Goel,+Purva

toc =6/28/2011= Kyndra/Maci vs Purva/Michaela You don’t have to announce the actual arguments you will be reading—just the number of arguments and order they will be in. Really good reading pace, but make sure you are able to get the K in as well (assuming you want it in the 1nc as you all said). You may want to cut out some of the case arguments, or do the K first. 1nr—good to pick up on the fact you just need to read the impact cards, but make sure to answer the inevitability arguments and also answer without just reading cards—ok, you just read these first. All the uniqueness and link cards you read don’t really need to be read

=6/29/2011= Do impact analysis at the beginning of the 1AR and then extend the cards Michaela already read – don’t just read new cards. When you are doing impact analysis, you need to be more specific than “we have a big magnitude” = explain exactly what your impacts are. For example, “asteroids will destroy the earth because they force from hitting earth will cause a massive explosion, and will send dust into the atmosphere which will block out the sun and make everything on earth freeze”. Make sure you extend arguments on every flow. Use all your time.

=6/30/2011=
 * Solid, I appreciate your consistency


 * Although you were a good volume by minute 2, it was a little hard to hear you at the beginning of the speech (which is also where yo plan text is). Try to raise your volume a bit more in the beginning and I think your speech will be more impactful.


 * 1AR: This was a difficult speech to give. On the one hand, you already had limited time, and on the other, this team seemed ready to go on the Cap debate. IF you are looking for a way to increase your argument base, try diagramming the arguments in your cards. It will help give you a sense of each author and increase the number of arguments your have ready to go in your head.

=7/1/2011= 1N - Purva 1NC - good job on speed and clarity, continue with your speed drills. Try not to take prep time for the 1NC or the 1NR unless absolutely necessary. 1NR - Great job on the impact calculus on the DA. It was nice to see you weight both the impacts of the neg's against that of the Aff's. I think a story/extension of the 1NC shell is important and would help your 1NR a lot and do a service to the 2NR. This is the part where the DA is explained to the judge as a story, and also so that the parts, the link and internal links are extended. An overview at the top with an explanation of the DA would have given much more credibility to the prolif impacts. You did a good job of answering the line-by line, but an answer of the weaponization is inevitable arguments would have been nice to have in the 1NR. Good job =]

General Comments: Overall I thought this was a good debate in which clash was being made over the impacts and everyone was doing a great job with their impact calc. I felt that the debaters were doing a good job on the line by line isolating different areas of arguments on the aff's solvency to argue and referring to their opponent's cards when mitigating their importance. However I feel that the debaters focused so much on the micro that they forgot much of the macro or the big picture of the round. The aff should use their aff more as offense in the round against the DA's especially when the Asteroid Mining advantage is hardly being contested. This should be factored more into the impact calc that the 1AR and 2AR made, (This could even be utilized in the 2AC making these impact comparisons). The Neg, both in the neg block and the 2NR, needed to do a better job of explaining and extending the shell of the weaponization DA. The neg focused on the line-by line and the args made by the aff, but needs to also paint a picture of the DA as a story so the judge can understand the effects of the Aff plan.

Also there was a huge point being made about fiat in this debate. Fiat means, yes, that the plan happens, however it doesn't mean that money appears from no where and funds the plan. The plan is funded but the money must come from a source and that's the link on the Budget Trade-off DA, that it currently comes out of existing NASA projects. Fiating funding does no - link the neg's DA. I'd recommend asking your lab leaders/coaches how fiat functions in regards to the aff plan again.

This round was a great example of debating though with clash on a variety of different topics in the debate. This was especially good on case in which both teams debated the solvency evidence and used their and the opponents cards in their impact calc. Remember to always argue the merits of your impacts against those of the opposing team and give reasons why Time frame is more important than the inevitability of the aff's impacts and vice versa. This is especially important in the rebuttles where you tell the judge why exactly their voting for you and not the other team, so that the judge doesn't even have to think because you're giving all the reasons to sign the ballot your way.

=7/10/2011= 1A – Purva • You can speak much faster than this while reading your 1AC. There is literally no clarity issue with your speech, so definitely push yourself to go faster. • You need to win both the warrants for your impact arguments in the cross-x and reasons why your solvency can deal with the problems Lillie identifies in the 1AC cross-x. • Don’t leave over a minute of cross-x on the table! That’s free prep time for your partner! Even if you’re asking literally irrelevant questions, it’s still worth spending that time doing it to give Sienna an additional minute of untimed prep. • You HAVE to go faster in the 1AR. There are entirely too many arguments for you to go inefficiently in this speech • GREAT job reading more evidence to support your args in the 1AR. Good job picking up improvements in the speech redos this afternoon and making them a normal part of your speeches this evening. • A two month gap does not necessarily disprove their uniqueness arg. If Obama is actually committed to anti-weaponization strategies, there is little chance that the U.S. will weaponize, even absent a treaty agreement. • You need to focus on warrants in this speech. You say that capitalism is sustainable, but WHY is it sustainable. You say that the aff solves, but WHY does it solve? These are the distinctions that will win you the debate. • You absolutely cannot afford to leave 1:20 on the table at the end of the 1AR. Spend that time either reading new cards or, more importantly, making the analysis necessary to win you this debate.

=7/13/11=

Start asking questions right away in CX, never ever ever let your partner take over for you first thing. You are very efficient on T in the 1ar but are not going very fast–try and push yourself alittle more (you are very clear). I think you should point out the lack of a standards debate as a reason I shouldn't vote on T. Three things you need to make sure you're always doing in the 1ar are 1) Front loading offense–put your best args on top, 2) extend ARGUMENTS not cards–if you have a piece of evidence that supports an argument, say that after you have extended and explained the impact to the argument, and 3) have embedded clash–each argument you make should be an extension of a 2ac argument, within that extension you answer the neg argument. You sound really good on politics (doing each of the things I mentioned above) and are going much faster. Go at this speed for all of the 1ar.