Jones-McDonell,+Semaj

toc = 6/28/2011 =

1ac: it's helpful for judges if you make the distinction of when you are switching to a new card very clear, otherwise it was good

1ar: look over your shoulder on the flow to the 2ac. you need to pick and choose the best arguments from the 2ac and extend them. 2ac need to be in the 1ar or else most judges will not evaluate those args if the 2ar goes for them because they will be considered new. making completely new args in the 1ar is generally looked down upon. again, if you are truly out of stuff to say, try to outweigh the d/a's with your case. you started a bit of impact comparison which is good, but go more in-depth.

in general: flowing is extremely important for the reason that you need to look at what your partner and your opponents said and base your speech off that. neg needs to center their speech around the aff's most threatening arguments. aff needs to base their rebuttals on the arguments made by your partner in his/her last speech. a lot of arguments were made and got lost later in the debate on both sides. make sure to be pulling all of your arguments through.

good job overall and not bad at all for your first camp debate

=7/7/2011= 2N – Semaji •	 Good job in cross-x identifying an old card and pressing the aff on why it should have been empirically denied. DON’T GIVE UP THOUGH! Keep pressing if you think you have a point, unless the argument sounds compelling. •	Good job on the overview on the budget DA. •	Remember, that if they conceded the different parts of the DA, you probably don’t need to read more evidence on things like uniqueness or the link. Focus on winning the impact level and making it possible to outweigh the case. •	Focus on making your 2NC more directly responsive to the 2AC. Answer their arguments on the line-by-line, and if they didn’t make arguments on the line by line you need to point that out and extend the arguments you’ve already made. •	Good job reading impacts to extend weaponization, but remember that their entire case is about why putting weapons into space is good. You need to make comparisons with the arguments they have already made on case. •	Good job making empirically denied arguments and historical arguments. Your reference to the Cold War is good. •	The arguments about this being just another test are too defensive. Say that the technology has empirically failed in every major test, and as a result this aff should not be seen as any different. •	You are doing a good job coming up with analytical arguments, but you need to impact them. It’s not enough to say that this sort of construction turns other states into our enemies—explain why that enemy status is uniquely bad. •	I’m not sure how talking about whether or not the plan is capitalist relates to the weaponization flow. In any case, if you aren’t going for it, you need to conserve more of your time on this argument. •	Focus on making offensive arguments at the end of the debate. Why is the affirmative plan bad? Why is rejecting the affirmative plan or accepting your advocacy good? You need to lead with these questions and structure the entire speech around them. •	You’re doing a good job making analytical args, but you need to give specific analysis and scenarios for why what you’re saying will outweigh.