This is a good round to learn from. NSDA Nationals is a tournament known for its mixed panels, and the finals round only amplifies this effect. The different teams take a slightly different approach, but neither of them are trying to take a completely flow or lay approach to the round. Both teams are interacting well on the flow without spreading, and making narrative-heavy arguments that are easy to remember without dropping too many arguments or outright losing the flow.

This is a great round to watch for speaking style and interaction. Specifically, look at the way the two opening speeches start, and gauge your ability to follow the two speeches without flowing. It gets harder to follow the later parts of the round, since some are missing, though they're also very good. Note the contrast in argumentation - how the proposition makes principled arguments to contrast with the primarily pragmatic arguments of the opposition, and how the negative can shift their argumentation based on the proposition's strategy.

This is a good round to learn about how to maintain a narrative when defending a difficult side. This topic was "Resolved: the US federal government should adopt a carbon tax." In the literature, among qualified sources, the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of a carbon tax, with the arguments against one coming from right-wing think tanks. However, Whitman is able to create a strong narrative about the real downsides of a carbon tax. Look to how they're able to keep their narrative clear through the round, even without using a one-contention case.

This is a good round to observe the clash between high-magnitude and low-probability contentions, and cases that are more straightforward. MSJ doesn't have a ton of preparation against La Salle's arguments, so watch how they are able to make analytical responses against it. La Salle very clearly outweighs on magnitude, so watch how they frame the impacts of the round.