Lilead+vs.+Ruban+-+Candyshoppe

You want to flag explicitly which arguments you are answering before you read the cards that answer them. That’s the “they say” thing debaters do in speeches Good answer to “it’s the regime not the embargo” but you can be more efficient at giving it since the 2AC is a time pressed speech. Say something like “1AC indicates the embargo is the key internal link to the regime’s legitimacy, means even if they win regime is the cause we solve it”. You want to do impact analysis on the DA at the top before you read cards. You also want to do impact analysis on the CP. When you are CXing the 2NC, you ask a lot of questions that give them the chance to basically make new arguments for why they are right (questions like “what was your response to this argument” and “why is your ev better than our arg” is what I’m talkig about). Don’t do that, when you ask a question make sure you have an argument in mind you are hoping to make based on the answer of this question. -- The world of the sqo doesn’t matter, they are going for a CP so its that world that you need to be talking about. The argumetns about why the sqo sucks are good, but they need to be framed as impacts to the CP. Good extension of the climate change impact. Probably should have spent more time because if you win it you probably win the round because there was no impact analysis on it in the 2NR. I would say don’t go for human rights, you don’t have time and it doesn’t outweigh anything. Good analysis on the politics DA, your good on the micro in this debate but you need to win more offense on the I think you are winning a risk of the solvency deficit, you need to make sure you are framing the impact of the solvency deficit. Does it outweigh the politics DA? I’m not sure what the warrant for the claim that “only the CP solves the embargo” is. Like I get what the CP does, but why is that comparatively better is what needs to be flushed out more. Why did you not have the “Cuba benefits from the embargo” are answered during prep time. Reading another card that says conditional engagement best is probably not something you need to do right now unless it is reading a warrant that specifically answers something the 2AC said, at which point you should flag what it is you are answering. You should have a specific part of the block where you are like “now I am answering the perm”. Reading one card at the end and saying “also this applies to the perm” is not enough. You should do impact analysis at the top of the DA. Why does it o/w their nuclear war impacts? Why does it turn the case? Doing it on the bottom is hard to flow. Also you could couch your analysis in timeframe, magnitude, probability. When you are answering the uniqueness args it’s not enough to give another warrant why it will pass “like bipartisanism”. You need to answer the 2ACs specific warrant. -- I think you should either pick one or two warrants to why CP solves the case better than the plan and explain them really fully- this should take you like 90 seconds to two minutes- OR you should just extend that the CP doesn’t link to politics and say Net Benefit outweighs risk of solvency deficit. You should also frame the risk of the solvency deficit. What, as a judge, should I do if the 2AR does win a solvency deficit. Something like “even if they win some risk CP doesn’t solve all the case the DA outweighs” should be in there. Impact analysis on the DA. Also how do you get to extinction You seem to have a good idea of what args they dropped, use that to make your speech. Extend arguments the dropped and answer arguments they made. Prep all of this during the 2NC and 2NC CX. There are not that many cards in the packet, you should know the warrant to every card read in the 1NC so you don’t have to ask your partner. Go through the packet and read all the cards. The specific thing you need to make sure you are doing when you extend cards is that your explain the impact to them. Why does you winning this card matter? So for instance, if you win cooperation is impossible, what does that mean for the AFFs case? Don’t just win an argument, win what winning that argument means. Work on faster explanations of case. “They concide cooperation is key to extinction because its key to mitigate global conflicts that go nuclear” If you are going to go for these suffering advantages you need to do comparative impact analysis between that and the nuclear impacts the neg is gona want to go for. Good answers on CP, but you should be framing these args more in the language of debate. Don’t say “cuba might not agree”, say “solvency deficit”…that kind of stuff. Being the 1AR, your first priority should be the extension of offense on the DA. You make good defensive arguments, but I think you should prioritize arguments like” winners win” and “plan outweighs” that are reasons the voting Neg is bad, not just why voting AFF might not be bad.
 * R2.**
 * //Mairead//**
 * Don’t read cards and then explain their implications, just read the cards, the explanation you give after you read the cards is for later speeches.**
 * Ruby**
 * Ann**
 * Lily**