Hvizdos,+Kate

toc =6/28/2011=

=6/29/2011= 2A: Kate

-Good order for the 2AC! -Explain your case argument/impact but because they didn’t read cards you just need to tell me they didn’t answer the card -Don’t reread a card again that you read in the 1AC- explain it to me -2AC to asteroids…. Was there an impact to the add-on? -You’re fast and clear- very easy to flow -Good Debris DA block- but I would recommend choosing cards that make different arguments- the first three cards say the same thing but in a diffrerent way -Get to the Cap K with more time, but its good that you got the perms out! -Good 2AR- it was good job explaining the evidence that the 1AR extended and doing impact analysis

General Comments:

-AFF: If you are going to be paperless you need to practice paperless practices such as jumping everything including the 1AC. Make sure you know which positions they kicked and which ones they didn’t.

=6/30/2011= 1N-Maverick- Overall, you did a good job of handling everything. You didn't have anyone to help you or rely on, and you handled yourself well. You, more than anyone in the round, tried to clarify the issues surrounding the Kritik. Smart thing to do. Your strategy going into your first session of CX impressed me. I think you could have, and should have spent more time on the advantages of their case. From a strategic standpoint I think you have to be able to outweigh their advantages...one of the DA's was dropped, you didn't gain that much offense from the other DA, and the debate on the K seemed muddled. Spending more time on their advantages gives you a greater chance of winning in any scenario. Good job and thanks.

=7/1/2011= 2A – Kate • Good job extending evidence from the 1AC on the advantages, but remember to focus on answering their arguments specifically on the line-by-line. The best way to do this is to extend the evidence directly in response to one of their points • Your direct responses are very good on case, but they would be much stronger if you identify the arguments that you’re making in pieces of evidence that you’ve already read in the 1AC (or even read a few new cards on case) • GREAT use of the sustainability argument from the asteroid mining advantage to answer the capitalism. You should use this argument in conjunction with a permutation to explain WHY the form of capitalism after the plan is different. • Remember, you need to not only read cards about why a permutation is good, you should probably read a permutation with a specific permutation text. • Good use of inevitability arguments based on the date of their evidence. • You should probably read more offense in the 2AC. The 2AC is the last affirmative chance to make new arguments, so making offensive responses at this point is essential to protecting the 1AR and 2AR. • Don’t leave 30 seconds on the clock in the 2AC! It’s the most important speech, and you can’t afford to give up even a second if you can avoid it. • In cross-x, don’t let him slip out of answering a question. If you think the 2N is trying to avoid answering something, keep pressing him on it. • The probability argument shouldn’t focus around unpredictability of impacts (because your own evidence cites asteroid strikes as potentially having a million year timeframe). Instead, focus on the inevitability argument and claim that the mining net benefit sustains capitalism in such a way that it eliminates the scarcity arguments the neg is focusing on. • You probably won’t be able to win every single argument in the 2AR. Instead, you should focus on winning the comparison of the arguments and explaining why your arguments are conclusively better. • Be careful that you aren’t making new arguments. You could conceivably still make your “1930’s/Great Depression” argument, but you need to justify it (their argument is frankly improbable, see the Great Depression…)

-Talon, weiner sucker extraordinario

=7/13/11=

Have an overview on topicality explaining why your definition is better for education. Articulate your standards in terms of in round occurances from this specific instance of reading the aff as well as why it is overall a good idea for debate to use your interpretation of the resolution. You make a lot of claims on topicality but aren't giving examples and sometimes skipping over warrents. Your claims are correct, but you need to include a card or analytic to back them if you want them to be valid. I think you should also try to up the formality of your speech–instead of describing things as ridiculous, stupid, etc, make academic arguments to show how ridiculous they are.

=7/15/2011=

Kate—your focus on the t debate should be why you are advocating ironically, I mean, the plan should still prolly be topical, but since t here pretty much boils down to framework, you should be making a good deal of offensive arguments against the idea that t is a reason to vote against you. Clearly you lost a bit of your seriousness in the 2ar (and the audience didn’t help) but you should focus in significantly on the irony arguments which disappear in your last speech. What is your interptetation of the debate?