Ken+Brown+Study+8v2+2010


 * __Jack__**

You were a lot clearer when you stopped rocking – word / syllable emphasis changed from random movement to clarifying expression.

1AC could still be clearer – especially early in the year, people new to the topic etc. Try delivering at about ¾ speed; my guess is that at most you’d have to cut one card.

Use “presence” some instead of “cooperation” in 1AC tags

1AR seems to just get to a page and start talking without clear application of arguments and delineation among arguments (the one exception to this is on the CP). Try to group sets of arguments off the 2AC answers, embed the clash, and number or somehow distinguish more clearly when you are moving from one argument to the next.

You spent a little too much time on T, especially the redundancy, and you were a little thin on the K. Had 2NR gone for the K, you might have been in trouble because there’s not a lot for the 2AR to work with.


 * __Michael__**

T – presence 1. Point out that the neg definition is inclusive, not exclusive – includes troops but does not exclude more. 2. Argue how silly the troops alone def is – their XT argument would amount to an Iraq plan requiring pull out but prohibiting that the soldiers take their weapons with them. 3. The 1AR cross application on “substantially” limiting is good; put that in the frontline answers (even if the neg does not read sub T).

K – more spin of the aff is needed if the perm is to have a chance; explain that the bmd is a response to the obsession with security and that the Chinese response is part of the self-fulfilling prophecy a la Pan. Claim that the security impacts to the aff are just like the security impacts in the sec K. When the K is so clearly linked to the 1AC args rather than the plan, you might as well make some arguments about severing discourse; compare it to the negs if-then / gateway type argument. You need moe on the prolif K part of this argument; that’s really what this argument amounts to much more than generic security.

Good job on sub T and the politics DA.

CP – add args on on-going application of leverage — why can’t they just start selling again after the plan is done. Also enforcement / detection is the big problem with the regime, especially with dual use tech. There is really good evidence on Chinese backlash to coercion /quid pro quos – interference in their affairs. Link turn with improved relations is more likely to get compliance than bargaining chips. At least use it as a risk that they say no. There is also the argument that buying China off this way encourages future bad behavior on their part; they misbehave in the hope that we offer them concessions to buy them off. You ought to at least point out that the missile prolif impact here gets their prolif K. I’m not so sure making racist assumptions is if-then/ gateway. Finally, I – P have missiles already. Their proximity means not much more can be gained from advances. One more thing, it is not clear until the 2AR that Chinese exclusion from the missile regime was because of their commitment to NKor. Retag the argument to exphasize they won’t comply because of this. Until then the 2N argument on compliance while still outside the regime made sense. The Japanese reaction argument seems far more applicable to the plan than the counterplan. When you go for this in 2AR, it seems even more like that. In whatever way the CP is a concession to China, so is the plan; at least the CP gets a Chinese concession in return and involves some leverage back.


 * __Julia__**

The T args probably need more development – based on my guess as to where this round may end up. Assume the defs they will rely on to be topical – Thompson – and indict the limits problems of the expansive definition, not just of the plan but all that would be involved.

START / Russia – missile defense may be a turn or at least a take out. Try building in that START could control missile defense. OK, that happened and you kicked the DA. If you know you want to kick the DA off conceding other aff answers, pursue that in CX – to make sure that your kick is good and, more importantly, to make the concession out process clearer. For example, here they could have claimed a Russia impact off the turn that is separate from START.

K – it seems like your links are the same, both are essentially the prolif K. You end up also arguing a more generic security story as well; you need a link on that in 1NC. You need to make it clearer that the K is a response to the aff reasons, thinking, discourse. That will help you on the perm and make the alt easier – just don’t say these things / think this way. Start the 1NR with a __short__ retelling of the K story that is adapted to the 2AC, but save the more in depth link explanation, especially the specific things they say/argue until the perm. The link argument with the perm will make it clearer how the 1AC is incompatible Rebuttal needs to more clearly tie answers into the 2AC arguments. At times you just seem to be arguing the K without clear linkage to the 2AC and lose the effect of closing doors or building walls on the 1AR. More “they say, but”


 * __Cara__**

T – The overview on limits is good, but needs to be more of a sell. Just elaborate a little bit more on what they make topical: all the arms sales, interoperability, and cooperative things that are done. Clarify whether the T argument is that they don’t reduce soldiers or that they do reduce soldiers but the additional limits are not T. I thought the T argument was going to be the former and that most of the coop etc is done by people not in the fighting force – defense contractors etc, but it seems like you’re going for the later. I think the former is stronger (see T under Michael).

CP – 1. I thought your answer on China compliance outside the treaty regime was good until the 2AR spin that the Chinese were excluded because of the North Korea commitment. The 2AC tag on China being rejected makes your answer good, but the warrant in the card makes it bad. The only thing 2Ns can do to avoid this is make sure to read their evidence and CX them on the answer; you can’t answer an argument until you know what it is. 2. Read the should use BMD as a chip card earlier – maybe even put it in the shell. Then reference it on all the theory goo – especially the could condition anything argument 3. The turns the aff argument has potential with more work – missile prolif encourages other bmd development, japan develop bmd on their own, etc 4. The argument on how a concession without a deal makes the US look weak also has good possibilities. That is especially true in this debate when the aff goes for the opposite and is so clearly wrong. 5. 2NR tends to be too blippy at the top. The numbering is good to separate concepts, but you’re like a 1AR here; there is no conceptual development; in fact, it seems like some of the numbered arguments are just further development of the previous claim. Develop and explain the argument to the point of resolving it for you, then if there is another conceptual point to develop, give it a new number. This strategy makes it much more difficult for the 2AR; he (in this instance) can’t just tell his story and explain his arguments because your answer is sitting there. 6. This CP is competitive; your best strategy here is to just slow down a little and explain why; point out how they can’t commit to the plan and do the CP without severing or illegitimately time-frame perming (time frame makes nothing competititve). 7. On the theory goo make sure to answer their arguments as well as initiate you own. Make that clear by putting all those answers with embedded clash labels either at the beginning or the end of the block. 8. 2NR has to go for the China bashing / makes the US look weak arguments. Even if the evidence is not the best, it is a good story and you have time left to do this. Most importantly, you’ve got to answer the aff claim on Japan’s reaction to the CP.