Bensaac+vs.+Tram+-+Mikey+Freedman

6/25 **Rd. 1** //1NC// There needed to be case in the 1NC, as the 2N it was your job to make this happen. The reason is that you want as many possible 2NR strats in the 1NC, without case turns or case D Dissad case becomes a lot less of an option. //2NC// When extending the CP you should flag explicitly that there has been no solvency deficit and say that any risk of an NB is a reason to vote NEG. This is impact analysis on the CP. You made these arguments implicitly, but make them explicit at the top No reason for these new link cards. Okay so the main thing that is missing from the 2NC is impact analysis. You needed to do two things. First, since you have time for it you need to flag all 1AC impacts and explain why the DA outweighs them. Be as specific as possible to the specific impacts, don’t just use nuclear was o/w as a catch all impact analysis claim since they have nuclear war arguments too. Second, you should be reading turns case args, its always important to make sure you have turns as well as o/w args. Good explanation on the case. //2NR// Right 2NR choice. On the CP, you should start by explain what it does. The “this is what the CP does” is in a weird spot in the flow. Do it first. Explicitly flag two things (1) that the CP solves the entire case and (2) any risk of the NB is a reason to vote Neg. See impact analysis stuff from the 2NC, it applies here. I think when you extend the K you needs to make sure you extend the link, impact, and alt, and do impact analysis. You need to **explicitly** flag that you are doing this when you do it. It’s not clear to me that there was an extension of the link or alt in the 1NR which would make this position hard to go for. You start by extending the Barry impact. You say it’s big but don’t really explain what it is. Like what will happen if we don’t do the alt? Why will all complex life end? Also don’t just say its big- argue magnitude and probability. You also wana say K turns the case. I guess you kinda do this when you make the America sucks/ America will exploit Cuba args, but you do not explicitly flag this as a case turn. I think what you want to do is say that Cap is the reason for the AFF impacts and that (A) perpetuating cap perpetuates those impacts and (B) solving cap solves those impacts. You need to have a part of the debate where you are like “these are the links”. You need to have another part where you are like “this is the alt”. Good first debate. Rather than overload you with little comments let me just give you one big thing to work on. Work on understanding the structure of debate. In this case the neg reads three off case arguments and a few arguments on solvency. Each off case argument is flowed on a different sheet of paper which means you have to tell the judge which off case you are answering when you answer it and where on case you are going when you go there. So say something like “onto the counterplan” when you are answering counterplan arguments.
 * Sam**
 * Troy**
 * Ben and Isac**