Susko didn’t think there was a voter or an impact on substantial. What exactly do you say to those points? One problem might be that you’re giving superficial analysis. Hausrath’s ballot also suggests this problem since he’s particularly snippy that you’re saying that “Not being T=cheating,” which is definitely not enough to earn a ballot. Your voter/impact discussion needs to look a lot more like this:
Narrow interpretations are key to all negative strategy –
( ) Case-specific strategies are educational core negative ground – vast literature exists for topic-specific trade-off disads, specific politics or court disad links, presidential power disads, etc. along with in-depth debates over agent, delegation, or other process counterplans. These are the only core ground because the topic is so broad – the only stable action is what relates to the plan. Core ground is key to fairness because it’s the only thing for which we can consistently prepare.
( ) Their interpretation is an incentive for aff conditionality – they can re-clarify the plan to be done by an alternate actor, or the plan to take a different course of action in the 2AC to avoid our best offense and manipulate the plan to their advantage
( ) Crucial to pre-round preparation – the plan text is the most mainstream form of disclosure and locus of negative strategy formulation before the round – anything else skews time allocation. Adequate pre-round preparation is key to fair debate and education.
Make sure you have analysis like that for all the T impacts you want to win.
Is he saying “7″ minutes were left in 2NC? That’s problematic.
Turning to Benedict’s ballot, he’s right that you can’t run T from the Visa topic. We should be updating all those shells.