Overall, this was a very strong debate. Each side offered potent arguments in favor of their perspective, and there was a genuine clash between the opposing teams. The speeches were generally compelling, with considerable substance offered in well-organized and understandable packaging. Most impressive to me was the detail that each team mustered in support of its claims, with plenty of historical and current case studies to present as well as sophisticated philosophical background. I was surprised and delighted to find that you are so expert in history and politics. You’ve earned much respect from me. I can offer only one general critique of content in this debate, and I offer it with some hesitation, as it may reflect my own biases rather than a legitimate complaint about the content of the debate. When I wrote this resolution, I imagined it as, among other things, an examination of the value of heterogeneity. While the affirmative team touched on this issue occasionally, it did not serve as the central focus of their argument, and they instead defended the idea of cultural and political sovereignty as a general principle. My sense of the resolution was most proximal in Alex’s question during the audience question period, when he challenged the negative team regarding the notion of “local maxima.” The essence of his question was to point out that a given point of stability (in this case, the general but eventually universal spread of democracy) is not necessarily an overall optimum, since it may represent only a “local” optimum, better than situations that differ from it slightly but possibly worse than situations that differ dramatically. But with no significant diversity, we will never get a chance to explore dramatically different political and social structures, and so will never know whether they might in fact be preferable (since the local maximum tends to restore its stability when it perturbed only mildly). Some concern such as this is one reason that I intuitively appreciate the affirmative position in this debate: I value diversity, even (especially?) radical diversity, since it keeps open possibilities for radical improvement, even if it risks significant harm at the same time. As neither team took up this point centrally (the negative team had no real response to Alex’s question), I felt as though the debate was slightly off target, at least if the resolution is taken to be the target.That is, while I quite liked the grounded and concrete sense given to the terms of the debate, I wondered whether argument about these particular cases (Iraq, Serbia, Somalia, the Cold War, WWII, etc.) necessarily led to conclusions about the resolution as a whole. It is certainly possible, and maybe even likely, that we could find a particular justification for invading Iraq for instance, while still supporting the notion of radical diversity as a general principle (and a general policy, which gets violated in certain circumstances). It is also possible, and maybe even likely, that we could agree that sovereign nations and diverse cultures should be tolerated even at our peril, without believing that it is important to do so in order to preserve or value heterogeneity. That is, the negative team might have argued that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea but that tolerating heterogeneity has nothing to do with why it was a bad idea. I am suggesting that there was a sort of missing link in the debate between the concrete examples under discussion and their relation to the overall resolution. The debaters seemed to get caught up in the examples, and so miss to some extent the question of their relationship to the resolution. Lastly, in terms of the organization and presentation of the speeches, these were strong showings, with clear and forceful ideas articulately offered. As always, though, there could have been still more “architecture” in these speeches. A couple of the speakers remembered to have an introduction and conclusion to their speeches, but some did not. Furthermore, most of these speeches still came across as a list of ideas or arguments. Instead of just a list, it is very helpful to relate each argument back to the main point, spelling out the details of this relationship to your audience. Moreover, some sort of organizing principle helps not only to clarify your points but to make them more memorable: a list of three categories for your arguments, or a repeated refrain that marks the start of a new argument, or even a consistent and clearly stated numbering system. Listeners need help keeping track of spoken presentations; by telling us your plan and then executing it and then reminding us of what you did, you reinforce and strengthen your points. Still, I was very impressed with this debate overall, and I learned from it. There was much subtlety and there was awillingness on both sides to take the ideas seriously. Great job.Joy, Your opening presentation was wonderfully clear and well paced, with a solid statement of the affirmative position and truly substantive arguments packed into a short space. You seem to have a gift for public speaking, as you naturally organize your words with a certain rhetorical flourish. You don’t show any signs of being flustered or nervous, using a conversational tone and a comfortable pace to get your points across. The only real criticism of this speech that I can offer is the general one: a little more architecture would help. This opening speech was an opportunity to prepare something flashier, and while this was certainly coherent and articulate, it still felt too often like a list of arguments. Was there an overriding approach or theme that could have intervened at key moments in your five minutes? Could you have developed more fully the links between the individual points and the primary claim that founded the affirmative platform? Linda’s cross-examination following this speech was a great way to open the clash between the two teams. Her questions were very aggressive, but she did not sacrifice any substance for the sake of her imposing style. Your answers were well constructed, as they maintained a sense of poise and confidence that they may not have earned. What I mean is that your answers were sometimes evasive or shallow, but your tone never gave away this weakness, and so any observer would have thought that you were matching Linda’s strong questions with equally strong answers. Good job. Your