Owen,+Matt

toc =6/28/2011= //2A – Matt//
 * Good use of comparative magnitude, probability, and timeframe arguments.
 * You’re taking too long explaining what their arguments are. Try to sum up their arguments in 4 words or less and then spend the majority of the time making your arguments.
 * You might want to take a little more prep time in order to better flow the arguments that you’re making. You have a limited number of speech time and you want to maximize the number of arguments you’re making here. Efficiency is king.
 * Good job using analytical arguments to attack the theoretical underpinning of their arguments.
 * Don’t let your opponent ask you questions in cross-x. Remain in control so you can determine the flow of the questioning and drive it toward a certain end.
 * Take the rest of your prep time and figure out precisely what you’re going to say and answer, and maybe use an overview to organize the arguments you want to make (especially the impact comparison).
 * Good job on the impact comparison arguments. Impacts win debates, and you are doing a good job emphasizing them at the end of the debate.

-Talon

=6/29/2011= Thank you for being attentive to prep time!!!! Also good reading, you are clear and fast. I suggest putting your offcase positions first instead of case defense just to make sure you get through all of them. If you miss a couple case cards, it’s not that big of a deal, but if you were to miss reading part of a DA (or K, in this case) it means you lose a big part of your strategy. Good distinction in CX between different types of war. The more you can differentiate between impacts (not all wars are the same!) the more ahead you will be on impact calc. You seem to have a really good understanding of how to utilize the K alternative based on your CX answers–consider taking it for the 1nr in another demand round? I think your concession on the debris DA is really sneaky–the debris cards the aff read actually say that satellites are already being hit. If they had read a link turn (which they didn’t), you could NOT have conceded uniqueness because it would be giving an advantage to the aff (that they solve debris). Also, once you concede the DA uniqueness, extending the DA impact isn’t that significant because the thing that causes the impact (debris) is already occurring. You still get the aff solvency argument though, which is very good.

=7/1/2011= Matt - too many uhs. took 4 minutes to read 3 off. Need to shorten tags omg did jay frank cut these cards? Watch the timer and pick and choose your cards more carefully Matt - cx: be more direct, keep eye contact. oral kritik Matt - type up an overview for the DA debate and why DA outweighs and turns the case. good division of the line by line.

= 7/11/2011 =

Matt you are clearly a great debater, but I think that you let your emotions show a little bit too much. There are going to be debaters that are going to want to mess with you and make a worse debater but you gotta learn how to ignore them because if you let them get to you then they win and they will push you into debating worse. I think you had great analysis on T just don't get sucked into the negs game.

=7/13/2011= 1N - Matt • Try to manage what you’re doing with your hands. If you just put them out on the podium in front of you, you don’t do the hand massage thing you’re currently doing, which just looks baffling. • You can almost certainly speak faster than this. Push yourself! • It’s JEN-o-cide, not GENE-o-cide. • You randomly started to pick up speed near the end. Where was this earlier in the speech? Work on consistency in your delivery. • This voter on rules for practice rounds is pretty inane. I agree with you in the abstract, but pointing out the “round voter” point is pretty petty. • Most of your analysis on the debris DA is repetitive. You need to get in and get out on these analyticals. If you’re going to spend time drawing out the warrants of your arguments, focus on the impact and not on minute distinctions on a fairly uncontested point. • Good job re-reading relevant text out of your cards to answer their points, but you need to be sure that you’re impacted the argument in general. • After the 1NR on the K, I understand why the aff impacts are illusory (although limiting your analysis to warming is slightly problematic), but you aren’t focusing on the external impacts to the K. Those are what’s going to allow you to win independently, outside of policy failure args.

=7/15/2011= 1N - Matt •	This vagueness argument is idiotic. They’re reading the resolution and justifying their action generically. They literally link to everything. •	No one is going to vote on these theory arguments. Literally no one. •	I’m a little baffled as to the links to the security K. What are they securitizing? Why is that going to lead to war and genocide? •	You had a bunch of time to come up with a varied strategy. Instead you guys came up with 2 Ks that barely link and two terrible procedurals. You could definitely have done better. •	You should probably exclusively read the V2L impact to capitalism, since that’s the only real impact to the aff and any external impact you read will be K’d by the aff team. •	It’s a little confusing what you are going to use these util good args for. To get the impact to cap? You would probably be better off pushing them on exactly what their case does. •	Don’t get so personally offended by this aff. It affirms the resolution and not a specific plan, and it doesn’t have a bunch of nuclear war impacts, but the “you’re not a policy” argument is just a 1990s “wrong forum” argument and should be left for dead. •	If you want to extend a theory argument, you have to extend your interpretation, reasons why they violate it, and reasons why it’s bad. All of your args assume that your vagueness argument is self-referential, except it really isn’t. •	This long rant about looking at space is not an argument, it’s basically a diatribe with no link or warrant. I’m baffled how saying we think space is an open frontier means we commit free-form genocide. •	If we truly adopt a deontological framework, we wouldn’t reject aliens or others because they lack “use”, because the entire K of consequentialism is based on rejecting the idea of viewing things as only good as a means to an end.