SPASH+JC+v.+Pine+Crest+MT+-+Blake+Round+4

Extremely messy debate by both teams in a couple of different ways. I think the strategy choice is also in question here by both teams. I am not sure why the neg is not just advantage CP-ing out of this Canada advantages.  I think the 2NR is probably making a decent strat choice – although I don’t understand why you go for I-Law and politics – I think you should pick one because the time constraints. I don’t think you have enough time to go to both and adequately cover them. I think either is a good choice in this round, but not both.  The politics debate first – the problem here is that I don’t think the terror cards apply to the negative impact scenario – this means that they get 100 percent of the impact. I think the the negative gets full weight of the politics disad and the only offense is the conceded protectionism impact.  The counterplan – this is where I think the negative loses themselves the debate plus the affirmative is just doing a much better job. I think that the affirmative is winning 100 percent of this hegemony turn because their analysis is much better and their cards are much better. I think the solvency advocate debate is really mishandeled by the negative and I think the affirmative needs to more so articulate this as a solvency deficit to the CP – I think that argument is there embedded right before the 2AR’s three reasons why executive action is critical to solve. The 1NC solvency evidence just isn’t as good on this point.  I don’t think the CP solves the aff, nor is it net beneficial. I think that in a world where the affirmative can still solve protectionism and the econ collapse scenarios, they can outweigh the politics disad. 