Ouellette-Howitz,+Lillian

toc =6/28/2011= 2nc: extend the case arguments you read in the 1nc, many of them were not answered but they get lost in the neg block. stylistically you speak relatively well. don't read arguments that don't have an impact, if they don't have an impact, they don't matter. good job trying to make analytic takeouts and impact comparison

2nr: good speech. make sure you know how to kick disads, it's a really important and simple skill to learn. even many of the top varsity teams are bad/lazy at kicking d/a's and have lost rounds because of it. good job making impact comparison. try to cite specific cards and their warrants instead of generalizations, makes you more persuasive. but yeah, nice speech overall

in general: flowing is extremely important for the reason that you need to look at what your partner and your opponents said and base your speech off that. neg needs to center their speech around the aff's most threatening arguments. aff needs to base their rebuttals on the arguments made by your partner in his/her last speech. a lot of arguments were made and got lost later in the debate on both sides. make sure to be pulling all of your arguments through.

good job overall and not bad at all for your first camp debate

=6/29/2011= The 1AC sounds good. You are clear and move at a decent clip. That means you could most likely be faster. I thought that your 1AR was good, but that you could shore up some of your arguments by more carefully extending them from the 2AC. Make sure that you let me know how you think your argument relates to the 2AC, or if it's new, why that should be justified. Good work reading some impact turns to cap. Try and generate some offense on the DAs too.

Tim

=6/30/2011=

Good idea making perm answers in the 1ar, you should justify them (they are new) by pointing out that the 2nc on the K was almost entirely new. I think you also need to talk more about the aff impact as the net benefit to the perm. Good work extending the impact later on the DA, and explaining why a nuclear war is still likely. It seems like you are running out of breath a lot in your speech, so maybe consider slowing down a little bit. I think that will help you sound more confident and strong.

=7/10/2011= 1N/2N – Lillie • Good job pressing Purva on the impact arguments. Figuring out exactly why each of the impacts are truly supported and which you could turn is a very worthwhile objective, even if the current evidence set doesn’t give you the ability to impact turn various arguments. • Good job pushing on alternative causality arguments in the cross-x of the 1AC. • You don’t need to identify what each of the offcase arguments you are reading are. Just call them “2 off and case”. • Much live Purva, you can definitely push yourself to be faster during the 1NC. You are 100% clear on every argument, which means you definitely have room to make yourself go faster. It’s only a question of pushing yourself. • If you’re going to flow in a notebook, at least tear the pages out when you’re using them. Trying to flip between notebook pages when different speakers organize the pages different can be a catastrophe. • Push harder on your questions concerning capitalism. Don’t just repeat her arguments when she concludes them, instead push her on the logical consequences of her answers. • Your rich/poor gap, “left behind” articulation of the impact is good, but you might want to read the “no value to life” argument at this point of the overview because it would impact the statement you just made. • Good job reading the Kovel card relatively quickly, but I might have read more of the “collapse inevitable” style arguments at this point. As long as you win the inevitability argument, your impacts become much more relevant than any impact turns • Good job on the line-by-line. Just be careful not to spend too much time on any given argument (even though since you are almost forced to go for cap because of your strategy you need to make sure you have covered the relevant args on that flow). • Good job extending your cards by their author name and then laying out the warrants. The next step is to take this warrant/card extension and compare it to their evidence/arguments and conclude why this is the best argument. Once you master this, you will be much, much better off overall. • Always bring up more evidence than you can possibly read for any given speech. At the very worst, you don’t get through everything, but you avoid not having anything to say when you come to the end of an otherwise efficient and effective speech. • Good job pointing out the econ advantage as a link, but you need to push them more on what their impact evidence says, because they are almost certainly going to extend that at the end of the round. • Great job splitting the block and going for both a DA and a K as a maverick. A lot of people your age would not be able to competently go for both arguments. • Good job articulating the DA as a net benefit to the K. Keep in mind that you can go for the DA and the alternative EVEN IF capitalism is inevitable. • Good job isolating and warranting the impacts to the K in the 2NR. Double good for pointing out that the impacts are coinceded. • The internal link between unemployment/starvation and extinction is tenuous at best. You need to isolate SYSTEMIC reasons why capitalism will necessitate extinction (an argument which is made fairly convincingly by anti-capitalist authors). • Good identification of the consumption mentality and how the affirmative engages in it. Be sure to impact this argument.

=7/15/2011=

Lillie—Start the 2AR with some more work on the macro level of the debate—what is the comparison that you want me to make to resolve the determinations of the debate? Is it an advantage vs a disad etc? I agree that you are prolly a little ahead on the uniqueness level of the disadvantage—but I think you are wrong on the link level of perception, IDK about the evidentiary question, bt there is a logical statement by the neg why China freaks out right now. You need a warrant as to why your permutation is not intrinsic, on face I think it is. It seems like there might not be any offense in the 2AR. Even if you are winning some of the individual arguments and winning them soundly, I don’t know why they mean you win the debate.