Mankato+West+CN+v.+Bronx+Science+GR+-+Blake+Round+1

 1AC – Full Employment 1NC – Framework, T, K, Healthcare Politics, States (Cigarette Tax Funding), Charity Crowd Out, case 2NR – Politics, States  Problems begin in the 2AC – the 2ac is inconsistent on the framework debate than the 1AC cross-x. I think that your blocks are not consistent with your arguments you’re making. There are time problems with the 2AC – you’re conceding the entirety of the case debate, which is really crucial for all of your discourse outweighs arguments on the disads. You can’t access your discourse if you cannot solve.  I disagree with the block strategy – I think they functionally have zero offense v. the CP/DA strat. They conceed essentially why they can’t solve. I understand that the aff links really hard to this K and maybe that’s what the planned 2NR was before the round, but I think you need to be more flex. I think the CP debate is messy by the 2NC – you’re not really answering the slew of 2AC arguments. She may have only numbered a couple –but she created a little frame to future 1AR manipulations. For instance, there was a blip “Funding CP’s bad.”  I think the T may want to be included in the block – I think that much of the 1NC is a disad to the 2ac args. I think the 1NR is okay – but you should probably answer the K of the Disad on top – because it’s key to the second 2NR strat of CP/DA. I think the 1NR anlaysis on the K of the Disad linking to the  The 1AR has a lot of technical issues. The lack of flowing caught up in the road map when you were trying to go off memory of what the negative’s arguments were. At this point, you should realize that you’re probably going to drop an argument if you’re having trouble remembering what flows you’re going to. I think that a bigger problem was the way you handled the debate in the 1AR. You didn’t really give the neg a reason to NOT GO for the CP/DA. Basically you said, if they can find a better way to do the plan, they win. That’s the problem – the CP solvency debate has been conceded. Your only offense to the disads is that cap is the root cause of poverty and the subjective violence argument. The problem there is that both of these arguments link to the K. A smart 2NR would go for the the K as defense on the 1AR disad arguments and then manage to create the CP/DA story.  The framework debate by the 1AR is pretty terrifying. You say the judge can create this world and still evaluate plan, but I just don’t have to be a policymaker – all of your arguments need some type of wararant as to why me NOT being a policy maker solves for this better.  I think the 2NR is okay. I think that you’re probably doing enough for me to win the ballot, but it can definitely improve. I think the 2NR needs to be more similar to the 1NR on the politics debate – I think that you probably could be doing a better job on why this subjective violence stuff is really just a case turn with the K. I also think that the 2NR could be doing a better job on the solvency debate and maybe using this more on the CP solvency comparison. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The 2AR has a problem - you’re explaning the subjective violence stuff for the first time – you should not be explaining your main offense on every flow for the first time in the last speech. Additionally, just because the2NR says “not going for it” doesn’t mean you don’t have to go for it. She still uses the args to answer the K of the disad. You are also re-reading your partner’s entire 1AR on the case debate – the problem is that it included a narrative from your partner. Be careful about this. You should also never re read something. You can be extending it using more warrants and more explanation. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">RFD: The 2AR concedes the framework debate which means I evaluate as a policymaker. I think the only way to really avoid the most consequential impact is to vote negative on the CP – it’s the only way to avoid a nuclear war (via the Politics disad).