DePass,+Blaize

toc =6/28/2011= Practice Round 1

1A –Brandon/ 2A- Katlyn vs 1N-Josh/ 2N-Blaize

__2NC/Blaize__ in cross-x of 1ac you do a good job reading specific lines of 1ac evidence and other cards that contradict or take out their own claims. Watch out for open ended questions like, “why is leadership is important”. It allows the other team to rant and go on and on oabout why their aff is so sweet. In cross-x of the 2ac you overwhelm your partner a little bit. Tag team is ok but interrupting your partner should be avoided.

__2NC__ Try to begin extending each DA with a brief reminder (or story) to remind the judge and simultaneously extend your original 1nc uniqueness, link, and impact arguments. This is also a great time to point our strategic missteps by the 2AC and remind the judge they cannot make new arguments to conceded parts of your argument in the 1ar.

You’re very clear on tags but turn into a very monotone delivery of the text of evidence. Try to very your voice and put emphasis on the important parts of the evidence. While you do excellent impact calculous, watch out for banging on the podium. It can be distracting and makes it harder to hear and understand your arguments. You can lightly tap you hand on your leg if need be but try and not make noticeable banging noises.

__2NR-Blaize__

Make sure to address case in order. Don’t just have a blur of arguments, but refer to the 1nc order and extend specific cards by author name. Make sure to kick out of all relevant positions first (you almost forgot the budget DA) Extend an impact takeout to properly “kick out of a D/A” or ask one of your instructors how to properly do this.

Why does utilitarianism matter if the affirmative has agreed on this impact calculus? They also have big policy impacts as well.

You do an excellent job telling an overall story in the 2NR but you need to do more line by line answering of the 1AR. You do a good pointing out messy 1AR arguments but you need to also preempt new 2ar arguments by telling the judge if they can’t draw a line from a 2ac to 1ar to 2ar argument, it should not be evaluated because the 2nr is a time pressured speech and you don’t get a 3nr to answer new 2ar arguments.

Excellent overview on case arguments. You extend all the author’s carded names but it would be even better if you can extend a warrant for each card or refer to where the card first appeared. Most judges are not willing to call for each card you extend unless they know WHY you’re extending it.

Try to emphasize which DA impact comes first when it comes to the timeframe. If you can prove your DA impacts come before they would solve case then you can prove how your impact is the most important/how it turns case/why the judge should value a certain impact over the others (timeliness, probability, magnitude).

Overall, a persuasive speech, but your delivery is more like a 2AR than a 2NR. A 2AR can get away with spinning new stories and collapsing the flow. You need to make sure and flow the 1ar straight down and answer each argument in your 2NR while also providing a SHORT synopsis of why your DA impacts short circuit and complicate the case.

Are you making a delay CP? It sounds like you are advocating a delay in TF because of the Debris DA and then advocating the aff be implemented. If this is your intention, you need to be clear you are advocating a new CP in the 2NC and how it relates to the plan.

Don’t swear in your speeches, you never know if you will offend one of your competitors or judges!

Watch out for getting carried on during cross-x. Try to answer the opponents questions directly and clearly.

=6/29/2011= Blaize/Josh vs Ayan/Tiana Blaize You start out at a pretty quick clip—but by about minute 3 or 4, you are already gasping for breath. During speaking drills work on being able to speak quickly, but for longer periods of times. You may start slower, but I guarantee you will be able to read more evidence. You also want to have read through your new 1ac first so you know how many cards you can read. You need to get through the solvency contention and the rest of the advantage. In cross-x you spend a lot of time asking questions about the DA that was not finished in the 1nc—you want to set up the arguments you are going to make in the next speech. Make sure all your questions have definitive answers—no open ended questions—why is blowing up the world bad? I am open to partner interaction during the debate, but you tried to get him to make arguments at least 3 times—let Josh make his arguments and only if he is about to drop something very important should you interrupt—you need to be flowing as well.

=7/1/2011= 1A - Blaize 1AC Very clear (Thanks), continue speed drills to build speed but good. In the cross-ex of the 1A, be more assertive in your answers, because that will build you more confidence.

1AR - You got all the right arguments down on the flow necessary for the 2AR to win. Focus more on the dropped mining advantage as offence against the DAs, so that even if the DA is weighed the aff Impacts will outweigh. Always ask yourself where you can lose and what offense you have against their positions, and make sure that every flow has offense on it, even if it's only your case Impacts. You extended the Right Defense on the DAs. Unless you are actually offended by the language used in a debate round, it's not worth bringing up. Better to spend more time on your arguments, or on case than voters that judges most likely won't pull the trigger on. Good Job.

General Debate Comments: Overall I thought this was a good debate in which clash was being made over the impacts and everyone was doing a great job with their impact calc. I felt that the debaters were doing a good job on the line by line isolating different areas of arguments on the aff's solvency to argue and referring to their opponent's cards when mitigating their importance. However I feel that the debaters focused so much on the micro that they forgot much of the macro or the big picture of the round. The aff should use their aff more as offense in the round against the DA's especially when the Asteroid Mining advantage is hardly being contested. This should be factored more into the impact calc that the 1AR and 2AR made, (This could even be utilized in the 2AC making these impact comparisons). The Neg, both in the neg block and the 2NR, needed to do a better job of explaining and extending the shell of the weaponization DA. The neg focused on the line-by line and the args made by the aff, but needs to also paint a picture of the DA as a story so the judge can understand the effects of the Aff plan.

Also there was a huge point being made about fiat in this debate. Fiat means, yes, that the plan happens, however it doesn't mean that money appears from no where and funds the plan. The plan is funded but the money must come from a source and that's the link on the Budget Trade-off DA, that it currently comes out of existing NASA projects. Fiating funding does no - link the neg's DA. I'd recommend asking your lab leaders/coaches how fiat functions in regards to the aff plan again.

This round was a great example of debating though with clash on a variety of different topics in the debate. This was especially good on case in which both teams debated the solvency evidence and used their and the opponents cards in their impact calc. Remember to always argue the merits of your impacts against those of the opposing team and give reasons why Time frame is more important than the inevitability of the aff's impacts and vice versa. This is especially important in the rebuttles where you tell the judge why exactly their voting for you and not the other team, so that the judge doesn't even have to think because you're giving all the reasons to sign the ballot your way.

I was very pleased with this debate and I wish you all the best in your debate careers :)

=7/6/2011=

Don’t change your pitch so dramatically. You have noticeable clarity issues. Creative explanation of oil being infinite. Not too bad. I’m glad you guys split the block, but I don’t know if you have enough of this debris DA to fill up 5 whole minutes. You are a persuasive speaker. Not sure if this debris blocking the sun argument works. Answer their link turn, or you’re in trouble.

Tim

=7/6/2011= When reading, try not to have to move the laptop around—if you hold it still, you will be able to focus more on reading. Also, try not to re-read the parts of the card you are stumbling through. You will get faster if you try not to make sure every word is enunciated correctly. Your double bind argument is good, but it is no where in the 2ac—same with the permutations. Your Kovel argument is not actually a racism argument—in fact, it is the opposite. Be certain about their evidence if you want to make the racism argument.