Clara+and+Emily+vs.+Fernando+and+Rodrigo

Rd 2 – Emily and Clara vs. Fernando/Rodrigo

A: 4 N: 313

Emily -Slow down the beginning of this 1AC. -1AC organization should change – impact calculus arguments about structural violence should follow the description of military presence instead of introducing it. -For both structural violence and individual security changing the 1AC order would help us explain that voting affirmative helps change the valuation/calculus of our society. -Nearly 1 minute left –probably should just slow down some, could add an argument/longer tag explanation about the role of the ballot/judge. Include the judge in the language of the tags about joining the struggle against militarism. -1AR – you need to include argument reference or more clearly group arguments. Even when trying to embed clash there need to be some signposts for orienting the larger debate. This was especially true of the admittedly repetitive negative case arguments/atl causes. These can be grouped into two categories (other US basing and other forms of gender oppression in Japan).

Clara

-Shouldn’t read Bandow/Offshore balancing against hegemony – it contradicts the aff’s claim to change security. Same with Layne – the tag explicitly claims the ability to work against threats/in favor of national interests. Winning this aff requires a move towards individual rather than national security. -Redeployment 2AC needs work. -The 2AC on the gender K included most of the right arguments - but you need to work on succinct/frontloaded tags. That will be easier if the 1AC tags include arguments with clearer names/more separation. -Don’t start your 2AR with individual responses to case arguments – there should be some larger question/impact that you can use to frame the debate. -You should be relying more on broad characterizations/categorizations of their arguments. Much of the 2NR was repetitive, making several distinct arguments against the alt causality/demand to solve all patriarchy frame of the negative’s K explanation would be a good place to start your K 2AR. “Preventing patriarchal militarism begins with one step – their alternative causality and demand for a pure form of critique fails to address the material reality of sexual violence. Their fear of cooptation will turn into an excuse for maintaining military basing.”

Fernando -1NC shell for gender doesn’t make that much sense. Jarvis link card is criticizing the same people that you read for your impact. What/where is your alternative? Focus this 1NC shell on the representation of rape as a metaphor for occupation. -Be prepared to answer questions about your T interpretation. Case examples etc. -You’re too focused on the idea that if the aff doesn’t solve everything it must be bad – that might take out parts of solvency but shouldn’t be the foundation for your cross-ex/explanation of your K. -TIME THE 1NC -Reading the gender K and hegemony DA together doesn’t work well – your good gender link arguments are about the larger appropriation of individual experience/strongly representational. It will be tough to win those arguments while reading hegemony. Reading this K hurts your ability to read supplementary case arguments about the inability of the aff to change IR/security. -You should not take prep for the 1NR. -Your K extension needs to include examples from the 1AC. Reading more cards won’t help without a specific explanation/story. The evidence you read on the metaphorical representation of sexual violence does probably apply to the aff. You need to explain how this turns the case (appropriates individual experience, instrumentalizes violence and these indicate a masculinist/imperialist form of advocacy – turns into a //possessive// experience instead of one of solidarity/struggle in common). -You need to stop getting trapped in making no spillover/solvency arguments. Though they are relevant – they should be a small portion of our overall strategy, not the focal point of that strategy.

Rodrigo -Write out your cross-ex strategy. Your questions need more focus/logical progression. Set up questions where the answer helps you rather than expecting to win the argument in the 1AC cross-ex. -Your cross-ex presence depends too much on pretending to be incredulous. -Don’t steal the cross-ex of the 2AC – if you need to answer a couple questions for clarification that’s okay, but you cannot take the majority of the cross-ex. -Argument reference. – for both T and the hegemony DA you were not referencing aff arguments. It’s difficult to flow without some way to split up the debate. -Time allocation for the block needs to be change – you spent 5+min reading new case defense – but the arguments were nearly all alternate causalities. Without one of your disads/your K you cannot win. The aff can also respond to all the new case arguments with a limited number of responses given how similar they are. -You’re double-explaining the case evidence – don’t repeat the tag/warrant after reading the evidence. -They didn’t kick imperialism – they applied the impact, there was no 1NC argument to answer in the 1NC requiring the 2AC to say anything beyond extending the impact. -Calling the Japanese government the “root cause” links to your evidence about representing Japanese culture as patriarchal. -You need to make impact comparisons/explain specific K link arguments. Your focus remains alt cause/no solvency. Most of the 2NR problems are a result of the block structure and argument choice.