Coggins,+Aaron

Round 3- Affirmative .VS. Liam and Aaron
Judge: Ozzy

Neg was winning some arguments on poverty- the turn could have one. The Gilligan card could be a trap door for the aff.
==== The 1ar was pretty good and very technical- to assist time allocation is to apply the long-term short-term argument to specific thinks. Its smart to say it’s about status qou short term. If they say red tape say with long-term tax credit you only have to do the process every year- that’s shrunken. ====

On the disad you should make the disad even through they didn’t make it go away. Should have extended more args or you don’t say anything too.
==== 2NR did a good job but should explain what to do when the net benefit goes away. The solvency on the counterplan would work better if they had framed it for the judge. If the counterplan solves almost as good because the status qou could be good? If they turned the aff so much it would have overshadowed the solvency debate on the counterplan. Had no clear reason to prefer on the counterplan. Maybe innovation will solve poverty for ten years but if your talking about a problem that fucks people over for centuries it takes more. ==== ==== The aff should relate one of the aff impacts to one of the solvency deficit- the clearest is manufacturing. No mention of Middle East war in the 2ar. You aren’t winning the entire solvency deficit. Its ok if they solve most of it but make a bigger deal of manufacturing. If you think these are close you should vote aff because we give more details- but its not then go into details of manufacturing. ====

The tax credit could model to other countries- that would be a difference- that’s the best way to solve china. Read about failing free market in china. Blow up the difference in the end.
==== Talking about Gilligan was ok but you need to blow it up. Cutting off the plan cuts off the poor, and then the solvency deficit arguments blow up the impact. Connect it to the impact. Than Gilligan really sounds good. The reason why poverty happens is because of the free market. The counterplan just says believe in capitalism to solve poverty. ====

Are we still going to hope for those subsidies when shit hits the fan waiting might be too far gone to even solve. Sometimes timeframe with warming makes sense.
==== Wrapping up the story needs to revolve around an impact. Every 2ar you are revolving around an advantage/impact but your choosing something. If its going to be Gilligan talk about how its number one, it will help you guide your speech. ==== ==== Should start off on the CP having no net benefit- frame the debate around that. If you go into a debate with a clear impact in mind. Keep asking how that would threaten warming. Are they saying nuclear war causes warming? Think about innovation- go in with a plan then all arguments are given strategic meaning. The 2ar should happen pre round. Jack Rabbit should know you’d never go for a certain impact. ====

Aff spread a lot of answers around.
**Tournament rd. 1 - Thorn** 1NC - This is an amazing 1NC. Nice specific link analysis and explanation of positionality. Don't frame link analysis solely as links of omission ("they don't talk about X") but link it to the discourse of 1AC. Insert linking quotes from 1AC and C/X - "look from the perspective" and such. Emphasize difference between your alt and their AFF, how they are mutually exclusive.

2AC - Argument about "putting ourselves in an analagous position in State of Exception" is pretty good - frame this as an answer to the kritik. Spend more time on the K in general. Perm the K (e.g. what you said in CX, "invite Ann to become pirate..."). The impact card extensions you read at the bottom are not very useful, as they seem also subsumed by K alt. You need to generate offense on the K.

 .

2NC - Good job with the link quotes from AFF c/x and 1AC. Impact them further, e.g. Captain Phillips tries to bandage one of the somali pirates when his foot bleeds. How do we separate the AFF from Phillips' humanitarianism?

1NR - I like how you perform the alt - a praxis of how to be in solidarity, e.g. this is "there is a non-linking version of the AFF."

1AR/2AR - There is a performative of solidarity happening here too, standing aside, quitting, deferring. Very ethical - but there is also a way of generating offense against the K, see below. The question is how is it possible to be an ally under the NEG's link claim. Draw offense against the K off the "we place ourselves in SoE"

**Positioning (**General note): identifying, locating, GPS perhaps the very opposite of being pirate, who is imperceptible, fluid, floating. Specify how position functions here. Neg says AFF doesn't position themselves, but position the pirates - it would seem that one point of clash here is whether POSITIONALITY is inevitable here. Neg links try to pin the aff down "they are stuck to their 1AC as rhetorical artifact," "they have no positionality"

Generally, neg is very well envisioned performatively, it does an AMAZING job at presencing Ann in Sam's speeches, of speaking not for others but letting presences function.

RFD - Neg, the specific links to the K are dropped. Neg frames the debate as best embodied education - their method solves better for the aff.