David+Emanuel+SN+v.+Piedmont+SW+-+Stratford+Round+1

1AC - You should focus on clarity rather than speed. I think you may be focusing on the latter right now. It's more effective to be clearer and be able to articulate the arguments than get more out but unclear. I would also reccomend reading a different part of the Berube evidence. You're not really reading the impacted parts of the card. Additionally, you may want to be careful about how you are reading tags. I noticed that you are not always reading the authors name, you need to make sure you are doing this - this is how the judge is aware what card you are extending in future speeches.

1NC - I think the strategy choice is fine - you put plenty of framework defense on the case debate - I think you could probably get by with a card or two less in this debate. I think that you need to be more efficient on the solvency flow and more picky about the cards you read. You read some of the same arguments almost three times on this debate. I think you take two of those out and you can create more offense for the debate with another off case.

2AC - On the topicality debate, you need to be reading more offensive and defensive arguments and not just a counter interpretation. By doing that you are conceding the framework for evaluation plus you are not providing why your interpretation may be better for debate. Additionally, on the counterplan debate I think most of your cards are really non responsive to the CP and really not specific to your own affirmative. Most of the warrants you're reading involve why the states suck at food stamp distribution and not dealing with homelessness. It's also very importnat that you answer the case arguments as to why your type of impacts come before theres. When you concede the util debate, you're putting yourself against the wall especially whe you try to weigh the disadvantages. You also concede the politics disadvantage... this means the negative really can get away with a lot in the block and easily win the ballot

2AC CX - The Negative needs to steer away from saying "In a world where..." in every question in cross-x. Additionally, when you're attacking the dehum debate in cross-x, you're going about this the wrong way. You need to be garnering the link to the alt caus debate. Get them to admit that other types of dehumanization exist - not that the aff doesn't solve homelessness. This advice can be given to most of your questions.

2NC - You need to be gearing the topicality debate more towards why their interpretaion is bad and how your standards operate as a disad to their interpretation. I htink you are starting to do this towards the bottom but overall you are wasting time talking about the violation and parts of the flow that really don't need time spent on them. I disagree with the block distribution. I think that the 1NR should be a DA/Util debate and the 2NC should be CP/DA. On the CP debate in the 2NC, I think that you need to be putting a solvency overview on the top where you make the distinction between this CP and the "States" debate that the affirmative is gearing towards. I think the distinction that your Lopez CP makes solves all the defense on the flow that the aff reads - this is an important argument that should guide your 2NC on the CP solvency debate. I think you see the time constraints towards the end of the 2NC when you really are in a time crunch when extending the essentially conceded disad debate.

1NR - You want to be careful reading the Sklar internal link - it doesn't assume the current HC bill in Congress. This means you really can't access the impact. Additionally, I think the 1NR needs to be more about the conceded util debate. I think this is absolutely crucial in order to win the disad debates.

1AR - There is not much I can really say about the 1AR. You need to be addressing each flow in this speech. You should also be giving warrants as to why dehumanization is worse than nuclear war. I think that when you give warrantless statements like you gave in the 1AR - you are really not extending anything.

I think the top of the 2NR should be the case debate, then go to CP. Then the disads.

2NR - I disagree with not going for the CP. The CP I think is your best defensive way to answer the dehum o/w argument by the 1AR. The CP solvency debate goes conceded by the 1AR - this means you solve all of case - any risk that dehum outweighs is solved by the CP. This means the Disad more clearly outweighs.

2AR - You want to not say "The 1AR should have been..."-- this shows faults in the aff speech and you want to use 1AR arguments and manipulate them to your liking for the 2AR.

I vote negative in this round because I think that the conceded disads only need a risk of their link to garner the impacts. I think the multiple econ collapse scenarios outweigh the dehumanization impact by the aff.
 * __Reason for decision:__**