack of conviction in their evidence. As in, they are afraid someone will make sure they are being truthful.
It is not like someone will fabricate evidence or tweak it a little to much for their benefit (cough cough HS TOC a couple years ago).

While I think that some rules in NFA are a bit lame, I am 100% behind the rules of ethical citation of scholarly/not quite so scholarly research on the cards (not so hot on having to read the long names that people give their articles, le sigh).

We need to have accountability for each other and this is something that if the scholars can do it and survive, so can we.

Silver (2nd Place)
Point Loma Nazarene University – Sydney Awakuni

Bronze:
California Baptist University – Alex Lamascus
California Baptist University – Richard Wickham

Congratulations to all the debaters!