Polla,+Lee

toc =6/28/2011=

Cross-X of 1AC: (2N)- I think you need to ask more questions that will set up your off-case positions, you know what you are going to be running, ask about how expensive the plan is, or try to get any links you possibly can. You are trying to put the 1AC into binds and you want them to admit things. You should definitely make sure to use all of your time as well, there are plenty of questions to be asking.

2NC (Lee)- Too much time explaining their case for them, don’t do any work for them. Concentrate on YOUR story, you are saying that asteroids AREN’T a big threat, emphasize these points instead of re-iterating the aff’s arguments.

On the budget—make sure you read the tag, you just jumped right into a card and I’m not entirely sure what you are trying to say. Strategically, you’re taking a bad route on this disad. The 2AC has left you in a GOLDEN position by only playing impact defense. Instead of just reading a new impact story to the disad, which would SLAY the 2AC and put them behind, you are just reading more impacts to the environment. Pay more attention to what is happening in the 2AC so you can better strategically orient yourself in how you answer that with the negative block.

Also, they are spotting you the links, you are wasting your time reading these cards about trade-offs. It’s too late after the 2AC for them to make this argument, so just focus on the parts that are in contention.

2NR- I think you are doing a pretty good job of explaining your arguments, but it’s not really going any further than what has already happened in the debate. It is a good summary of what you have already argued, but it doesn’t do what the vital function of a 2NR-writing the ballot for the judge—does. You need to have more interaction with your arguments and be a little bit more clear about explaining what the impact, in terms of the debate round, of you winning your arguments are. What does it mean if you win that the russian’s already can detect asteroids? Make more comparative arguments about your global warming impact in relation to the asteroid civilization collapse impact. Also, I’m still not entirely sure what the impact to the debris argument is, but the way you articulate it in the 2NR is sort of a case turn, but you’re not describing it in those terms—which you should be. I suppose the impact might be that we can’t get off the rock, but I think that’s kind of silly and different than what you are initially arguing here.

=7/1/2011= 2A - Lee I was very impressed with you especially given into consideration how few debates you've been apart of and the fact that you were thrown into a new partnership a few minutes before the round. 2AC - Blocks are your best friend as a 2A, I think you should have them and I think it was just a matter of organization but remember to read the blocks against the positions and be sure to put offense on the DAs. Word efficiency is something to work on and will come with time. Say "Budget Trade off DA, 1._. 2___ instead of "Now onto my first point"

2AR - Remember you're telling a story of the aff case. Your impacts are real be sure to use the 1AC in the 2AR because that is the foundation of your arguments. Focus on the mining advantage in this round because it is barely contested, and is an almost sure Impact in this round. The impact calc was good but remember to tell the judge why your probability of an asteroid is more pertinent than the neg's time frame claims. "Even if" statements are your best friend. "Even if the negative wins full weight of the DA, the aff's impacts will outweigh because of the 100% probability of an asteroid hitting the earth causing extinction, and that weaponization is inevitable meaning only the aff can prevent extinction" Something to that effect. Great job though.

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.

I was very pleased with this debate and I wish you all the best in your debate careers :)

= 7/3/2011 =

Milkie Luke - Make sure to not change the tone and pitch of your voice when you’re reading the texts of the card – you sound a bit like an auctioneer right now. - Good job distinguishing tags and the plan text though you probably do not need to slow down as much as you are right now. Daiquann - Try not to get so heated in cross-x: it is not increasing the credibility of your line of questioning and hurts your ethos – it’s good to be aggressive but not belligerent.

Sienna - Great speaking voice. You sound good so work on building speed.

Daiquann - Try to help Sienna answer questions but don’t take over your partners cross-x. - Also, you should not plan to read the rest of a procedural in the 1NC, in the 2NC. If you really wanted it as part of your strat, you should make sure to time your partner’s speech so that you can direct her when to switch flows with enough time to complete the argument.

Lee - Great job on analytics. - Your blocks are well written, but try to build in more offense. - You can always read more case cards to answer 1NC arguments and 2AC add-ons when you have extra time but don’t have any more cards to read on offcase arguments.

DAIQUANN! MILKIE LUKE! BOOO! Stop taking over the cross-x’s!!! - Sienna you are doing fine asking questions, just ask more! Lee you also are doing fine answering questions so be more assertive.

Daiquann - Organization!!! Flowing seems to be going pretty well for you but you want to make sure you are ready and have everything you need when you stand up to speak. - You should subdivide your arguments into sections (i.e. “link debate”, “perm debate”, etc.). - Make sure to answer every argument and always be making specific K links to the aff (cards AND analytics). - More permutation answers!!! Danger zone!

Sienna - Good speech but I want to see more of your own ideas! It’s good to have blocks but it also is bad for your aesthetics when it appears you are only reading blocks. - Don’t be afraid to speak up for yourself over Daiquann!

Milkie Luke! - Good speech: work on focusing on offensive arguments. - Great job on the perms and intrinsicness argument on the disad. - The “counter-perm” is really a floating PICs argument and that’s why you should also always make this a theory argument in the 2NC.
 * You should make intrinsicness a theoretical argument.

Daiquann - Woahhhh! Devolution! Need organization!! Think strategy – what is the 2AR going to try to go for? What can lose you the debate? What can win you the debate? - You really need to take the permutations seriously! They’re high risk arguments. - The weakest part of a K is always the alt so make sure to explain how it will result in the aff impacts etc. - The threat construction arg. is good to eliminate the degree of the impacts.

Lee - You are planting in the right place but make sure to answer the rest of the 2NR. - Explain your aff advantages, weigh their impacts versus the K, and explain them as net benefits to your pick of permutation. - Answer the threat con argument and all of the case defense. - Go for your alternative answers too.

=7/7/2011= 2A – Lee •	You need to write up some 2AC blocks. You’re going to drain all of your prep time in debates prior to the 2AC if you don’t write down and reuse arguments against common things like politics or cap or the budget DA. •	Push yourself to talk faster in the 2AC. You have very little time in this speech, and you need to get out every argument you can. Your “no link” argument on cap took the first 40 seconds of your speech. •	Good job identifying reasons why capitalism is sustainable, but you need to impact that argument. Remember that the alternative will claim that it destroys capitalism even if it won’t be destroyed now. •	ALWAYS include a “Perm – Do Both” argument with your perms. •	You don’t need to repeat your perm arguments if your opponent didn’t get them. Don’t listen and just move on. •	You need to do more than just read link turn evidence on politics. If you don’t prove that the DA is not unique, all you have done is proven a no link argument. Link turns are absolutely the way to go on politics, just be sure to read both parts. •	Remember, the 2AC is your last opportunity to bring up new offense in the debate. Take advantage! Read more cards, apply your evidence to their arguments, etc. •	Don’t just re-read the tags when you’re extending case. You need to extend arguments as well. •	You need to center the 2AR around the offense that you have remaining. They haven’t ever addressed your case! That should be the centerpiece of this speech. They haven’t answered our case, and our case outweighs any potential impact they might have. AND EVEN IF IT DOESN’T, we have a few other args on their various offcase. •	Remember, they have no advocacies left at the end of the debate, meaning all you have to do is outweigh the disad with your case. •	Compare, compare, compare! You’re doing a good job finding your evidence and extending it, but you need to explain why it’s more important than the arguments they are making.