Feleke,+Hanna

toc =6/28/2011= 1NC: Hannah

- Nice and clear! You can work on building even more speed while you stay as clear and fluid as you currently are. - Make sure to transition between arguments – that can be a flowing disaster for your judge since your transitions between arguments were nondescript from the rest of your speech as well as between cards.

1NR: Hannah

- Don’t double cover. Work on explaining your argument and then making comparative statements about the disad risk versus the aff.

=6/29/2011=

I dont want to hear impact calc in the 2nc - Good coverage of their positions (in both the 2ar and 2ac), barely anything they said went by without some contest - you're very good at reading off evidence and pre-written material, but you need to make sure the work is yours and you do a bulk of it (otherwise you wont really have much to say in CX)

Everyone had a good CX attitude and pretty good questions, i was impressed - everyone could afford to work on organization a little more, some DA answers and general responses were sort of all over the place - everyone needs to keep in mind what is going to help them win/lose them the round and stick to those points more than just answering the opponents arguments and extending your arguments on that point.

=6/30/2011= 2AC: I like the analyticals especially on the weaponization DA! But it is always better to back up your analytics with evidence especially in the uniqueness debate. Don’t just say we postdate, say we postdate and this is why. Also I think you need to work on a world view of debate. Look at how the arguments work together for instance their arguments on case along with the weaponization DA.

2AR: You start out trying to go a little fast in this your 2AR especially start out slower and speed up throughout your speech. I love that you start with an overview YAY HANNA! Your speech could be a tad more organized, in the 2AR especially it's important to be organized and clear about why you are going to win the debate. Also if you don't have anything else to say it is totally cool to end on a good note instead of repeating yourself! Otherwise great job.

=7/01/2011=

Joe/Ben Hanna/Marie Really good arguments in the 1nr about comparing your cards to theirs—definitely picked up on that during the skills session today. Great job! You want to be sure to put the case arguments last in the 1nc—you want to be sure that you get through all 3 of your off case arguments first (assuming you think they are important). Make sure not to make a defensive argument on case about the economy if you are going to read a DA with an economy impact. You want to face the judge as you ask questions.

=7/7/2011= 1N – Hannah • Since you already disclosed the negative strategy to the other team, there’s not really any good reason to take prep time before the 1NC. Have those arguments prepared before the debate ideally, but at the very worst get it ready during the 1AC. • Focus on speaking drills that have you read backwards or switch sentences from backwards to forward. These drills force you to identify words individually, and should help avoid breaks and ums in words. • Be careful reading both politics and the budget DAs in the 1NC. There is some tension at the level of the link. If Congress is funding the plan, it’s hard to understand why NASA’s budget would have to trade off. • The Cap K and the Politics DA explicitly contradict on the level of the impact. This is more than a little problematic. You should figure out a way to answer that question, because it’s inevitably going to happen that you get asked about. • With no counterplan, you probably need to run case. Otherwise, the DAs will likely not outweigh the aff, making it extremely difficult to go for them as a strategy. • Don’t interrupt the 2AC to ask your opponent to repeat an argument. Not only is this rude, but it is unfair of you to do when the 2AC only has 8 minutes. • You should NEVER need 1NR prep! You’ve had 13 minutes PLUS all of the 2NC prep to prepare this 5 minute speech. This is only going to hurt your partner’s ability to prep the 2NR. • You need to do a better job flowing. While I know the 2AC cross-x made it seem like they said nothing, they did read a link turn on politics about the GOP. • If they didn’t read any cards on uniqueness, don’t bother reading more evidence; if anything, it just gives them an opportunity to read cards of their own in response to your “new” evidence, something you never want to let them do. • There were no case arguments in the 1NC or even the 2NC, so to read case arguments now is too little too late. You have to read those early on in the debate. • Don’t end by turning to me and shrugging. Clearly you need to keep talking!

=7/10/2011=

--what precisely is your 2nr strategy? Its difficult to say what you are doing with this weaponization argument and hwo it will fit in with the other things you are supposedly extending in the 2nr --evidence is useful, and you are doing a good job selecting it and often a good job utilizing it as well, but you should only be reading new evidence in the 2nr under EXTREMELY rare circumstances, and I don’t think you have any of those in this debate --do the debris and weaponziation arguments work together? Do you have an overall story for how the world works if the plan passes and a coherent way that these arguments operate --get to the k with only 1:30 left, not really a recipe t win the debate on this advocacy—this is not even to mention that your argument seems to link (at least equally) to the disads and the status quo—you either need to make this argument extremely narrow to china (such that the das don’t link) or go for this argument in a more coherent and thorough fashion

=7/14/2011= 2N – Hanna • Be careful that you are flowing the 1AC so you know what exactly the affirmative has read. Don’t assume that the aff has read certain cards. • You need to provide more comparative warrants in your speech. It’s very spotty and just seems to be tagline extensions of your arguments. • You’re doing a much better job explaining the hegemony arguments. Make sure that you’re providing impacts to your arguments. Why do they matter? • You need to make sure you’re leaving stuff for Jevons to take. Spend more time on other flows, make better comparisons and impact arguments. You need to focus more on drawing out the warrants of your arguments and providing reasons why they disprove or outweigh the warrants of the aff team. • You’re reading decent pieces of evidence, but you’re reading them pretty randomly. You might want to focus on drawing out specific arguments and explaining them yourself. • Weaponization + Debris alone in the 2NR probably are not enough to outweigh the case. You need to combine the case arguments from the block along with these in order to outweigh the case.