Northview+PW+v.+Sequoyah+DW+-+Carrollton+Round+4

Northview PW v. Sequoyah WD Aff: Broadband Neg: Tax Credit CP, Charity Crowdout DA, T-Increase, case

I think the negative needs to create more viable 2NR options out of the 1NC. There are literally only a couple options- T, CP/DA or DA/case. In my opinion, you probably want to create more than just three options for the 2NR. The affirmative can spot this and better strategize for their 2ac.

The thing I like most about the 2AC is the quantity of add ons. I think this is how you win debates, you just read add ons on every flow. I’m not sure if you actually solve some of these – but good start by reading them.

I don’t think the way you split up the block is the most effective way to efficiently spread out the 1AR. I think the 2nc should probably only take the effects flow and not the extra topicality flow (which by the way, the 2NC was pretty darn good on topicality). The only advice for the 2NC is to get off your blocks and start arguing topicality instead of just reading to me why effects is bad. I think that the 2NC obviously shows some debater flaws, and by that I mean it shows what your weaknesses are. Clearly you don’t flow well because the 2NC is rough on the CP debate. You use the other teams cards which means if the aff adds analytics or case arguments that aren’t on the block, the 2NC wouldn’t know. You need to be careful about this strategy- most (if not all) teams cannot use this strategy correctly.

The whole block outside of topicality is really not responsive to the 2AC. You are conceding too many arguments to be able to put yourself in a good condition.

The 2NR is okay on Topicality – I think it’s the right choice here, and your only choice. Compared to the 2NC, it much weaker, I think that the best advice in going for the T violation, is actually impacting the arguments rather than continuing to read your blocks. You need to be doing the same type of impact analysis you do for disad on the standards debate. I also think that you’re starting to realize that the violation may not be the best one against this affirmative. Even though they conceded the permutation on the counter interpretation, but you need to be telling me what this means for you.

The affirmative doesn’t really go for the reasonability framework which I think they could go for and manage to get a little bit of weight – this is probably the weakest part of the flow for the neg. Therefore I evaluate the topicality on competing interpretations. I think the affirmative is topical under the Midgley and Livermore 08 violation. The negative violation specifically talks about how other governments can enact laws, maybe referencing different agencies. The plan text just adds access in a USFG mandated program, lifeline.

I think the extra topicality violation is never really articulated well enough and the impacts would have had to be better for me to evaluate it.