Oh boy, this round sure got wacky. I personally have never seen a clean round come out of a comparative resolution. The problem is that people inevitably interpret the resolution as a facts case, but the opposing elements are rarely the dichotomous split you’re lead to believe they are.
This resolution serves a perfect example. Compromise doesn’t inherently mean abandoning your principles, more like just giving up a preference. I think it’s not unreasonable to say that if I go to Perkins when I was more interested to a nicer restaurant, but none of my other friends wanted to pay money for a nicer restaurant, going to Perkins can be a compromise. However, I haven’t backed down from any principles by going there. So the resolution inevitably gets messy when either you need to define compromise weirdly in a way that always involves walking back on principles, or the Gov team gets tons of ground and the best of both worlds.
Everyone I talked to, both on the team and opponents as well, said the round was indeed a messy facts case arguing the resolution in a really broad context.