Johns+Creek+TF+v.+Mt.+Hebron+AD+-+Ohio+Valley+Round+5

The 1AR functionally concedes the case, disad, cp debate. I think that there are some major concessions and wrong arguments made in the 1ar. The 1ar literally concedes that the affirmative decreases bipartisanship and causes the link the politics. The actual case is extended well by the affirmative - the problem is that you're conceding the judicial independence turns. The 1AR also concedes a majority of the CP debate.

The 2NR makes the right decision in going for the cp, disad, case debate. There aren't many mistakes in the 2NR. I think that he adequetly covers theory and does a good job explaining the warrants on the flow as how the cp solves.

My thoughts about the 2AR: I think that its probably the only way out for the aff. I think that you need to do more than just read. Here's where the big distinction in my opinion between good and great debaters. If you can articulate multiple reasons why a position is illegitimate and impact it without your blocks, you can win every round. My problem with the 2AR is that its scripted... None of it is actual analysis. Additionally i think if i weigh all the arguments you are making are mostly new - the 1AR is not really solid on any of the theory debate. I would have to do a lot of work for you even if the 2AR is perfect on conditionality.

I don't buy the new 2AR analysis on the condo debate. Additionally, the CP Solves the aff and the disad outweighs case.