Thomas,+John

toc =6/28/2011= Start slower Put paper on a podium, don't hold Good clarity and volume No underviews... Also, the fiat arg was used wrong. And they do claim fiat... More clarity between cards (use next or some delineation) Can't make a DA out of one card in the 1NC... It's kinda mean

Moving on in CX was good. Questioning the methodology of a study is pointless unless you have ev about it. Speak more quietly about strat during prep

You are right, the aff didn't really argue the K, but you (both) need to answer the aff still!!!

=6/29/2011= Good job mixing analytics and cards, and cross-applying arguments to other places on the flow, which saves you time and shows that you are aware of how arguments interact with eachother. When moving between neg arguments, you don’t have to describe the argument that you are answer quite as extensively as you do. If you say “NEXT” or “onto the [insert name] evidence”, that is sufficient. I think this will save you time on case, which you end up over covering a little bit. One way to make sure you have sufficient time on all the issues is, before you go up, look at how many arguments you have to answer and tell yourself that, no matter what, you are gonna get through all of case in two minutes (for example) and spend no more time there. This helps you push yourself within your speech and helps you learn to allocate time better. Good job explaining the permutation and sounding convincing (confident, loud, clear etc). Make sure to point out that they didn’t read an alt in the 2ac. I think your CX questions about infrastructure and whether or not it matter what economic system we’re in are interesting and intelligent, but were not in your 2ac. They are still good things to ask about, but you should try to integrate them into your speech so you can go for them as analytics against the K. I think you are correct to focus on the asteroids impact as the main argument for your 2ar. To make the work you do on case even more effective, make sure the discussion of your impact is an explicit comparison to the DA. You are a very persuasive speaker and do a good job emphasizing important points.

=6/30/2011= 2A: John -Don’t make hand motions at your partner during her speech -Good job on qualifications- work on extending cards more efficiently -Good line by line- you really get the jist of what you have to do -Don’t group things by author- group it by tag/argument -You don’t have to extend cards that don’t answer of their argument -Good mix of 2AC arguments on your blocks! The blocks are really solid -Try to talk in a smoother matter- you can also speed up on your analytics- I think you might be over explaining a lot of things -I think you just get too heated in cross-x- listen your opponents ore and let them talk

=7/3/2011=

Sometimes asking leading questions is good in CX, but telegraphing the 2NR isn’t helpful unless you are seriously prepared to throwdown. Asking a variety of questions will keep the aff on their toes. I appreciate your rhetorical strategies, but you need to connect these to parts of the debate- they have evidence saying I should care, and it has reasons why- don’t just say I shouldn’t. Don’t summarize cards after you read them. Careful with lumping your two offcase together. This makes it a lot easier for the aff to generate offense. More organization on the flow- you need to break up parts of the debate. Don’t go for everything and give an impact for every argument you’re going for.

Tim

= 7/3/2011 =

2NC: Stop walking around during your speech, it makes you look disorganized. You have good line by line skills, but you could improve on word efficiency – phrasing your arguments more concisely. Although you make smart arguments, you have a tendency to ramble. You can practice this by regiving the same speech with the same arguments in 7 minutes instead of 8.

2NR: Good job identifying timeframe as the key argument for impact analysis. Your speech was much messier than your 2NC – you need to identify better when you are switching between different flows. You also do not explain a terminal impact to your net benefit which is distinct from the impacts of the aff – because you both claim global warming impacts, and because it is completely unclear who better creates jobs and what the terminal impact to jobs is, if there was a perm do both answer I think you would have immediately lost.

=7/7/2011=

Go up with more cards for the 1nc so you don’t have to pause to find more evidence. Make sure your link stories are consistent with each other. Don’t accuse people of whining in CX. Don’t explain that you “concede” the 1ac. Say that the DA outweighs the case, and compare your impact to theirs before you get to the line by line. Don’t explain what evidence is after you read. Make sure to have impact calculus on each position you answer. Good job answering their politics evidence. I think you should maybe take less in the 2NC so that you can go more in depth on each position. I am a little confused why you don’t use all your prep time for the 2nr. You should have more discussion of the “big picture” in the debate round–why you win on one or two things on the line by line, and why that means you win the debate as a whole.