Campbell+Brown+103C+6v2

1AC: Fresh. Cross-X: Cara, you're aggressive in cross ex. It's pretty sweet. Ish, you answered her questions well.

1NC: Solid. C-X: Sick, Ish. Julia, you defended yourself well, given the strong questions asked.

2AC: Good job.You should slow down, slightly. I think you're a little bit over your max speed. 2AC Cross-X: Decent on both sides. Explain stuff more.

2NC: Pretty good speech.Took me a while to figure out what the CP did and I was going to say you should have explained it better, but you did that relatively well on the perm do the cp. Your organization on the bottom of the CP was a little sketchy and I sort of got lost, but it improved once you went to case. You should use that Hachigan card as a "Heg is solved by a new FoPo" argument in addition to "Heg Doesn't Solve Conflict." 2NC Cross-X: Rachel, you're on a decent track here... you kind of let her intimidate you out of the questions. Stick with it! Cara, great BSing.

1NR: Pretty solid speech. I think you should look more at your flow when you speak. Readers always beat talkers and it should improve your efficiency. Volume could probably be improved, too. I think you debated the line by line relatively well, although I think you could have done some more comparative impact calculus. Why is an arms race a more likely scenario for war than a lack of U.S. heg, etc, etc.

1AR: Pretty solid. I think you likely spent too much time on case and too little on the DA. It seems like CP/DA is the most viable strat out of the block to me. At the very least, you don't need to spend so much time on the terror advantage. Your speaking is pretty good, although I think you're slightly inefficient because you may be going a bit too fast. I like the perm do the CP focus.. you should maybe introduce an interpretation of "phased withdrawal" or maybe even a version of competition (functional only) that best serves your perm do the CP argument.

2NR: Good speech. You're best on the heg debate, I think. As in the 1NR, I think there's a way to compare your impacts more to those of the aff. For instance, wars of the future might not be fought conventionally but rather in space or with the modern weapons your DA is talking about.. such wars make traditional U.S. hegemony obsolete and certainly allow other countries to catch up with us. You're a little repetitive on the DA, particularly on the "Obama won't compensate" and "Troops are being withdrawn from Iraq now" portions of the debate. That's probably because those are the two best 1AR arguments, more than anything else, but I think you can focus your analysis a little bit more and not say things like "redirect, not reduce" three or four times. You also need to account for the 1AR spin of the Boston Globe evidence. You essentially dropped that a terrorist attack is coming and inevitable by 2013.. a smart 2AR could possibly "try or die" their way out of this DA.

2AR: Solid speech. You need to increase your analysis on the line by line on the DA, for sure. Cara simply out analyzed you in the 2NR on some of the issues and you should have done more in the 2AR. You also should have gone for terror and kicked heg, probably. I'll explain in the post-round.