comments about debate
Brett Bricker
1ac: good and clear.
C-x -- Eigen was good about the number of regulations coming now. I think that Jacob may be helped by pointing to Weiss as the argument for why Natural gas is rising now.
Owen could have gone either way. It is a valid question that their is tension between anderegg and owen
1nc: unclear at beginning. Dont forget that it's a persuasive speech. None of the c-x in the speech.
The Heg bad arguments double-turn the clean tech DA
c-x: Aff wins the T questions. Read a different definition
neg wins j-v questioning -- magnitsky is a different line of questioning
neg wins the natural gas vs. coal inevitable
aff wins line of quesitoning about china. miranda needs to adapt to going for heg bad
2ac: Really good. I'm interested to see if they call your bluff on clean tech.
Careful with the heg sustainable card -- seems to take out your internal link too
c-x:
i think the aff won pretty much every part of this c-x. i'm not meaning to be hard on miranda, it just felt scattered and like there wasn't much foresight put into the line of questioning
"why should university scholars..." aff wins that line of questioning. they are university scholars...maybe i'm biased but that sounds pretty close to experts.
"why should judge look @ comp policy option..." why is the neg letting the aff get away with explaining all of these args?
"MTR..." i think that the neg may be helped by point out how ALL OF THE AFF's IMPACTS TO WARMING are fundamentally biodiversity arguments. it's hard for the neg to win the claim that i should care about mountains when the aff has forwarded a huge contention about how important warming is, and the neg hasn't responded with any impact at all.
2nc: you need to extend solvency deficits in order to make them matter
I would treat the straight-turned DA much differently. This could definitely be used by the aff to prove a pretty sketchy conditionality move.
Extend some case defense. A lot of it goes well with answering their best olvency deficits (hegemony defense, statistics prove, no solvency for ccs in long-term)
you do have a biodiversity imapct -- take a look @ ehrenfeld and nixon
i think you should have miranda read the end of that competitiveness card. it's the best part, and it'll only take 15 seconds
you don't want to stake the WHOLE debate on this fiat trick. you want to be able to win your arguments as a DA + case turn as well. fiat trick should be worst case, but you need to also win that you are functionally reading a big DA to continuing reliance on coal
1nr: i thought this speech was great. my comments are pretty picky:
--too much @ top, when some of those args could apply to the line-by-line.
--there is an impact to T besides limits. precision and intent-to-define shouldn't be AFTERTHOUGHTS they should be front and center because they were the ones that were not answered and they don't have any game against it
--too much time on 50 state fiat, careful with cross-application of no neg fiat to the K
during the 1ar, miranda needed to keep her cool when the 1ar left the T flow. need a better poker face if you think that they've messed something up
1ar: very good speech as well. i think you need to be better about the fw question -- you are good against the epistemology stuff, but not as good on "does the debate leave the room"