Robinson+Brown+103E+5v9

__1AC__ Carlos-shut up. Take a look at your cards-some of them are seriously overhighlighted (one on terrorism, one on solvency). Make sure your “And” is always clear or you change your inflection between tags and cards. __CX__ Is there a point to this ideology line of reasoning? It didn’t make it into the next speech __1NC__ What is CPGS? Tell me the first time you say it You need to manage your time much better Why use Iraq as advantage CP? They probably will be super ready for that __CX__ Really? Planks conditional? You guys need to sort out whether there are minor modifications, this disconnect in cx just looks bad 2AC Wouldn’t the adv CP trigger the link to the DA? Withdrawal is withdrawal Where was condo? They ran 2 CPs and a K, one CP allowing minor modifications, the other allowing them to kick out of multiple planks, and you aren’t running condo? How does them saying no help you? Sure, it solves for the NB, but it’s not like the aff gets the world where they say no. Wait, what is the interpretations on T? Neg says must be combat troops, aff says must be soldiers. 2NC Why not just argue that the squo solves their aff by saying that withdrawal in Iraq will stop overstretch? If you kick the CP, how does NATO say no? I get what you’re trying to say here, but you’re not articulating it correctly. It’s not a question of the CP, it’s a question of the plan pissing of NATO. What is the point of this advantage CP without the DA? Just as to solve case if you want to go for the case turns? Seems like a rather poor time tradeoff to me. Aff-why not take prep after the 1nr? CX I’m really interested in this T debate. I feel like the brightline debate between what makes someone a combat troop or not is at the core here-you guys need to emphasize this more and give me reasons why I should be ok with feeling troops that have combat training but aren’t intended to fight are/aren’t combat troops. 1NR Why the hell no cards? You easily could have used some. Clearly articulate the link level. You tell me you’ll answer the no link argument below, and you don’t. Also clearly extend an impact argument/a “their case doesn’t exist” type argument. You do a bit of work telling me that there will always be a chance of a threat and that you can’t rely as much on just magnitude, but you need to tell me how this functions in terms of their case. You don’t answer their realism arg correctly. They say realism inevitable, you say realism bad. Their argument isn’t an impact turn, but that the alt doesn’t solve. 1AR You need to call them out on not answering the realism args correctly. This lets them spin their extinction claims as impact turns when they shouldn’t be getting them. You need to be making some case outweighs claims. Yeah, you’re defending your case, but you’re not impact it out at any point. Need to start impacting out arguments here. You tell me util good, but so what? Why don’t they function in that framework? You’re saying people dieing is important, but they’re saying people don’t die. Have more warrants to your analysis. For example, you say reps don’t matter, but don’t tell me why. 2NR Analysis on case is solid, but it gets really shallow as your time gets more pressured as you move on to the k. For example, tell me that realism causes extinction, but you don’t tell me why. You also don’t tell me why security makes the political impossible, you just extend a card. You get to the perm with 11 seconds left. You should be clearly answering this with link arguments in a way that doesn’t make you seemed rushed. Even if your arguments are good on this, your rushed demeanor and small time allocation makes you lose credibility. Tell me about this Sean ev you read in the block that says that their missions are impossible for success. Making all of the steps they’d need to have a terror attack seem absurd helps your argument that they are just fear mongering. 2AR: Go in order. It’s confusing. Do analysis on the realism point. You just tell me realism inevitable, WHY? And don’t just extend your argument, answer theirs (i.e. leads to extinction). What is the point of all this framework arguments on both side? It seems like everyone agrees everyone gets to weigh their impacts.