Mittal,+Adi

6/27/12 in cx, good job trying to trap her into your arguments!  good job extending/giving warrants good analytics/line by line don't be afraid to think outside the box nice n clear i wouldn't have gone with the budget DA in the 2NC- they didn't even answer it, focus on something else you can save the overview til the 2R good impact analysis 6/28

Great speaking style - you sound confident and smooth. I don't know that an unlimited research burden theory voter against the States CP is that applicable...especially when you are reading lots of evidence throughout the round and seem to have a good handle on the research. Plus, a States CP seems to be one of the most predictable counterplans you're going to tackle. If you do wish to make it, try to develop a more stuctured theory argument where you give me precise voters, violations, etc. Make sure to tag them appropriately so it keeps it clean. You NEED to extend the AC plan text throughout the round. Not extending any part of the AC leaves you with little offense at the end of the round.  7/1/12  Judge: Lucas Smith (lucaswbsmith@gmail.com) General Comments: Everybody in this round needs to work on a) flowing and b) clash. I never really felt like at any point anyone had a good flow of the round. Given how green you all are its o.k. But it is something you are going to have to work on. Clash was another problem. Perhaps this is a flowing problem, but its really important that you compare and weigh each argument. What does it matter if states have better local knowledge? Who cares about waste? Etc. NEG: The 2NR needs to focus on one strategy. If you are going for the CP, its not that important to win defense on advantage you say you solve. So just focus on the reason why the USFG would fail. Go for the fism net benefit or the budget da. Follow the line-by-line. Read your case arguments on case.
 * note on highlighting: the point of highlighting is to read less than the underline. It defeats the purpose to just highlight the underlined parts of the card.