Zach+Robinson+good+Lab+room+9v1++2010

__1AC__

Fill up the last 30 seconds with something other than framework.

CX Solid questions on trying to define/show there is not a brink and define what the plan does, but once it becomes clear to the judge they're trying to sidestep an issue, move on.

__1NC__

Listen to the 1AC, and make your case flows match what the advantages were Number the 1NC on case I think this Marine link is shady. The Marines are inherently caught up in the defense agenda and therefore probably already have an opinion about defense policy, e.g. the START DA, and this opinion probably isn't going to change due to unrelated actions. The CX args need to make their way into the way.

CX Really? You can kick each plank of the CP? Don't ask floating PIC, they'll say no or skirt around it, ask "Can the plan exist in the world of the alternative?" Don't waste time asking if you're going to lose because you're a man, you know the answer.

__2AC__

What is with all the prep being taken??? They aren't running anything super original here. I better hear some condo theory. Thank god I did, but time skew arguments are not persuasive. You need to explicitly answer the points on case. It's ok if you want to use embedded clash, but that doesn't mean you You need offense on the DAs. Your blocks are much too defensive. Why so much time spent on the K?

__2NC__

Block needs to cover the Jap politics flow somewhere. You should probably go more line by line on theory. It's their best chance to win the round at this point. Take the double bind argument more seriously. Don't just tell me that they link, do some analysis as to why the CP won't solve back, why the magnitude of the link is greater than the magnitude of the solvency for the CP. Do analysis on case, don't just extend blips. I want warrants. Additionally, make sure you're responding directly to their counterwarrants instead of just extending yours. Should probably say what JASA is. Make your impact analysis comparative. Don't just tell me why yours is fast/big/probable, tell me why theirs isn't.

__1NR__

Do impact analysis, not just turns case analysis. Could probably take the extra case flow. Warrants in tags would help your uniqueness debate. It's not reciprocal on intrinsicness. They say the same actor controls both of the impacts, but the usfg doesn't control Japanese politics. Avoiding reading extra impacts in a world where they don't impact turn makes it safer to avoid impact turns.

__1AR__

It'll help your speaks if you don't say you're done with prep until you have all of your stuff together. Where is some more Kahn econ analysis? You should be harping on this dropped scenario. Saying "they don't have an answer" on perm solves isn't really an argument. Give me warranted analysis as to why it does. If politics are motivated by partisan lines means external issues don't affect politics, doesn't that take out your advantage? Extremely difficult to understand at the top of the START flow with the impact turns. You clearly need to identify when you are moving on to cards. Numbering/lettering your points might help you significantly here. Conditionality probably isn't a reason why you get impact turns.

__2NR__

Needs more analysis on CP solvency. How do you solve political gridlock? Just telling me you do isn't enough. Make impact analysis comparative to their prolif turns. Use the political capital key cards to answer their compartmentalization answers. If Obama needs PC to pass START, shows things that affect PC affect this.

__2AR__

Fantastic in a world where I have all of that in the 1AR/in my flow. I don't have any argument as to why perm solves politics before the 2AR. Spend more time on watered down argument. The turns the DA analysis with Mead is sweet, but again, it's new.