Columbus+BW+v.+Roswell+DS+-+Carrollton+Round+1

Neg - RRW Good, States CP, T- Poverty line, T- Social Worker, Military Spending DA, case**
 * Aff - Screenings in Federal Prisons

__** 1AC **__**– You slow down too much for your tags. Although going slower on tags is a good quality in the 1AC, I would say that you are disrupting your flow too much. The way you stand has a direct impact on the way you sound and speak. You should try and stand as straight up as possible so nothing is blocking your voice and your diaphragm is allowed to fully expand. As far as the content of the 1AC, you need to find a better TB impact card. The current card you are reading has** [|**several indicts**] **out there and you are likely to get beat with it. Here is a better TB spread causes extinction card:** //**Kalombo 07** // //**(Lonji, CSIR senior researcher + PhD candidate in applied science/chemical engineering at the University of Pretoria, "CSIR researcher Lonji Kalombo in the fight against TB,"** **http://www.csir.co.za/researcher_profiles/LonjiKalombo.html** **)**// //**According to Kalombo, the… using conventional diagnostics.**//
 * Columbus BW v. Roswell DS**


 * I am not sure about how great this Tyranny of Survival stuff is in the 1AC. If you do decide to continue going this route, I don’t think this necessarily needs to be on the advantage flow—but rather behind the solvency contention on a framework flow. Think about how the debate will go with this in the 1ac.**

__** 2NC CX **__ **– You rephrase the first question 5 different times, using the same language. Rephrasing usually uses different language. I know you’ve ran coercion in the past, I can’t think of a better link than mandatory screenings in prison. You can garner this link in the cross ex. I think that should be one of the first questions you ask.**

__** 1NC **__**- You should be reading a warrant as to why extra topicality is bad. Without an impact and link story, there is no real reason to be reading an extra topicality standard. Scott Phillips posted a** [|**new link**] **card on the3nr.com for Military Spending that you definitely should be cutting for yourself. The card assumes new fiscal budget and is pretty darn good. You need to be careful about reading a hegemony impact against a K aff – usually your implications will feed right into their criticism. You should be reading some card about why military spending is key to solving some type of moral impact. I think RRW is a bad scenario to be reading because all of your cards do not assume health care or Afghanistan, which are clearly Obama’s top two agenda items right now. I don’t think that you can win a unique link that Obama has dedicated PC to RRW now. On States, you need to realize that cp texts are very important; you should be spending cross-x time writing a CP text out fully. The problem you can face is that the CP cannot solve the aff. One thing I definitely recommend is you cut a new impact defense file. Your AIDS decreasing cards are 4 years old, and are easy to cut. In my opinion, an impact defense file is easy to cut and it can help you in EVERY round. In your crossx, you mix up the story on politics. Your politics disad argues that RRW will pass now and that plan is unpopular and causes it to not pass. RRW key to prolif. You argue the other way. This can make for a long day by both teams. The negative should be making some framework response to the aff. You do not want to be conceding the framework in the 1NC. They can get rid of your disads with the 1ac Callahan evidence.**

__** 2AC- **__  **You need to realize that the negative concedes your entire framework for the debate. This means you should be extending the Callahan evidence and the tyranny of survival evidence. You can easily win the impact debate from the 2AC. You should be making some preempts as well as to why new in the 2NC on the framework debate is too late. Instead, you are not making any offensive reason to reject the disadvantages. I think you are just making some crappy no link arguments (that on politics really just feeds their link) on the disads. You did a nice job investigating the counterplan text and noticing the CP is not competitive and the perm is the only way to solve both. On the topicality flows you should be making more offensive reasons as to why you are topical rather than just lit checks and no potential abuse. Those aren’t going to win you the T debate against good T teams.**  __** 2NC- **__ **Ugh, learn the politics disad. You need to understand the story. You have it backwards. Obama wants RRW, plan unpopular, then you say RRW Bad. This means plan gets rid of RRW. You’re reading them an advantage.** **1NR – you are mixing up your topicality flows. You need to be careful about this – because you’re arguing both violations now as one. You should impact federalism. Since it you’re reading it as a turn you should impact it. The 1NR is useless. You aren’t really saying anything and getting anywhere. You should have the best speech in the round and make tons of arguments, you did neither.**


 * 1AR – It’s too late to be extending your moral obligation – I think you need to be extending this in the 2AC. Same advice for topicality as the 2a, make some offensive reasons why you are topical. I think the 1AR is fine on the States CP, you’re right – it’s not competitive, your perm is intrinsic not severance. Even if you win a risk of the no link on military spending, you’ll be in trouble. Their hegemony impact will outweigh. Also, there is no reason to read START will pass now on the politics flow, although you do read the right uniqueness.**


 * 2NR – A lot of the topicality analysis is new, but I am going to grant a lot of it because its consistent with the 1nr and because the 1ar functionally concedes the flow. MAN UP! Go for T by itself. You don’t need this shady politics debate. I think that you are doing okay analysis on the topicality debate. A lot of the means testing stuff needs to be in the block and is good analysis. You could probably do a little more work indicting their interpretation.**


 * RFD: I vote negative on topicality. The affirmative functionally concedes that they are not topical. There is only defensive responses from the affirmative. I think that the affirmative does not meet their we meet of “targeting prisoners in poverty.” I think the negative’s analysis is good enough as to why we must use means testing to evaluate the poverty interpretation. Also, the only reason why the affirmative says I vote for them is because lit checks, the neg proves that’s not enough reason. The negatives impacts on the topicality clearly outweigh.**