Round Reports

LD Quarterfinal Round

Greenhill Tournament

Affirmative: Meadows

Negative: Glenbrook North

1AC

Value: Morality

Criterion: Ensuring Equal Opportunity

Contention 1: Standardized exit exams discriminate against handicapped students.  The affirmative argued that handicapped students shouldn't face the same tests as other students. 

Contention 2: The affirmative advocated that optional Certificate of Minimum Competency (CMC) tests be used instead of exit exams.  CMCs would not be required to graduate.  According to the affirmative, standardized exit exams create a double bind-either the standards are lowered so everyone can pass it or many don't pass and cannot graduate.  The affirmative argued that this is unfair.  CMCs avoid these pitfalls.

Negative Strategy

Counterplan: The negative argued that end-of-course exams (EOC) or Curriculum Based External Exit Exams (CBEEE) are a better option.  They have been used in New York to produce high levels of achievement.  According to the negative, CBEEEs increase learning because they serve as a benchmark to judge teachers and motivate students.  They also increase cooperation among students because instead of competing for a limited number of As and Bs students can all work together to pass the test.  Empirically, they serve disadvantaged groups and lead to higher graduation rates and post graduation wages.

Contention 1: The negative argued that eliminating tests decreases international competitiveness and does students a disservice.  The negative also said that California requires all students except those with disabilities to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.  Exams can still be considered mandatory and standardized if they exclude special groups such as the disabled. 

Contention 2: CMC do not solve for accountability.  Abolishing the test will mean diplomas are meaningless.  Employers won't view the diploma as credible.  In addition, the key to finding students with learning problems is through standardized tests.  The cracks will never be fixed if they aren't found.  Exit exams will push kids to higher standards. 

The judges for the negative on a 3-0 decision. 

CX Semifinal Round

Greenhill Tournament

Affirmative: Bronx

Negative: Westminster

1AC

Bronx ran a medical marijuana affirmative.  Plan: The United States Supreme Court should rule that all persons otherwise eligible for government housing must receive those services regardless of local production or consumption of medical marijuana on the grounds that the Controlled Substance Act's prohibition on locally produced or consumed medical marijuana exceeds the scope of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause.

The affirmative had three contentions:

• Dignity. The number of people who need medical marijuana is growing fast. Other medicines cannot alleviate their chronic pain. The federal ban on medical marijuana forces people to choose between housing and medicine. We should not allow totalizing grand principles to come before human dignity and stopping human pain. We can't relegate moral questions to broad belief systems.
• Federalism. In Gonzalez v. Raich, the Supreme Court upheld Congressional power to regulate local medical marijuana despite state legalization. This gave Congress unprecedented power against the states in every aspect of human affairs. A vigorous invocation of Lopez-style federalism will solidify international federalism. Federalism diffuses ethnic conflict and civil war.
• Judicial Independence. The Raich ruling destroyed judicial checks on Congress and set a precedent of unlimited deference to the executive and legislative branches. Strong judicial power is key to liberalize democratizing states.

Negative Strategy

Topicality: Social Services

Westminster argued that social services requires social worker interaction in the plan.  Because the affirmative plan doesn't utilize social workers they argued that it wasn't topical.  The negative did not go for this argument in the block.

Case

Judicial Independence: Westminster argued that judicial independence will make China less stable because it undermines the current regime's rule.  They argue that this will lead to nuclear conflict with the United States.  Westminster also argues that judicial independence will undermine Indonesian economic and political stability.  This stability is key to attracting the foreign investment necessary to propel Indonesia's economic growth.  Anti-corruption measures signal to investors that it is safe to invest in Indonesia.  Strengthened judicial independence insulates the judiciary from anti-corruption measures and will discourage foreign investment that is vital for Indonesia to avoid future economic crises.  In addition, Westminster argues that a strong and active judiciary undermines the balance of powers in India.  The weakening of the balance of powers destroys Indian internal stability.  Governmental and political stability in India is key to ensuring peace with Pakistan. 

Federalism: Westminster argued that secession will not snowball.  In addition, they argue that the Raich decision provides the basis for environmental legislation and narrowing the commerce clause will cause these laws to be overturned.  They argue that federal environmental laws are key to prevent irreversible, catastrophic environmental destruction. 

The judges voted for the negative (Westminster) on a 2-1 decision.