Goetz,+Saunder

toc =6/28/2011= Saunder, sometimes you overly explain things. What you should be focused on is extending specific warrants instead of explaining the same one several times. Just be confident you are correct the first time. I also noticed Saunders misunderstands a few of the cards arguments/how they function in debates which caused him to make a few confusing arguments. I would just be careful of this in the future.

=6/29/2011= 1A – Saunder • You are more than certainly clear, yet at the same time you could speak much more smoothly. In future debates, focus on speaking clearly and smoothly first, then gradually ramp up your speed over time. Your speaker points will almost certainly increase. • You have 1:35 left at the bottom of your speech. ADD MORE IMPACT/MUST ACT NOW CARDS TO YOUR 1AC! There’s no reason to leave time unused at the bottom of the 1AC. • Don’t turn and face your opponent during cross-x. You’re always debating for the benefit of the judge. • Good job pressing the 1N on the warrants on her evidence during cross-x, but you need to strategically use these presses to set up arguments of your own. Getting a bunch of minor concessions only helps you a little bit. • When you’re answering arguments they’ve made, refer back to evidence you’ve already read. The arguments you’re making aren’t bad, but they lack any external reference to anything you’ve already debated. • You need to give more warrants to respond to their arguments in the 1AR. The speech is time-pressured, so that’s not easy, but you need to balance this with the need to get warrants out. The best compromise is to use time answering positions to extend and explain cards you have already read. • Good job focusing on the perm argument, but you need to warrant out the reasons why the permutation is good or can solve most of the impacts of the K. • You can read new cards in the 1NR, you just can’t make new arguments. It’s almost always better to focus on answering arguments instead of trying to limit them out of the debate.

-Talon

=6/30/2011= Practice Round #3 May(1A) and Sam (2A) VS Saunder (1N) and Gaochy (2N) Judge: Jane

Saunder-1NC If possible, try to make frontlines to each advantage. Even if you don’t have cards for everything, you can make defensive impact take outs and dealing with each advantage individually makes your case attack stronger, more credible, and makes it more likely you won’t forget about any of the specific impact scenerios for the 1ac.

Great speed. You may want to begin you speech a little slower to let the judge to adjust to hearing a new voice before you turn your jets on full force. However, you’re extremely clear, which is quite impressive. Try to work on stressing the most persuasive and important parts of your evidence by changing your vocal inflection.

Happy to see you ready to jump up right after cross-s, ready to go, with a clear order/roadmap.. Great beginning for a 1n’s ethos!

Need to more clearly note your transition to case arguments. I flowed a few of your solvency arguments on the Debris DA. Other judges may not be as familiar with the evidence packet and realize you were transitioning. Make sure to fill all your 1AC time. You had 30 seconds left.

You don’t have to defend conditionality with the K and two Das. You can say you’re either going for the K alt or the SQ. We call that logical limited conditionality, which means that a good policymaker should always have the ability to default to the SQ if the affirmative is proven to be a net bad policy. You’re not defending multiple conditional worlds, since you only have one K alt, so you can be a bit tricker with how you explain and avoid most generic theory arguments about condo.

Saunder-1NR Have a plan when you go up to cross-x the 2ac. Have a piece of paper you right cross-x questions and strategies on before hand. Make sure to use all the time.

Great line by line at the beginning of the k. You are correct to make arguments about the K’s alt being mutually exclusive with the alternative. Next make an argument about why the permutation still links (or read your link block there). You make a decent cooption argument too! However, it appears you are free flowing without any blocks. Try to write blocks to arguments you know are coming.

Also, I heard you say to your partner during the speech that you can’t read new evidence in the 1NR. Not true! You should def read new evidence in the 1NR. You need to in order to compete against the 2ac. You just don’t want to read new off case postitions in the 1nr.

Good job being comparative on the case debate. You extend your stories of the 1ac well. Again, watch out for those dreaded “underviews”. All your extra logical analysis should come in your overviews for the arguments where you quickly restate the arguments thesis, impact, prob, and point out a 2ac strategic error. Use all your time, even just 10 secs!

=7/5/11=

You don’t have to repeat the entire affirmative argument before answering it. Try just saying the “header” of the argument. So, “alt cause”, “quals”, etc. That way you save a LOT of time and don’t do the neg the benefit of having their argument reiterated for the judge. Include a verbal pause between points and sentences. A lot of the 2ac seems to run together a little bit, especially when you are ending an argument and starting a new one. Make your argument, end your sentence, and signal with both your tone and your words that you are moving on. You are pretty clear however, good job. I think your time allocation is pretty good–it was not a big 1nc so I would use the extra time to really bury the K alt and do a really good job extending case impacts (which you should do at the top of the DA/k). I don’t know if going for the perm in the 2ar makes a whole lot of sense–it wasn’t really articulated as much more than a test of competition in the rest of the debate, and wasn’t thoroughly explained as something that actually solves the alt. Spend more time explaining the case impact and why the DA doesn’t matter.

=7/6/2011= Start slower—you won’t be able to keep up this speed. I really liked that the first thing I heard after cx of the 2ac was how you and Andy were splitting the block! This was good, but you want to be sure to split the block appropriately based on 2ac coverage. Really good CP solves argument at the beginning of the 1nr—but explode that argument more. If that is true, what does it mean for the rest of the debate? You have about 30 seconds left—is there anything else you can do in the 1nr?

=7/11/2011= 1N - Saunder • You need to be way clearer on your tags. It’s almost impossible to discern what you’re saying, and I’ve heard all of these cards dozens of times now. • I would probably not even identify the internal net benefit to the CP as a separate arg. Just keep reading the cards on that flow. It’s conceivable the other team will entirely miss or forget to answer the arg when they grab for their block. • Your framework argument is completely unconvincing when you run a number of positions that rely on evidence. If you want this argument to be actually tenable, you should probably make it a consistent arg. • You need to make it clearer when you are moving between flows. It’s hard to tell when you transition. • Discussing whether or not monkeys are going to move is not a particularly useful way to spend your time. • You need to provide more warrants on the DA to the CP. You’re basically restating their arg, saying “no that’s not true”, and occasionally stating one warrant after that. Focus on the warrants distinguishing your args from theirs. • Four conditional advocacies is a pretty stupid interpretation. At that point, you may as well just say as many conditional advocacies as you want and say that harder debate is better debate. • You clearly did not write this conditionality block at camp. You aren’t supposed to read a theory arg that wasn’t written at camp. • Your theory args about value to life are inane. Fairness can still matter in a world lacking value to life.

= 7/12/2011 =

I think you do a great job of looking at what arguments that you need to win the round and focusing on them. I think you are right about the long term thinking argument that they don't access it so good jorb on the CP deficit argument. Don't just say the perm was dropped, say which one. Also try and be more friendly in round. It will help you out if you try and act more likable in round.