St.+Andrews+CA+v.+Marist+BS+-+Samford+Round+6


 * The problem with the debate is the lack of clash --- The 2NC and beyond really become non responsive to a lot of arguments. The 1AR is extending the right arguments but not all of the right arguments. To win the link turn on politics, you need to be garnering some type of defense on the uniqueness debate. The link turn functionally turns to passage inevitable, and the aff doesn't really get the DA as an advantage. Another problem with the 1AR is that the articulation on states theory really is weak. I think you can legitimately win lots of rounds on 50 States Bad-- probably more with me than others).

The 1AR needs to put topicality at the top of the speech. Your answers are weak, as the 2NR points out. I think the 2NR is on point that you probably don't even meet your own interpretation. I would say that the topicality 2NR needs some work - you need to do some better impact work. Like why is research burden increasing bad. You need to stop reading blocks and think about why topicality matters. Its easier than you think.

I think the neg is reading the wrong T shell - not every uninsured person is living in poverty - the aff is extremely extra topical. I think they prove the abuse by reading a small business add on - they wouldn't solve this because those people probably are not living in poverty.

I end up voting negative- I think the negative's interpretation is probably better for debate. I think that even if I buy your interpretation, you're probably not topical. Impact analysis really doesn't help the 2AR on the topicality debate in the end. It doesn't matter really if you answer advantages or not - the fact is the aff was not topical and justified a lot of ground loss and a skewed research burden.

Topicality is hard for an inexperienced 2AR - I would recommend you do some topicality practice debates. In my opinion, you can win a lot of topicality debates if you get good at it.**