Calhoun+BL+vs.+University+Schools+UR+-+Samford+Round+5

2AC – I think you need more offense and defense on each flow. You are way too top heavy – the 2AC literally spends soo much time on the framework topicality. I think that you would better be served by reading some type of defense on politics (won’t pass, agenda dead, etc). I think you’re answers out of the 2AC on CEDAW are non-responsive. I think you should be reading the link evidence here that says CEDAW causes hard power. The ev the 1NC reads is that CEDAW solves discrimination. There seems to be something missing here. Your speaking skills are phenomenal for a sophomore – you need to try and speed up and become a little better with argumentation variety. You are too weak on each flow in my opinion after the 2AC, and the negative can really do some damage towards the 1ar.

2NC – You’re disappointing on politics. They concede the link debate… you need more than 15 seconds here – I think you also could put another link scenario to bolster the arg. They concede the U debate – so all you have to win is the direction of the internal. I think your evidence is probably better and this can be clearly delineated by the 2NC – it’s not though. The Turns case at the bottom of the flow is pretty good. The CEDAW flow is pretty good – the only thing missing is 1 card – you need to be reading Sopo not key to Hard power. I think you’re omission of this point gives the 1AR some time to read that link card. You’re also not answering their heg bad scenarios – I think that’s dangerous considering

1NR – It’s better to go for fewer arguments well than all of the arguments badly. I see you’re trying to spread out the 1AR- which is probably a good strategy for this round, but you can spread out a 1AR with 3 core arguments, you don’t need every flow – I think your States coverage could be really good – but it’s not. I’m not relaly understanding the purpose of the T-Framework flow as of right now. I wouldn’t have extended it as a T, I Would have just extended the Shively debate and the Isaacs Debate. The problem is there is no way for the 2NR to go for the T-Increase or States because of the 1NR coverage. Take one of those out and take out a chunk of the Framework debate, and you will triple your argument coverage on States – creating more for Lloyd to cover.

1AR – Eh, its okay, and then it’s not okay. I think you’re spending to much time on this T-Increase compared to the 1NR’s horrible analysis on it. Your arguments are good on the flow I just think they’re too time consuming. On the framework flow, its almost as if you’re not going for the right arguments. I think you need to focus the debate on just the consequetionalism and the Shively debate. The other debate by the neg is a wash. The States CP coverage is decent- I think you’re extending enough to make htem not go for it. On CEDAW, biggest mistake is there is no analysis in comparison of impacts. You need to give me some reason why rights malthus outweighs. Your analysis on the hard power debate on CEDAW is not good enough in my opinion – give me the specific line in the 2AC # 1 that says sopo = hard power.

2NR – Correct decision for the 2NR. I don’t understand your 2NR analysis on Shively – I think all you need on that flow in the 2NR is the Isaacs debate and poorly mishandled Isaac card from the 1AR. You’re doing a decent job as to why CEDAW solves the aff better – specifically the French evidence. You’re also doing the best job so far delenating between the hard power and soft power – you probably need to be reading the 2AC # 1 and pointing out the lack of a link to these hard power turns.

2AR - This Shopwater analysis is new in the 2AR.

RFD - The French card doesn’t make the global / local distinction. The hard power = soft power card doesn’t make that argument. I think the CEDAW solvency evidence solves better than the aff on the global and local level – their ev is far superior on this point. Politics is pretty much conceded at the core by the affirmative- the only argument is this strong central government key argument – which I think CEDAW solves.