Campbell+Brown+103C+3v9

1AC Cross-Ex: Look at the judges instead of each other, guys. Interesting questions Carlos... it seems like you have some sort of goal with these questions, so hopefully we'll see it reflected in the 1NC.

1NC Cross-Ex: Good questions, Ryan. Pretty efficient and got through the 1NC well. Nice last comment, too.

2AC: Good speech. Got through case and the throwaway arguments quickly and clearly covered what you thought they were most likely to go for.

2AC Cross-Ex: Poor start. Ask better questions.. you just basically ask him to explain his cards.

2NC: Nice extension of T. Quick and easy to mess with the 1AR. You boned the politics kick out, though. Good job on the DA and the K, although I think you took too much in this 2NC.

2NC Cross-Ex: Carlos, you're TOO indignant.. saying seriously a lot doesn't give you a K link or make you seem more credible. Good job, Sullivan.

1NR: A great "putting pressure on the 1AR" speech. For what you were given in this 1NR, I think you did a great job. I think the overall block strategy isn't a great one (six flows in the block... you need depth!), but this was a good speech given that.

1AR: Sick with it. You were a tad bit inefficient (a little on T and towards the end on the K) but that's only when nitpicking. I thought you pretty adequately addressed the different threats and spent about the right amount of time on everything. Maybe spend a little less time on T, but just maybe. It would depend on the round/judge. I think you could have given yourself more time by potentially kicking the China advantage, just extending the one solvency deficit on the CP, and then going all in on the warming impacts vs. the K and the DA, since he was weakest on those impacts. Your spin on the free trade arg was somewhat risky, but probably correct.

2NR: I thought the 1AR was a great speech but you answered it well. You made the correct 2NR decision, for sure. Why go for so much, though? You could spend more time on the defense on the DA (your biggest hole) instead of spending 45 seconds or so on the case. I think you could be more of a reader than a talker in the 2NR. You sound pretty good but sort of ramble a bit, which you could fix by being more flow reliant.

2AR: I enjoyed it. You made the correct decision (kicking an advantage) even though I thought you maybe should have kicked China, instead. That might have been an issue of CP solvency, since I couldn't read the neg's ev, so I'll assume your decision is probably correct. Either way, you debated well. I think I think you could better explain the aff to answer the DA. You do it pretty well, but I think you could couple it with your explanation of the solvency deficit on the CP to make a coherent 2AR "story."