Fee,+Jake

toc =6/28/2011= Don't extend the tag line extend the warrants. Jake needs to use concessions more strategically and place case at the top of the 2ac. He should also be extending specific cards and warrants instead of general ideas of the 1AC. Lastly, he needs to start the impact analysis in the 2AC and make sure it's extending in both the 1AR and the 2AR

=6/29/2011= Good CX questions, very good work putting them in a corner and really hammering away at it - impact calc is nice, but it should run about 30-45 seconds at most in your 2nc, the rest needs to be content to back up those claims - good analysis on the parts of the disads and case you went for, but dont let your offcase slip away from you or not answer their terminal defense

Comments for the Debate: 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.

=7/1/2011= Jake - WORD ECONOMY. you need disads to the alternative and more cards on the K. Put the K on the top of your speech if you are afraid that you will lose to it. more cards on the DAs. you have tons of time left Jake -cx: great pressing on impact comparrison! Very strong cx Jake- deeper explanation of what proof there is an asteroid strike will happen. talk about evidence/author quality. good job discussing your case solvency. pick an argument that will win you the debate and sit on it. this could be the perm, the solvency arguments, etc. Picking and choosing is important

=7/5/2011= Really good extension of 1ac arguments—you had both citations and warrants—really helped with the organization of the case arguments. Make sure to go in order though—for case arguments, the 1nc order should be the order for the debate. You are also very conversational when doing the case arguments, if you increase your speed just a little via speaking drills, you could probably read another add-on in the 2ac. Make sure for the CP/K to put your arguments in frontline form—while it is good that you analyze their evidence, you are missing the bulk of the specific arguments—permutations, reasons why the CP wouldn’t solve the aff, reasons why the alt doesn’t solve, etc. Treat each of those arguments as whole positions, not just individual cards. All: condense the debate more, especially in final rebuttals. You want to narrow the debate, in this case, how the cp interacts with the aff. The case arguments would link to both the plan and cp, so the 2nr probably doesn’t need to extend them, and the 2ar shouldn’t have to answer them. So, what part of the aff does the cp not solve, and how does that interact with the socialism impact? From there you can get into the specifics of the author qualifications and what the aff means, but I would assume the neg would want to spot them those arguments.

=7/6/11=

Extend arguments, not evidence. Evidence is something you can use to support arguments, but you should always start by explaining what your argument is, and then why a particular piece of evidence makes that argument stronger. When extending exopolitics, make sure you explain the impact and reason why it matters, even if they don’t contest it. Good analytics on the bottom of the counterplan–I’m glad you’re pointing out the ridiculousness of the argument. YAY FOR CATCHING THE CONTRADICTION WITH THE CP AND K!!! I think it’s good to point out that the neg doesn’t go for a lot on case, you should use the untouched case more as leverage against the cap K. You should be talking a lot more about the affirmative impacts on the K as well. I think you do a good job refuting the link to the K, make sure you are talking about the alternative (or lack there of) in your speech.