Chloe+&+Nick+vs.+Chetan+&+Michael+-+JCHS+Rd+1


 * RFD - I would vote negative in this round – the politics disad outweighs the affirmative –and I buy the negative’s analysis on how the disad would actually solve the aff’s advantages. The aff essentially had no real argument on the disadvantages.**

Nick – Your speech sounds pretty choppy – more speaking drills will help with this – you probably also need to spend more time working on enunciating the words. Pretty good structure of the 1AC – I would work on making some of your tags clearer and better impacted. During your CX, you need to be answering the questions – his first question – he’s asking you the fed key warrants. You just need to start spilling them out – don’t ask him if he wants it. You need to be careful with some of the answers- because you concede that the US giving healthcare would solve the soft power advantage. You need to incorporate your federal key warrants into your answers since you know States is probably coming.

Chetan – Your speed, clarity, and overall speech is pretty good. A couple clarity drills are needed though. On your politics flow, I think Ochs is better than Steinbrunner – make sure you’re reading the best impact on the flow. Your answers on the Health Care Uniqueness Links to the Econ Disad are pretty bad – you need to be using your uniqueness evidence and saying that that budget is assumed in your Econ flow. Your answers will allow the 2A to possibly exploit this.

Nick CX – your questions in cross x are not getting you anywhere- you need to be asking some impacted arguments in CX.

Chloe (2:40 prep used) – You should not be spending this much prep time before a 2AC. Your order needs to be very firm. It is the preview of your speech. You need to be numbering your arguments on the Magnet Disad. Or at least use transitions or else they will get lost. You also get lost on the case debate because I think you were planning to kick out of econ, but then change your mind? You need to make sure your arguments consistent on every flow. In cross-x, don’t let Chetan bully you – just because he talks louder than you doesn’t mean he’s a better debater.

Chetan CX – you don’t have to say “first question.” That’s pretty obvious. You are asking very good questions and follow up and you’re ot accepting their answers.

Michael (4:40 prep used) – You are using A LOT of prep for this speech. You need to work on the overview for politics – its not just impacts- you need to be doing some type of link explanation here. You also need more reasons as to why your impacts outweigh, not just “our cards say extinction.” The 2NC should never say, “We can read cards on that” – you read them here. You are spending a little bit too much time on theory making defensive arguments. You need to be making a better selection of 50 State Fiat good arguments. You are doing some pretty even if analysis in the 2N. All of the health care debates about spending are status quo – this means all of your evidence assumes the spending on HC

Chloe CX: You probably want to spend this time with Michael to hash out what he defines as “federal cooperation.” You could then use that answer to link him into politics.

Chetan – Kicking out of the China DA is good. Overview on the Magnet DA is good. Your line by line on the flow is impressive – you need to be careful though to make sure you’re actually making enough quality arguments. You are doing a pretty good job of exploiting 2AC flaws. You probably need to put this at the top of the 1NR behind the China DA – to make sure you get to the solvency flow which the 2ac essentially conceded. This will not just help you on the Disad flows, but also on the CP flow creating some type of solvency deficit debate.

Nick (2:00 used) – the 1AR is essentially not answering Chetan’s analysis – you’re answering broad arguments kind of made – but you’re conceding the analysis that could win the neg team the round. You need to answer turns case arguments. You are way too top heavy here. I think the 1AR here exploits the 2AC flaws on the politics flow – you need better argumentation here – you need to answer something that was in the 2NC. Your states flow is pretty good – you’re exploiting the contradictory arguments that the negative read in the 2NC. Michael – I’m not sure this is the right 2NR decision. I was thinking Politics & Immigration in the 2NR in addition to the case defense. On Politics, just because they concede the links doesn’t mean you don’t have to explain them. You will need to do the explanations here to increase your speaker points. Anthrax would be a better example than London Trains for bioterror. Some even if analysis would be great for you impacts here – adjust the impacts into the timeframe framework established by Nick in the 1AR. Your case debate in the 2NR is pretty good – you make a couple of rhetorical mistakes, but those will be fixed with more rounds on the topic and more speaking drills. The stuff Chetan is telling you at the end of your speech to say should have been in a 2NR overview on the impact debate of politics. Chloe – Again, orders are important. Sound confident. Better order = better start of the speech. Nick should not be interrupting you right at the beginning – this kills momentum. Ah, computer failure. This is why its still a good idea to flow by hand. The 2AR is pretty hard to do when you don’t really have a flow - you are spending a lot of time at the top of the 2AR just impacting your affirmative. You will need to be doing better impact analysis to win with the 2AR.