University+School+BL+vs.+Calhoun+BK+-+Samford+Round+1

Aff – VAWA (new Peterson card on the Patriarchy flow) Neg – XO CP, T- Preexisting, WTO DA, Politics – Health Care Good, Social Movements DA, Util Good
==1AC – I honestly don’t think the affirmative is topical. The outline and order of the aff is fine – I think that there are better cards than Reardon to be reading on the patriarchy impact debate – personally, I think Reardon’s claims are a little ridiculous towards the end of her books/articles. ==

==1NC - Wrong T violation to read. They aren’t creating new, they are implementing an old policy. I think that T is the right strategy in this debate I just think you need to be rewording the violation. I think for some type of offense on the CP is to read some type of HUD bad argument- which you’re not. I am not impressed with the 1NC strategy because I don’t see how the CP can really compete against their HUD key cards. I also don’t think its strategic to read an XO dispositionally with only presidential powers / hegemony. I can almost guarantee every team here is carrying Prez Powers Bad / Hege Bad – they can easily force you to go for the CP. Enough analysis on solvency by the 2AC would easily beat this strategy. I think the social movements link could be better articulated out of the 1NC – you can always change your generic tags to make them specific to the round—I would almost guarantee some part of your card would be descriptive of their affirmative.==

==2AC – You need to answer the util debate line by line. Your overview is good but in my opinion you need to debate the actual args like Calc inevitable. When you don’t really address the util debate, the 2NC can wiggle out enough analysis to where any disad that outweighs patriarchy will easily beat you – I think they can easily beat the time frame debate on the patriarchy. I was disappointed there was no straight turn hege/prez powers. I think a part of 2AC strategy is to see what the 2NR can go for – you know you will out debate them on agents. Put HUD key on case and explain the solvency and then impact turn prez powers or hegemony. Hegemony probably entrenches the patriarchy impacts. I think the generic disad answers should probably be on politics – I think you can generate enough offense from your aff to answer this social movements disad. A patriarchy movement add on would be a great answer to this disadvantage. Also, you can make the delineation between small victories and large victories. == ==2NC – Framework needs to come before DA – it can help you weigh your impacts. You are very scattered on the CP flow. I would only put theory on top if you’re not going for the CP. Otherwise, you just jump up and down on the flow. You need to be making specific CP solvency analysis here – why is XO better than HUD acting. They’re not really answering the Prez Powers impact so you need to do a lot of work here indicating how prez powers turns case or is the only way to solve for this. You need to also pay attention to what you are reading. One card you read on the solvency debate is that XO are better than the Court. This has no relevance to the debate. You also don’t need to reiterate the severance debate. Your XO CP links harder to your disads than the aff does. You read this spillover card that says Obama will push more SS – this means social movements is a unique DA to the CP if the aff can prove a no link. Same with WTO. The 2NC is disastorous for the negative. You are not doing any work on the patriarchy debate. There are two ways you can have accessed this debate two ways – 1) CP sovles patriarchy better – remember that’s how Bamm Bamm said I evaluate the round, or 2) Patriarchy doesn’t matter and politics impacts outweigh. You do neither. I also don’t see how you can give an effective politics speech without any cards being read or even having the 1NC shell. Too many mistakes in this 2NC.==

==1NR – Your work on the framework debate is not enough. It would be if your partner described how the CP solved for patriarchy - The 1NR should really have kicked out of WTO – there is no clear link being articulated and the only extension of the link is this healthcare / social services link – which I don’t think the Aff is actually doing either. The movements debate is decent – but you never tell me how implementing VAWA actually links. How is implementing a policy that’s existed for 14 years a small victory? And who’s it a small victory for? This needs to be at the top of flow especially since the 2AC is never really addressing the link. Your “we solve the 2ac block” arguments are good but they mean nothing in a world where the aff doesn’t link. ==

==1AR – A couple great things, a couple not so great things. WTO should be on top ( or near the top ) – make sure you can articulate a good 15 second no – link arg and I think you easily win the flow. Your analysis on the XO solvency deficit debate is pretty fantastic – the usage of HUD as an executive agency is pretty fantastic and proves why this CP is horrible against this affirmative. I think that 1 analytical argument is good enough to literally destroy all of the neg’s net benefits to the CP. The Social movements debate isn’t that great – the alt to the disad is the squo – you do a decent job explaining why the aff is better than the squo, but I think that should be more of the focus of the 1AR. You also need to be making the arg that the CP can’t solve framework.==

==2NR – No reason to extend theory that wasn’t extended in the 1AR. I think the major problem in the your decision for the 2NR is you are not taking one stable advocacy. Your social movements disad links to CP. You’re not doing any work as to why HUD is not key. I think the 1AR is way ahead onthis debate and you really can’t recover from the devastating 1AR arguments. You don’t answer his HUD a part of Executive Branch argument—the way you extend your argument is executive branch key, and not presidential action key. You need to make that delineation since your CP Text indicates the president, not the executive branch. The social movements debate isn’t going anywhere –there is no real analysis in the 2NR on why this links / outweighs / solves the aff.==

==2AR – This is a very easy speech – I expect it to be nearly perfect. You can add even if analysis on the framework flow that even if you lose – the conceded link turns on politics means you outweigh prez powers – that the perm solves anyway. RFD – Bad strategy usually means bad round. The initial negative strategy was not good. The affirmative exploited this. The aff solves the movements disad better – the neg isn’t doing any internal work on the patriarchy debate. The permutation on the CP solves. ==