Jensen,+Ray

Practice Round #2 (L.Smith) : Need to work on line-by-line - this will allow you to incorporate analytical arguments into your responses. The try-or-die impact calculus doesn't make sense in a world where the negative has a counterplan in play.

 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