Scranton Invitational Round 1-Lakeland MT v. Bishop Guertin SS

Scranton Invitational Round 1 [Lakeland MT v. Bishop Guertin SS]

Overview of the Round----------------------------------------------------

Aff-Lakeland with Ports Aff

Neg-Bishop Guertin

Speaker Point System------------------------------------------------------

Lakeland: 

---- Hassan-26.8

---- Humza-28.1

Bishop Guertin 

---- Isaiah-28.2

---- Jeff-27

Tips-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFF--you guys could extend your Russia war impact! The only thing that the negative does on case is indict your terrorism impact--the Russia scenario is your best option! I'm surprised it wasn't in the 2AC!

NEG-when extending T in the block, be sure to extend standards! 

Speech by speech comments----------------------------------------------

1AC- very clear! Be sure to say either and or next to distinguish the cards you read! 

1AC CX: 

---- Neg--good job pinning the aff down on their terrorism impact

---- Aff--good job defending your terrorism scenario! TIP: read over your aff a couple of times and really become familiar with the cards that are in your 1AC.

1NC- I liked the fact that you signposted your offcase arguments and I appreciated the roadmap. Also, you were very clear! Good job!

1NC CX

---- Aff--good clarification questions! 

---- Neg-You guys seemed to know a lot about the 1NC strat! Good job explaining how the states solve the aff better!

2AC-I understand why you read security answers but they're not very responsive. Spend less time reading your security answers and spend more time covering the disads! Your speech was fairly organized and you pretty much stuck to your roadmap! Good job signposting as well!

2NC-I liked that you signposted! Also you have a very clear and loud voice so your arguments were extremely easy to flow.I enjoyed your explanation of the solvency deficit on case. NOTE: you spent a lot of time in the middle of your speech looking for your speech doc--try to be more organized next time! Good job picking out the logical fallacies in the aff! 

1NR-good job extending and explaining the cards that you read in the 1NC! Also you read the same Mueller card in the 1NR that was read in the 1NC and also read by the 2N in the 2NC... next time just extend it-don't reread cards! ALSO-when extending topicality in the block, remember to extend the standards--without them, there are no reasons why topicality should be a voting issue. Just reading your interpretation won't get you anywhere!
1AR- You should have answered the coast guard disad! Good job covering and indicting their Mueller evidence! Try to be more organized!
2NR- Good job with the evidence comparisons! I like how you distinguished the fact that interest doesn't mean that terrorists can obtain nuclear weapons. I liked how you mitigated their terror impact but next time, do some impact comparison!
2AR-good job doing line by line! Very impressive!

RFD-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I voted negative on the coast guard disad and the no risk of nuclear terrorism. I voted on the fact that the plan would trade-off with the coast guard budget and destroy the coast guard. I also thought that the negative did a little better on the terror flow--there was a lot more analysis on why terrorism won't be a threat because terrorists won't be able to obtain enough materials to build them.