Grifam+vs.+Kana+-+Oskar+Tauring-Traxler


 * Imanol replaced Oskar as judge**

1A during 1AC CX: Saying that soft power is a “non-nuclear weapon” isn’t really an accurate description of soft power. I’d suggest reading the Wikipedia article on soft power.

1AR: You should put more answers on the Cap K, especially since it is the offcase position that the 2N took. A great way to attack the critique is by pointing out that they didn’t extend the alternative, and then following up by a cap is sustainable argument. Additionally, when you redo this speech, make sure to answer the argument that Winners Win gain p.c. in the long term, not the short term since you are going for a link turn.

2AC: Try to make more arguments on the off case flows by taking out the extra case cards that you read. The case cards don’t add much, if anything to the 1AC. You would be better off making a conditionality argument and some more analytics. Also, when you are doing a redo on this 2AC when you extend a card from the 1AC cite the author by saying that’s. Also, where are the permutations?

2A during 2NC CX: You asking them about their response to a dropped argument. Don’t do that, it gives the negative the chance to answer the argument in the 1NR.

2AR: You are treating the double bind argument as a cap sustainable argument. The double bind argument says that either the alt doesn’t solve because capitalism is to powerful, or that the alt is powerful and that it can overcome the minor instance of the plan that is capitalist. You’re in trouble in terms of case vs. cap impact analysis because you made the argument that H.R. outweighs.

1NR: I’d advise against taking prep time for the 1NR. You are typing a lot of stuff during this prep time. Since this is camp, you should work on speaking from your flow instead of speaking from something that you fully wrote during prep time. When you redo this 1NR you should do “DA outweighs and turns the case” analysis.

2N during 1AC CX: Strive to be more ambitious during cross-x. A lot of your questions are just asking the aff to clarify their 1AC; that’s bad because it gives the aff more time to talk about why their aff is a good idea. You should be poking holes in their case, not letting them bolster it.

2NC: You are forgetting about the alternative on the critique. The cap K looks more like a DA.

2N during 2NC CX: You’re making this argument that capitalism violates human rights. You should make that explicit in your 2NC (i.e. Kovel). 2NR: Since you are going for the more disady style of this capitalism argument, you have to have a link argument that says the aff structurally props up capitalism. You sort of get to this with the resource argument but I don’t think you explain how it affects capitalism as a totality. Also, you need to answer this double bind argument more explicity.