Hopkins+Final


 * || EPDW ||  ||   ||   || WayzataZZ ||   ||
 * || WilliamWu ||  ||   ||   || Leightron Zhou ||   ||
 * || Victor Dorobantu ||  ||   ||   || Orien Zeng ||   ||

2AC -- You spend far too much time on case. On a lot of this, you can just extend cards that you already read in the 1ac.

2NC -- Be more offense oriented in your speech. WHen extending the "mad scientist" disad, you need to respond to their argument that nanotech would solve this. I know you think you are ahead on that link level, but you need a fallback position in case you lose that argument.

2AC -- Cross ex -- you are not going to get them to agree with you.

1NR -- You do an ok job extending the OST DA. However, you need to answer this nanotech argument.

1AR -- First, you spend a lot of time in your 1ar reading uniqueness cards for a funding trade-off argument. SInce you are aff, you really do not have a link to that argument in this debate. Second, your "underview" was not useful. let the 2AR make those args.

This whole spending tradeoff piece confuses me. It seems to me, the aff, in the 1ar, decided to read a disad to their own plan. The plan would trade off with spending on nanotechnology. what the 2NR should do, is concede this argument and say it is a better more direct internal link than the affirmative's advantage.

2AR -- Don't answer T when the 2NR drops it. However, I think you are correct on this question for what it is worth.