RFD:

I vote affirmative. The negative failed to extend a link or an impact on the federalism disadvantage,
which means I vote aff on the potential that they might solve the advantages. The affirmative also has
several defensive arguments which disprove the disadvantage that are not responded to by the
negative. The first is that the disad is not unique, which isn’t the best argument because a warrant isn’t
extended. The second is the no link argument that says that aff is through the supreme court, and
therefore does not link to federalism.

At the point that there isn’t a disad in the 2NR that is actually extended or contextualized to the
affirmative, the framing question is a moot point. Further, I think the negative’s framing might actually
be an independent reason to vote affirmative, because the aff tells me to reject speciesm because it is
the root of racism and sexism, and the negatives framing arguments all sound like they might be
speciest, although this isn’t where I evaluate the debate because I don’t think I need to at the point that
the negative doesn’t extend a link or an impact.

The counterplan – There isn’t a net benefit. Also, the aff extended the lacy evidence through out the
debate that says that the state doesn’t have the strength to do the aff, as well as the argument that
animal cruelty is only a federal crime, which means states don’t have an enforcement mechanism.

1AC – Yarlagadda

This 1AC is a little confusing to me. I think the impacts and framing arguments are solid, but the solvency
mechanism is somewhat unclear.

1NC – Comito

This speech feels very generic. The solvency of this aff is really sketch, so I think you should make some
analytic arguments about the solvency of the affirmative. You haven’t really answered the affirmative
proper, you only answer the framework. Your topicality shell felt incomplete to me. I didn’t hear a
definition or any voters or standards.

2AC – Connor

Give a roadmap. The argument that animal suffering is the logic of racism and sexism isn’t really
warranted in this debate, and can be arguable seen as offensive. If you’re going to make that claim,
make sure you have a reason that it is true. Your blocks are solid. You could use some comparison,
especially on the impact level. Also, just for clarity the negative did say “state” when they read the
counterplan text, and then clarified that it was typed out incorrectly. Perm the counterplan.

2NC – McGuire

I’m not sure why the disads are more utilitarian than the affirmative. And I’m unsure why utilitarianism
can’t include non-human life. These are all questions I think your framing should answer. I’m just
confused as to what exactly these arguments get you, and instead I would focus on explaining the
affects of nuclear war on non-humans and just outweigh. Toward the end of your speech you started to
get really unclear. Practice doing endurance drills where you double your speech time and practice
reading at full speed for 16 minutes straight – this drill should help you stay consistent throughout your
speech. I don’t know what the drug court arguments get you in this debate, but I think that because you
spent so much time reading those cards you didn’t have enough time to really get into the impact
debate or to compare the disads impacts to the affirmative’s impacts. This speech is too block heavy,
and not enough time is spent actually answering the 2AC warrants, comparing warrants, or framing my
ballot. You are also very light on the link and impact part of this disadvantage.

1NR –

Give a roadmap. You are still missing the internal link between the aff is state jurisdiction, and al qaeda
causes nuclear war. If you’re going for the counterplan, answer the federal key claims. You only have
two arguments on the counterplan, and neither of them are enough to win the counterplan debate, so I
think you should just concede the counterplan unless you’re actually going to invest the time to win this
position. You are too block heavy, and because of it you concede a couple of different really important
arguments like the aff is supreme court.

1AR – you did a good job extending the best arguments from the 2AC. You could have done a better job
at organizing your speech and framing the ballot.

2NR –

This was the wrong 2NR decision. You should have gone for the courts disad, because the 1AC pre-
empted states and ya’ll have never answered it. Ya’ll have also not answered the no link arguments on
the federalism disad. I think the only way you could have won this debate would have been the court
clog disadvantage. You need uniqueness, a link, and an impact to win a disadvantage debate. You have
not extended any of those things. I’m unsure why you spent 2 minutes talking about framework, but
didn’t extend a single link or answer any of the arguments the 1AR extended on the disadvantage. I feel
like this might largely be a flowing issue, and this is why you don’t want to debate off of your blocks.
Because you aren’t listening to the affirmative team, so you aren’t responding to their best arguments.

2AR –

Which framing arguments do you think are new? Be specific, because I don’t see any new ones. Why are
we 3 and a half minutes into this speech and you haven’t answered the disadvantage? That’s their only
offensive argument. Time allocation needs work