Gerick,+Payton

toc = 6/28/2011 =

2AC (Payton) – It seems like you are trying a little too hard to go fast. Relax, debate is not all about speed, it’s much more important to be efficient and you are losing your efficiency by trying to be so fast. You are suffering the same problem of trying to explain your argument, which also loses efficiency for the 2ac. Wait for your explanations until later in the debate. I think a lot of the problem with your delivery in this debate might be as a result of leaning too far over the podium, you need to make sure you are relatively straight up and have good posture because it will increase air flow and allow you to speak faster.

When you are on the case debate, you want to be spinning more of a story with the way you answer the arguments the negative is making. Also, a lot of their arguments are similar and could be grouped together. There are status quo solves arguments, and there is a no risk debate happening. You need to recognize this and categorize the debates as such when you address the issues. It allows you to take control of what is being said on the case. Also, the arguments on case should be more in the context of also making comparative claims about why their evidence is bad and yours is better.

Strategically, you need to put your case on the top because it sets you up to make arguments on everything else in the debate about why your case is important (i.e-case outweighs on disads, solvency deficit on counterplans, and case outweighs or case solves the alt arguments on krtiks). Basically, as an affirmative your strategy is to just win your case and hope that you have written a good enough case that you can beat any other argument in the round just on the magnitude.

(2:50 Left)-this is bad, you want to practice making as many arguments as possible. You have a LOT of room to make more arguments on the disads. As it is, you are really only making one argument on each disad and unfortunately, both of those arguments are defensive.

Cross-x of 2AC: Payton- good job of standing by your story and seeming somewhat annoyed by his questioning, that can help create some credibility especially if they are hammering on the same point over and over.

Cross-X of 2NC- Payton: too much explanation of their argument before you ask your question, just get right to the question, if they don’t understand what you are talking about then it will probably decrease their credibility for not understanding the reference. Your Stephen hawking indicts are probably a little over the top to the point that they lose their effectiveness. You should also make sure to...

2AR - Once again, case should be at the top, same reasons. I think your overview is pretty good, but could get more nuanced. Give me more fear of an asteroid attack, you really need to strike at emotions about how it could creep up on us any day and sweep the planet of any life in a moment.

= 6/29/2011 =

Control the CX. You did a good job at first, but towards the end, you let your opponent ask YOU questions about what asteroids and nuclear weapons looked like – don’t let the other person ask questions in your CX. LOOK AT THE JUDGE!

Don’t stop your speech early – make analytical arguments, or read more cards.

In the 2NC, don’t explain cards immediately after you read them. Also, you MUST do impact analysis at the top of the weaponization flow. Explain the magnitude, probability, and the timeframe of your disad. Then, answer both of Michaela’s arguments in order. Say what argument you are answering before you answer it.

During your 1NR, your impact analysis was much better the second time you tried it. However, you also said “our timeframe is faster than theirs”, which doesn’t include a warrant and isn't helpful or convincing for the judge.

When you go for the Capitalism K, you need to remember to explain the impacts of the kritik - you never did this. The one mistake you made throughout this entire debate was not focusing on impacts - remember, impacts are what win or lose the debate. They are the most important.

=7/5/11= I’m impressed that you include a quals argument in the 1nc, make sure you explain why being an author of science fiction means the professor part doesn’t matter (I don’t really think it does) if you wanna make this arg. Use CX on specific points you disagree with about the 2ac, or to ask about specific cards, rather than just clarification questions. You do a really good job making analytics on the line by line and grouping arguments to increase efficiency. I think (even though you’re just taking case), it’s helpful to start off with some kind of framing argument. What does it mean if you win all these case defense arguments for the DA? The K? Can you win on case alone? Try and answer these questions when talking about the impact of the cards and arguments you’re making in the beginning of your speech. I think you will benefit from taking more in the 1nr, both because it will give you more to talk about and it is good to have offensive arguments in both negative speeches.

=7/12/11=

I don't know how much it makes sense to read security and cap together–it seems like (especially with missle defense affs) they can be disposed of in similar ways. I would stick to one, and make security a like, link arg on cap (or the other way around? if that works?). Your security K is "realism bad", so you don't want to ask "why are we realist". Good answers to the theory argument, make sure you have reasons why the contradictory arguments are also good. Be careful about going for politics (econ good, hege good) while you are reading cap. I think your cross application to case is smart, you should talk more about what it means in terms of the other flows if the affirmative doesn't get their impact. You and Sophie would benefit from discussing how to split the block a little more–I think you should be taking T or one of the Ks and using all five minutes to put a lot of pressure on the 1ar. You sound good on case, but I think you should think more about how those arguments interact with the K and security and frame them as reasons the perm doesn't matter.

=7/13/2011=

--you sound decent, but you could work on expanding your breath control/stamina in speed drills --start with an overview on topicality, highlight the most relevant or important macro level issue—you want to set up the relevant comparisons that the 2nr will have to win in order to win the debate --you need more time on t to justify going for it, talk about what the abuse or problems are with this scenario --same thing on cap, you have to start out by making it clear what it is that you are attempting to do on this flow, what is the argument that you HAVE to win or that your winning that changes the debate or(even better) what significant mistake did they make or advantage do you have --your first answer on the perm on cap should always be “perm still links” that’s the one you need to win the debate on this queston