Ronkainen,+Felix

Practice Round #2 - (L.Smith)

Good explanation of your arguments/evidence. You seem to really know your stuff. Read more cards in the 1AC, you shouldn't need to go back to explain the entire 1AC.

 2ac  Solve  Pov  2NC  1AR  2NR  Nuke  CP
 * Ozzy**
 * Neg needed to kick something in the block
 * Kick T and CP
 * Answered that we didn’t prove abuse
 * Go for t or not at all
 * Not direct enough
 * 2AC pretty good
 * Climate change dropped in 1NC make debate revolve around it
 * Warming debate should be on warming flow
 * More bridge
 * Say decker solves warming
 * 1AR did good saying wind will solve
 * Consider reading nuke bad for environment, doesn’t solve
 * 2AC do better clashing
 * Read right cards, just be more specific
 * Directly respond
 * Don’t read same evidence
 * You dropped turns
 * Neg good on turn, but you should blow it up, best offense
 * 1AR makes mistake of pumping up impact, even though partner conceded turn
 * 2NR, be more explicit about ethical issue, debate over cause case turn
 * Disads
 * Try better line by line
 * Good job on mining sucks
 * Make it a domino effect, one species leads to another
 * If you think good answers are analytics, but them in 2AC frontline
 * Extend evidence with warrant
 * Be more exact
 * Split up by authors
 * If you think your winning poison in Chi, then borrow Giligan structural violence
 * Back and forth good overall on nuke
 * Apply biased lobbyist argument to specific arguments
 * Aff good job extending nukes shutting down now
 * Red tape kills nuke
 * Neg, talk more about it
 * 1NR pretty good
 * You should say “Net benefit outweighs solvency”
 * You should say “If we win better solve then we win”
 * Wish there was a perception argument to Aff
 * You should ask status of CP
 * Neg, concede and kick more things
 * “wind energy might have less CO2, but the total process is worse”
 * Stronger if you point out warming 1AC species claim is linked to extinction