Michann+vs+Wilian+-+Mikey

__Michelle__ Good answers in 1AC CX Try and have a bit more of a plan for the CX of the 1NC. These questions are only useful if the bolster 2AC arguments. 1AR You extend the impacts twice. On both Ks you only extend the perm. That’s way too little. You need to be extending offense on both flows. Say you outweigh, say cap is good, say your epistemology is good. That sorta stuff. On the epistemology K, you need to make sure to answer the epistemology first framing argument made by the 1NR. None of the impacts matter if you let the Neg make it purely a question of epistemology. __Ann__ 2AC They functionally dropped all 1AC impact, you don’t need to spend a ton of time on case but you need to point out that they don’t really have any case defense. At some point you need to say “try or die” for these extinction scenarios, especially given that they don’t really have an extinction level impact in the 1NC (except the Barry card) Need a card for these transition war args. On the Ks-I think that perm and theoretical alt fails cards are okay, but you need to use your case more to answer these Ks. Specifically I think you should be extending your impacts as a reason the plan is necessary and that your epistemology/ participation in cap is justified. As it is, most of the cards you read are pretty defensive which Also, you need to do more work on Cap, one card isn’t enough even if some of the stuff from the other K is cross applicable. I think you have pretty much conceded Cap kills all life and that you participate in Cap, it sets them up for a pretty convincing “try or die” even if you win some risk the alt isn’t that good. Putting China at the bottom is the right move, but you need to make impact analysis arguments at the top in order to really put this DA away. 2AR Right idea with the impact analysis but you need to explicitly answer the two impact framing args (1) V2L outweighs and (2) cap turns the impacts. The alt args are good but you need to spell out why they matter. In this instance I think the arg you want to make is that alt vagueness reduces solvency, meaning there is less of a risk the alt stops 1AC impacts. __Ian__ Good answers in 1NC CX 1NR Need more of an explanation of how they link. How do they instill western view of prosperity? I’m still not sure how the alt solves the AFF, I get how it solves the K but what does that mean for AFF impact. In general the main issue I have with this K is that I don’t really understand what a western epistemology is and how the 1AC supports it. I think you probably need to spend more time explaining this to me. Pretty good on impact analysis Oh was all of that on the overview. Put some of that on the line by line, there are places where it fits. Specifically, most of the 2AC is alt work so the 1NR alt work would have been good here. __Wiley__ The DA in the 1NC is probably useless unless you have more case in the 1NC. As it is, it’s hard to see how the DA could o/w the case since you’re not attacking the internal links to extinction. As a result, the 2AC can build their start pretty confident that this isn’t a 2NR option. As the 2N its your job to make sure there is either enough case to make this position viable, or to not have it in the 1NC. 2NC Three big things missing on the Cap debate. First, you needed an overview, not to start on the line by line. The dropped the impact in the 2AC which means the 2NC is your chance to go HAAM in the 2NC on why the K outweighs. You should be calling out each 1AC impact and saying why Barry outweighs, if you win that your probably win the debate. Second, since all they did was attack the alt, you should be explaining why you should win even if they win some chance the alt doesn’t work- a try or die arguments probably is key here. Third, you should have a point on the flow where you extend the link debate. You sort of do this on the perm but the 1NC had 2 links (engagement and state) and you should have extended each of these cards independently and specifically. The way to solve all of this for all future 2NCs forever is make sure you have a specific spot on a flow where you do the following things reguardless of what the 2NC says : (1) Link work (2) Impact work (3) Alt Work (4) Impact analysis. Okay perm answers- but you should tailor your answers more specifically to what they are advocating on the perm. I get that any action they do will be capitalist but they are saying “do the plan with awareness of the alt”- that’s different than perm do both, explain why their specific alt is bad. I don’t think new V2L and Impact cards are necessary since they don’t contest them in the 1NC Good answers on uniqueness for China. You need to do more on this “China doesn’t want war” question as its key to their defense. You should be going into the warrants of these cards and saying why your impact cards are better. Needed impact calc on the DA. 2NR Needed to kick the other positions. Don’t just concede perm solvency, explain why they Wrong 2NR choice I think, I mean not super wrong but I think the 1AR conceding the epistemology first impact framing means you go for the epistemology K. Like I said above, I think the main think there is making sure you have specific spaces where you do the (1) link work (2) Impact work (3) alt work (4) impact analysis. The impact analysis you do is fine but you need more explanation. Why does the impact o/w and turn the case, you need to be doing more specific comparisons. You should be extending the “totalizing approach key” as an answer to the perm