McClun,+Conor

6/28
- label your flows. You did for the 2nd flow, but forgot for the States CP - you should use your 1NR to add depth to your arguments - make it harder for the 1AR to answer each level of hte argument - you need to add impact analysis on the disad - you need to be able to win that it outweighs the Aff

6.29 - Round 4 - SOX (2A) vs. Drew and Zach

Conor - I think, considering this wasn't your first choice for the affirmative, you did really well in this round. I think the main issue you need to resolve before the round started was, what is the impact of the 1AC going to look like at the end of the round? Once you establish that, you can better understand the framework/approach you want to talk about your aff in. If you want in-round impacts, you can frame your politics answers accordingly. If you just want to use the af as one big impact turn, you have to lock and load for a card war. Also, I think that your 2AR analysis on the impact is correct but far too late. I think a beter understanding of the difference between straight up d.dev and cap bad would help you talk about your impacts easier. Also, have an end goal in mind. This helps you structure the 2AC, so your 1AR is a little more controlled and more consistent with your final speech. You sound so much better regarding your speaking though. I am really impressed with your improve arguments, cross-x and fluid speaking style. Good Job!

Round 6 Nafaddy vs. Tranor (neg) Judge: Thorn Need better answer on Gibson-Graham. You may want to defend that cap //is// a big scary monster, or argue that your alternative recognizes capitalism as polyvalent. Your link argument isn’t so much that the aff doesn’t think about the poor, but rather, that the aff doesn’t think about the //structure// which makes distributions of wealth and poverty inevitable. Explain what exposing the contradictions might mean in this instance.