Pace+Academy+LS+vs.+Roswell+DW+-+Warner+Robins+Quarters

Pace LS – Aff (Public Option) Roswell DW – Neg (Fair Tax CP, Defense Cuts, Objectivism, Malthus, Swine Flu case args) 1AC- good 1ac, practice drills will only help. The structure of the 1ac is fine. Against teams like this you can find out previous negative strategies – they’ve been reading Objectivism and/or Malthus all weekend so it wouldn’t be a bad idea to put some pre-empts on the bottom. The only weakness in the cross ex is actually your explanation of the affirmative. You need to be able to clearly articulating what public option is.

1NC- You need to cut new uniqueness for your disads- camp uniqueness is not acceptable. The 1NC strategy is fine – I would like more independent offense than just the K. What I mean by that is to go for the CP- you need the Malthus flow, the case flow, and the disad flow in order to make sure case doesn’t outweigh. Additionally, reading an unconditional advocacy is not a smart strategy when also reading 3 other off case arguments. Think about it? What’s the purpose of the 2AC answering the other flows? The cross ex does a good job to point out the flaws of the advantage CP.

2AC- CP links to K should be top of 2ac on the CP flow since they are reading the K unconditional. You handle the case flow very well. The 2ac arguments are good on the K flow – I’d like more case specific analysis – I think that is essential in this round since the K is unconditional. I would like to see more case debate on each flow – I think the 2AC needs to bring the case especially on these disad flows as to how the case outweighs. The 2AC does this on the military disad and does a pretty good job on the internal debate.

2NC- Your analytic that India/Pakistan war leads to Bioterrorism is horrible. I’d also advise you get a new afghan failure impact- look at the college caselist for these cites ([]). Overall the speech wasn’t bad, you did a pretty decent job on the line by line – I still question the overall neg strategy. The cross ex did expose some weaknesses yet again in the strategy – he basically gets out of you that there is no point to the Malthus disad, it’s not a net benefit to the conditional cp and it’s not mutually exclusive with the unconditional K.

1NR- Don’t tell the judge not to flow the overview- you never want to give someone a reason not to listen. You keep extending this Von Messes card but you’re not doing enough explanation on it. You need to be extending specific warrants. For reading this K unconditionally, you need to make sure you’re winning. The line by line isn’t doing this. You’re not answering the main warrant in the 2AC CX that you read Rand which advocates libertarianism – this should addressed in the 1nr. You concede the perms.

Before the 1AR, the neg can win this round I think going for the CP / DA but you said the K is unconditional

1AR- When extending your bioterror add on, your blippy extension is okay – but you need to make sure you’re extending some warrants later on the flow or the disad flow. You definitely need to do some speaking drills, there are a lot of filler words in this speech. The K flow could just be the 4 or so conceded arguments. You know that they’re taking this in the 2NR- a good perm debate by the 1AR ends this round on that flow. The 1AR was rough.

After the 1AR, the neg would easily win this round if it weren’t for this “unconditional K”

2NR – Top of the 2nr needs to be in the 2NC. I think that you need a lot more impact analysis on the disad flow because it may cause a problem later on in the debate.

2AR- A lot is new. This is inevitable with bad 1AR’s. The problem is the 1AR extended a lot of defensive arguments and thats where all her work was. The perm isn’t getting you anywhere in this debate because it doesn’t gain you offense on the Disad or CP flow. The problem is your best argument on the disad flow is that normal means means no link.


 * //RFD – the 2AR analysis on the CP doesn’t solve the aff is too late. The 1AR doesn’t do enough in my opinion to actually give the 2AR a chance. Absent the 1AR, the aff is ahead on the solvency deficit flow. I think that the perm just mitigates the link on the objectivism K. CP solves the internals of the case enough – and the external net benefits outweigh the case//**.