Scranton Round 4 Lakeland LG v. EL Meyers MP

Scranton Invitational Round 4  [Lakeland LG v. EL Meyers MP]

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

Aff-was lakeland's port security high speed gas chromatography aff

1NC-T (excludes alteration or repair), States CP, Terror defense

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

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

NEG-learn how to pronounce words!

--- Lindsey learn to pronounce 'divert' and 'bipartisanship'

--- Morgan-don't say 'skip the rest of this' just say 'mark the card here'

--- Shay-yes i get your racism argument, I wouldn't mind voting on it, but it wasn't impacted

*** AFF-IMPACT YOUR ARGUMENTS!

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

1AC- Very clear but try to speak a bit louder! I noticed how you didn't read the cites correctly--be sure to read the date. 

1AC CX- Shay-be sure to pay attention during the entire CX! Yo ucan't 

1NC- Very clear! You should be careful when reading a counter-plan text, be sure to include their plan text instead of saying 'port security'. Also learn how to pronounce specific words such as 'bipartisanship' and 'diverts'.

1NC CX- don't let the question 'how much does the CP cost' stump you! Also, don't let the aff trap you into making a solvency deficit to your own counter-plan!

2AC-Very good 2AC! You made a we meet argument on T without realizing it! Also you did a very good job explaining the thesis of your aff and why it is necessary.

2AC CX- neg--your questions are extremely nitpicky and redundant. 

2NC- Don't say 'skip the rest of this' just say 'mark the card here'

1NR-you did a fantastic job with topicality. Good job with the evidence comparison on the T flow--you really persuaded me that only your author had intent to define.

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

I think that there are a couple of issues to address in this debate.

First of all, it is like, conventional wisdom that mexico is a very drug cartel-heavy country. The whole country is run by drug cartels.

I think the biggest issue is that the affirmative sort of under covered topicality. I understand that you read a counter interpretation but you didn't read any standards. Additionally, I thought that the negatives interpretation creates the best vision for the topic because like they said (and i quote this verbatim from the 2nr) 'its a country-wide view' as in and is the best interpretation for the federal government.