George+Walton+DB+v.+Piedmont+KO+-+Stratford+Round+2

1AC - You should focus on clearing up quite a bit. I remember this as a problem when i judged you at Samford but you really need to practice clarity drills in your free time.

1NC - I told the other Piedmont team this but you need to be more efficient on the case debate by reading various arguments - you read the same non unique on the TB debate twice. I think the strategy is fine - you need to be more calm when giving your speech you seemed spastic and all over the place... which can hinder your speech. I also think this Magnet disad is better read on case - I think it can save you more time and it really functions as a case turn. Even if you want external impacts, i think by moving it to solvency you can generate more weight because the aff may not put as many arguments on the argument.

2AC - Argument variance is huge in a good 2AC. You literally read two non-uniques on the politics debate. Any risk of the politics disad means it will outweigh the aff - I think this is an easy argument for the negative to win. They have 13 minutes to win this argument. Additionally, the 2ac order is a little messed up - I think you should be answering the T and case debate at the top (rather than the bottom) and then going to the other flows. The 2ac is pretty bad on the topicality debate - I think that you are conceding too much of a risk that you're not topical. You spend almost 30 seconds trying to articulate a reason why you meet, and it never is clearly done. This is a problem especially considering that is the only answer on the flow. I think the 2ac coverage is fine on most flows.

2NC - Again similar problems as the other Piedmont team. I think the way you split up the block is ineffective and you could be better served by a smaller 2NC. I think that you could probably could go a little more in depth on topicality. The 2NC functionally just rereads the1NC shell and really offers no warrants as to why the aff's interpretation is bad and/or the neg interpretation is superior. The CP debate was a little choppy and not really clear. The 2NC needs to work on the line by line debate here. I think you're spenidng too much time on the perm and not much time on the solvency deficit debate. Unlike the other Piedmont team, you're valuing the "devolving of authority" too much. You need additional reasons as to why the CP solves just as well as the aff. I think the politics debate is fine - you should create an overview though as to how politics o/w and turns case. I think you do that and the politics debate improves ten fold. The same advice goes to the Magnet flow - I think though moving this flow to the case debate gives your 1NR more offense to go for in the 1NR.

1NR - The entirety of the speech is defensive. Defense is important for your impact calculation for the disads but 5 minutes worth of defense is not worth it in my opinion. I think clear extensions of these arguments while answering the 2ac args is enough work. You continue the body movements throughout this speech as well. "Mark that card right there." How the heck am I supposed to do that? That is the debaters job in the round, you should carry a pen up with you while you're debating to mark cards. You're wasting a lot of time saying that plus you're not marking the cards so you're not helping anyone.

1AR - I think that you need to a little more analysis on their card being bad I think that you can garner more of a solvency deficit if you can relate this to one of the 2AC solvency deficit arguments and make it specific to the affirmative and create a huge solvency deficit where the cp cant solve the aff advantage. I think that the other speeches are mostly defensive - but that's a problem with the 2NC as well. I think that the articulation of the Topicality debate in the 1AR is probably not consistent with the 2Ac on the T flow. Additionally, you have to remember that a disad can function as a disad to the aff, and not just a net benefit.

2NR - My idea of topicality is that you should probably be going all in for it - I don;t think you can impact it well enough for my ballot in the thirty seconds to a minute you spend on it -- even in a world where the aff answers it pretty badly. I think the CP debate is fine - there is no reason to extend 50 state fiat - unless you use it to justify no solvency deficit- which you don't do. You do a decent job on the perm debate-- probably enough to prove the perm doesn't solve. On the politics debate, you need to be doing card analysis on the U debate-- something more similar to the 2NC analysis. I think that you're still far ahead on the uniqueness debate but risk analysis still should be getting done just in case i evaluate defensive arguments heavily.

RFD:

On topicality, I think a clear articulation of the violation and 1 clear impact - I vote negative. The 2ar is incompetent on the T flow. With that being said, I think that the CP solves the affirmative and the disad outweighs the case.