Scranton Invitational NOVICE QUARTERFINALS
[La Salle HG v. Newark Tech PE]
Speech by speech comments----------------------------------------------
1AC- great job signposting
1NC- you're pretty fast and clear! Next time, just make sure you distinguish the arguments from each other (I didn't know when to switch from the CP flow to the Disad flow; I did figure it out, but some signposting would help!) Also, what you did during the 1NC was really sketchy. You said you would read 3 off (which was T, the CP/federalism, Fiscal discipline) and then you read an ENTIRE KRITIK. Since there was no signposting, it was hard to distinguish what the k was until I heard you reading an alternative.
1NC CX- aff--you did a great job contesting the validity of the federalism disad!
2AC- you should've stuck to your roadmap! T was sort of undercovered! You should've provided standards on T and given reasons why the judges shouldn't vote for the topicality violation (i.e., reasonability, substantial checks, lit checks...)
2NC-Great analysis on how the private sector could solve for the aff better than the government could! But I think you have to address the question that the federal government has to admit to their flawed policymaking first. Also, you should explain why the CP is mutually exclusive, rather than just stating that it is. There isn't much analysis on why this argument actually stands.
1NR- The analysis on the K was good, but I still don't know what the alternative does. In order to evaluate a kritik, I would like to know how the alternative functions in the debate and in this case, how exactly having individual action solves for their impacts (as you stated in the 1NR)
1AR- your 1AR was EXTREMELY EFFICIENT. One thing that you should've done that would've made the 2AR easier was to extend the whole 'framing' contention that the judge should vote on what is probable and not possible. This framing issue would've made it easier for you to just quickly answer the link level of the negative's arguments.
2NR-Honestly, this speech disappointed me a little. It was good, but you could've done much more to ensure your win. First of all, there was little to no analysis on the alternative of the kritik, which was a very viable option coming out of the 1AR. Also, you didn't really impact the theory stuff.
2AR-
I voted aff--the framework was conceded all throughout the round.
1NC- you're pretty fast and clear! Next time, just make sure you distinguish the arguments from each other (I didn't know when to switch from the CP flow to the Disad flow; I did figure it out, but some signposting would help!) Also, what you did during the 1NC was really sketchy. You said you would read 3 off (which was T, the CP/federalism, Fiscal discipline) and then you read an ENTIRE KRITIK. Since there was no signposting, it was hard to distinguish what the k was until I heard you reading an alternative.
1NC CX- aff--you did a great job contesting the validity of the federalism disad!
2AC- you should've stuck to your roadmap! T was sort of undercovered! You should've provided standards on T and given reasons why the judges shouldn't vote for the topicality violation (i.e., reasonability, substantial checks, lit checks...)
2NC-Great analysis on how the private sector could solve for the aff better than the government could! But I think you have to address the question that the federal government has to admit to their flawed policymaking first. Also, you should explain why the CP is mutually exclusive, rather than just stating that it is. There isn't much analysis on why this argument actually stands.
1NR- The analysis on the K was good, but I still don't know what the alternative does. In order to evaluate a kritik, I would like to know how the alternative functions in the debate and in this case, how exactly having individual action solves for their impacts (as you stated in the 1NR)
1AR- your 1AR was EXTREMELY EFFICIENT. One thing that you should've done that would've made the 2AR easier was to extend the whole 'framing' contention that the judge should vote on what is probable and not possible. This framing issue would've made it easier for you to just quickly answer the link level of the negative's arguments.
2NR-Honestly, this speech disappointed me a little. It was good, but you could've done much more to ensure your win. First of all, there was little to no analysis on the alternative of the kritik, which was a very viable option coming out of the 1AR. Also, you didn't really impact the theory stuff.
2AR-
RFD-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the issue in this round is the lack of analysis made in the late rebuttal speeches. In the 2AC and the neg block, I thought that the analysis was pretty good and was very thorough. If either side had actually done the analysis in the last rebuttals, my decision would have been much easier to make.I voted aff--the framework was conceded all throughout the round.
No comments:
Post a Comment