Boucher,+Jacob

6/26/12 60% of speech was incomprehensible, especially toward the end of your speech. These blippy perms are impossible to flow. Your first perm of "do the counterplan" on states is ridiculous, and Klayton is embarassing you on this question in cross-examination. Also, I was not able to flow all the stupid blippy perms that you read in the 2AC. The neg can group them say "this isn't an argument, don't evaluate it."

2AR was way better than the 2AC in terms of clarity. Good extension of the econ story. After that the rest of the case debate is gravy, since there is no offense on those flows. Just get to the disads.

6/27/12

Race explanation needs more—cant look at one problem—must look at whole system—this seems like ample perm ground “I would assume the evidence…” 1nr Good impact calculus on the DA—I think some of the terminal impact stuff is not as necessary since it’s the same impact, but I liked that you did link differential work Make sure to properly kick out of ptx—you a) didn’t catch the double turn and b) extended uniqueness for the link turn Good catch on the theory args that were made on a different flow—but, be careful—many of the “severance perms bad arguments” are probably reasons why conditionality is also bad

Round 4--6/29--Cupcake/Lillie Aff v. Ben/Blaize Neg--Baxter

Cupcake—Efficiency on the case!!!!! You don’t need to specify “on the link level” etc. on the kritik—in this debate against this team, I would have spent another 40 seconds or so on the k, that’s what blaize wants to go for by a lot—alt solvency should be 2 levels of the argument: 1) alt doesn’t solve the aff 2) alt doesn’t solve the k links—good thing to start with, you answered almost allthe things I was gonna tell you to do-- say what action the permutation takes that does stuff, risk of the solvency deficit outweighs the risk of the neg—make a claim about how to differentiate impact arguments (specificity probably)