Johns+Creek+JH+v.+Calhoun+BL+-+Ohio+Valley+Round+3

There is no clear articulate extension of the RMA impact in the 1AR... it's probably the only BIG downside to the speech. This being said, I think that the 2AR analysis on why RMA solves every impcat is really brand new and can't be given full weight. The aff is having huge problems in the debate from the 2AC on and really is making it impossible for themselves to win the politics debate. I think the negative can DRAMATICALLY improve on their politics debating. The Green card is what is really saving the debate for the negative. It's a pretty decent generic health care solves bioterrorism card. I think that it's good enough to beat the Sklar indicts. Additionally Lloyd extends other impacts on the politics disad in the 2NR to help the disad outweigh. The 2NR needs A LOT of additional impact analysis in terms of DA v. Case. I feel like I'm doing a lot of the leg work for the 2NR by putting his arguments that are spread out all over the flow and were started to be made. The negative is definitel ywinning full weight of the politics disad.

On the hegemony debate, this is very ugly. I'm thinking the 1NR analysis is the best speech in the round on heg debate. It's very thorogh and answers pretty much everything. The problem is that after that both teams get very messy. I think that at best the aff probably can't solve all of hege, but they can solve most of it. The problem is I don't think the analysis on Kagan is good enough for the aff to win.

I end up voting negative - politics outweighs case.