Dion,+Benjamin

toc =6/28/2011= 1NC (Ben D) - A lot of the arguments you are making on the case are very repetitive, from a strategic standpoint, you are killing yourself on the variety of arguments put out in the 1NC. At least you aren’t repeating too many warrants, though. I think the story you are trying to space on space debris is getting you into a really bad position in terms of opening yourself up to arguments such as “impact inevitable” or even “status quo solves” Because you are making anything out to be a link, basically any time a launch happens, you’re going to have to differentiate a world with the plan from a world without the plan in terms of launch numbers and that’s going to be pretty difficult, I feel like. Your delivery is good, but I think some of the explanations you are giving are unnecessary in the 1nc and it would be better to just read more cards. You can make arguments about why the cards you’ve read turn their advantages later on in the debate.

Cross-X of 1NC- Good job of answering the questions, I thought you were sticking to your story on the disads very well

Cross-x of 2AC: Ben D- you have good confidence in your tone in this cross-examination. Its very important to seem sure of yourself and you are demonstrating that here. You are also doing a good job of pushing them on certain argumentations.

1NR - they are essentially making one response on debris, so make sure you understand that and characterize it as such for the judge. It makes it a lot easier to get the judge to believe that you just have to win one argument to win the entirety of access to your impacts. I think you are taking the wrong approach, you need to talk more about why INCREASED collisions is bad, or why NOW is a really bad time to have more debris in space and contrast it to a world without the launches of the plan and how that world would avoid your impacts, this allows you to skirt their arguments while still gaining access to an impact. You keep talking about the point in which space debris kills us all, but your not doing it in the context of the aff plan or really making concrete descriptions of how that occurs. On the case debate, you are doing a pretty good job but you could get into more of the details about the warrants that they have in their cards vs. the warrants in your own evidence. Making these comparative claims on the case debate will result in a much better debate.

=7/1/2011= 2N: Straw -That was a good question for cross-x -Youre super fast- good work -Good job on talking about the qualifications of their sources- it really takes out their card -Good overview- but you don’t need to reread parts of cards of me and also put the overview at the top of the flow -When you are doing the case debate- I want you to refer to the evidence/arguments you are going for my saying extend 1NC #1 and 1NC #2 etc. etc. – but overall good explanation on the case debate

=7/7/2011= 1A – Straw • You need to work on your clarity. ESPECIALLY at the beginning of your speech, you are barely articulating words. Doing an over-articulation drill (stretch your mouth as ridiculously wide as possible on every syllable for two minutes) will likely fix this issue. • Good job using slight pauses to articulate your tags and cites in the 1AC. • Your clarity issues have functionally vanished as the speech goes on. I think you just need to work on over-articulation to completely solve the issue. In the short term, start reading slightly slower and build up to your speed. That way your clarify will not be affected. • I would save the short “advantages” at the end as add-ons to read in the 2AC and instead read more cards to preempt case args that they are likely to read in the 1NC. Such add-ons could be read on counterplans to give additional args the CP can’t solve, and negate the advantage of conditional arguments. • Good job identifying that the neg team never answered to the case advantages. You need to start making comparative impact arguments against their impacts NOW though, especially since you’re behind on multiple off-case arguments. • You don’t have time to be extending each of your cards specifically, just extend the impact story itself and make comparative and conclusive analysis on each of the points. • Way too much on case in the world where all of these arguments are 100% conceded. You need to focus on the arguments that you have very little arguments on. • You may as well go for perm do the alternative since it wasn’t specifically answered and it solves 100% of the K. • Extending a perm argument does not mean that you get the arguments on your side. In order for that to be the case, you need to win a link turn argument. • Good attempt to point out flaws in their own evidence, but once again, this only matters if you start COMPARING IMPACTS! • It doesn’t matter if you pre-empt a “no new arguments” claim—your args are still new.

=7/11/11= Putting case on top serves two purposes. 1) It ensures you don’t drop it and 2) it means the framing of your speech is in the context of the affirmative’s impact, which provides a model for how you want the judge to think about the debate as a whole. I think you should make more comparisons between the impacts of the aff and the impacts to the DAs. For example, what does it mean for the economy (or how is it possible) for the US to be the global hegemon but have a collapsed economy? If you solve one, do you solve the other

=7/15/2011= 2A – Straw •	I’m pretty sure Raymond can handle this cross-x. There’s no need for you to stand up between him and Sean and keep answering the questions. •	“There’s nothing in the rules of policy debate…” There are no rules to policy debate. You make the rules as you go. Just provide better links to the impacts and you’re better off. •	Good job comparing conditionality to their theory arguments. •	You need to provide warrants for why you generate or increase value to life, or why your frontier mentality solves for human survival. You never provide any specific reason WHY this is true, which is absolutely necessary to make comparisons. •	Apply your case to the Ks. Specifically, focus on why the impacts to the Ks rely on a utilitarian mindset that you critique (plan leads to capitalism, which causes extinction, etc.) •	Asking purely hypothetical questions about what happens if you win an argument is pretty pointless. Just focus on asking questions about what the other team said. •	Good job making some comparisons on the theory debate, but you need to provide offensive reasons why your arguments are good. You start to get there with your space education args, but you need to tie it back to their violation. •	Good illustration of different aspects of policy debate that are external to their inane interpretation. •	You’re spending too much time on this theory argument. You should get in and out and explain the offense to your aff case. •	I’m not sure why a peasant is the one pulling the lever in the train example, but in any case it’s mostly irrelevant to the point you’re making. •	Their ONLY offense is on the capitalism and maybe the security flow. You have to get there faster and make comparative arguments.