Avendano,+Imanol

toc =6/28/2011= Very good 1NR. You have excellent line by line and word economy skills. There were a few arguments which you did not make responsive arguments to: for example, Tianna said that space weaponization is inevitable, and you answered by saying that it is bad – this is not responsive. If space weaponization is definitely going to happen in the future, whether it is good or bad is irrelevant. Also, you did a good job making impact analysis, but you should always make impact analysis at the top of the flow in your overview. Explaining magnitude/probability/timeframe is good, but it’s much better to compare the magnitude/probability/timeframe of your disad to the magnitude/probability/timeframe of their affirmative.

=6/29/2011= - Good job extending the dropped advantage efficiently - Good job on case, try and be more efficient, you don’t need the overview, you can integrate the relevant arguments into the line by line and make the impact comparisons on bottom - Don’t say “second of all”, just say “2” or “second” - Good analysis on case solves the DA impact - Be faster on your transitions between flows - You should make more arguments to hedge against - Prep quieter – the 2N could just sit and start prepping if they hear the arguments you’re telling the 1AR to extend - When extending Dolman, you need to do more to explain why it takes out their impact – “their impact is based on an arms race, if we militarize space first, it deters other nations which means there wont be an arms race. Arms races will only occur in the status quo if the US doesn’t get there first, which means we solve the impact” - You do a good job at the start of your case outweighs shpeel, but you need more warrants in it – WHY does case outweigh, WHY are you more probable, HOW does going to space solve their impacts - Don’t say “you can extend”, just “extend”. - I’m not sure why you’re letting them get away with the alternative business, force them to defend the non unique DA

=7/6/2011= 1N – Imanol •You can definitely go faster than you’re going on tags right now. Your clarity is really good, but you can probably add an additional card or two if you pick up speed. •Good distribution of time in the 1NC. I like the combination of the DA, the CP, the K, and a bundle of case arguments. Enough variety to give you options, and plenty of case args to force the 2AC to take time. •Be careful on the NASA budget position and the debt ceiling DA, because the two arguments have some tension on the link level. •You need to be careful just kicking out of a link turned DA by extending a no impact arg. They can read another argument in the 1AR and make it a very difficult/very gross 2NR for Dai’Quan. •Good job isolating specific links to the K from analysis that was made both by the affirmative team and by their 1AC authors. •Very efficient 1NR on the K. •Your ten years argument is probably not a great argument to answer their U.S. preventative weapons advantage argument, if only because the argument is just that it becomes financially and logistically untenable because there is already a gap between other countries intentions and their actual ability to deploy space weapon systems. •Good job isolating the rise of terrestrial arms races during the space deployment period. You need to take the next step and analyze how the two impacts would interact with one another (what would be the role of preemptive warfare, terrestrial deterrence, etc.).

=7/7/2011=

Imanol—let DQ answer some more of these questions, he can handle it, ur undercutting his credibility—that said, your answers are very good—you can call the advs anything that you want, but after the 1ac its better to just call them, “space war” and “leadership” or something—be a little more together with ur shit before u stand up for the 2ac (this isn’t terrible, but u can give an impression of togetherness that will bump ur speaker points drastically)—maybe more evidence on the weapinization argument? This is functionally a case turn right, so I think ur time investment is worth another card or 2—offense on budget did u haz it?—offense on debris? I know the cards suck and u are making this argument in the satellites thing but make it more explicitly offense, plus, u do not need to read 4ish pieces of ux evidence—you sound real good and by the end of the speech ur pretty fast, but u could start faster, speed drillz boiiiii!!—put the contradictory shit on the cap flow, doesn’t need a new one—change the 2AR order, make the beginning of the speech more about the relevant question, make the “now or later” question on the top of the case flow when u get there—even if you don’t have a ton of shit on thie cap flow, make some stuff up—for instance this permutation is also an indict to the solvency of the alternative

= 7/11/2011 =

If you have a minute left in your speech, probs don't launch into your kittens good impact turn. Don't be rude in cross ex, if they says what is the status of the CP just SAY CONDITIONAL! DON'T SAY PROBABLY. Also, judges know when you are trying to waste the other teams time, it makes them like you less which will then reduce your speaker points. Don't swear in debates, it is a bad habit to get into and some judges will dock you points hardcore. You were really great on T, very clear! Good job dividing the T into issues, interp, counter interp etc. You mess with the other team too much, don't do that in a real round.

=7/12/11=

NEVER EVER put case on the bottom for three reasons. 1) You could drop it/undercover it, 2) It makes you look like a dumbass, 3) It means you lose a framing tool for your speech (if you start talking about the 1ac, it puts the rest of ur answers in the context of that impact). Also, don't argue with your judge when they give you advice. Don't make RVIs on T. I think the contradiction argument on politics is ok, and certainly works in this case, but you need to be doing more work to make it fly with a advanced K debater. First, you need to explain why the economic collapse that occurs with kicking and fighting (that you are conceding as their DA impact) is the same thing they are advocating when they call for a critical rejection of capitalism (and I don't think it is). Additionally, you need to answer the rest of the cap K (why weaponizing space isn't fucked up in and of itself, and why the affirmative wouldn't bring back capitalism). Also, you need to think more about what it means to concede econ collapse in context of the aff's advantages–if the US has a totally collapsed economy, how are they a global leader in terms of anything? It seems like the 2nc would have a very easy job explaining why you took out your own advantage. Good job making a perf con argument. The extra THREE MINUTES of teh 2ac should be spent making the arguments I list above, reading other cap cards and defense on the politics adv. Never ever make a framework argument that is neg=cp and squo. Never ever. I think the smarter thing to do in the 2ac would be to make the perf con argument (you do this, good ups), then use the politics impact as evidence of the inevitability of capitalism and a reason why the alternative doesn't solve. Go for your hege arguments against security and cap–your aff is NOT BUILT as a link turn to critiques.2ar: Good ups extending the theory argument, you do a good job on it. Say something like "i recognize this was quick but they DROPPED IT!!!!!" or something to emphasize their snafu. I think you do a pretty good job given the 2nr (spotting the lack of alternative etc). You, however, are making a BUNCH of new arguments on the cap-security interaction. Skip these, and roll with the realism-aff benefits to the permutation. Explain what it means for case to outweigh if the ECON has collapsed. How can the US stop a china war? How, in fact, can we even put weapons in space (which need to be developed etc)?

7/15/2011

Sassimal—do you have a warrant for the heg perception argument on the timeframe differential? I also don’t understand what the overall significance of this argument is, what does it mean in relation to the disads? Just say it briefly. Good job on the permutation. Seems like there is a lot of shit in the 1NR, is everything being covered adequately? Should you be reading more evidence somewhere? You should definitely be setting up the big picture on the disads more.