Alex+&+Robert+vs.+Andrew+&+Angelica+-+ENDI+Rd+6

Andrew (2N) & Angelica (1N) were the negative. The 1NC was Spending DA, CTC CP, Capitalism K and Case args.
 * Alex (1A) & Robert (2A) were the affirmative. They were reading the State Grants Aff.

1AC – You should probably start a little slower, but overall you had effective speed. When reading the actual card, you get a little unclear – you need be just as clear on the actual warrants as the tag itself. About the context of the 1AC, your first advantage of just poverty should probably be tagged better or another card needs to be added- you should probably be reading some type of uniqueness that poverty is increasing now.**


 * 1AC CX – Good cross-x.**


 * 1NC – You are completely bent over when reading. If you stand up straight, you will be more clear and possibly faster. I think you still need a better link on the Spending DA – you should probably be reading a Social Services cost money card or something similar. Also I don’t think it’s very strategic to read a DA with an economy scenario when the aff solves for the econ. Also at the beginning of the year, you should probably define what some acronyms mean- ie CTC [at least in your first tag].**


 * 1NC CX- The answers are pretty weak – and he is pretty much drilling you on the K link debate.**


 * 2AC – The top of the flow answers arguments that were not in the 1NC – you need to not rely on your blocks, you need to rely on the flow. An effective way of answering case could be to utilize your case impacts while answering their arguments – since they were mainly defensive. On the theory flow, you should probably go a little slower to make sure the warrants of your theory block gets across. On the spending disad, you need to be careful about reading impact defense when you read the same impact in the 1AC. On the counterplan, you are repeating your arguments a couple times – you read around 3 arguments twice, it usually follows the pattern of one analytic and one card – both say the same thing. I usually like the framework of the K debate on the top of the K debate rather than the bottom, considering framework is the way we will evaluate the arguments in the end. Your speed is fine but you probably need to work on clarity – you were unclear in some spots. Your arguments also ran together on some flows.**


 * 2NC – In my opinion, you are pretty ineffective on the capitalism flow. There is no clear story as to how the affirmative entrenches capitalism – you never really answer some of the defensive arguments that the 2AC poses. From the questions in CX, you should have probably went for the CP & DA. You don’t seem very comfortable with the K. Also, you still need to answer the conditionality on the bottom of the CP flow when kicking out of the CP. You also need to probably put a warrant as to why advocating perms is bad when conceding the perm on the CP.**


 * 1NR – You still don’t specifically answer the framework posed by the 2A on the K debate – this means you concede that policy options should be evaluated – you never offer a DA to this interp – you just read that ethics & epistemology should be evaluated first. Your block on conditionality answers their main offensive arguments – but you need to be aware that your condo block doesn’t always address the 2A’s conditionality arguments. If it doesn’t you still need to do the work on the flow and answer their arguments. The case debate is decent – but when extending these arguments, you need to be extending the impact to these arguments and not just repeating\ the tag. The 2AC does a not so hot job on answering the case debate which means as the 1NR you have a lot of room to take advantage of his mistakes.**


 * 1AR – Your 1AR isn’t that great for how much prep time you spend before it. As a 1AR you need to be setting up the debate for the 2AR to bring it home and win it easily. After the 1AR, I’m not sure you’re doing that. The case debate is argued pretty well but you are still conceding a couple key arguments – that just will improve with your line by line skills. You concede your non-uniques on the spending flow, which may hurt you on your link turn. By the way, I think the way you spin your link turn is more of an internal link turn.**


 * 2NR – When you are taking a K in the end of the round, you need to be evaluating how the K functions. What I mean by that is how the K either turns the case or solves the case. There is almost zero impact calculus being done by the negative. Specifically, you ned to address how the K outweighs poverty. When you are conceding that the poverty impact functions in the world of your alternative, you must answer how you either turn that impact, solve it better than them or outweigh it. You could probably solve it better than them by extending this welfare turn.**


 * 2AR – the top of the 2AR is probably enough for the majority of my ballot. At the point where there is no defensive reason why the aff can’t solve poverty, poverty functions in the world of the K’s impacts – this means that the aff gets a major advantage than the negative. You are extending the permutation that was not extended in the 1AR. However, it is a good strategic choice if the 1AR extends it – the way the 2NR functionally argues the K is that the Perm solves the best. There is o no reason why the perm cant solve out of the 2NR.**


 * RFD – I vote affirmative. I think the poverty impacts work in the world of the critique and functionally outweigh any capitalism impact that was extended shoddily in the 2NR.**