Yang,+Gaochy

toc =6/28/2011=

Gao should work on annunciation. I would suggest focusing on those kinds of speaking drills. She has good speed but could be faster, however at one point, I thought she was speaking spanish or something along those lines. :D She's making good arguments in debates. When she's making impact claims she should talk about more specifics of her scenarios instead of general extinction claims.

=6/29/2011= 2A – Gaochy • ALWAYS put the case on the top of the 2AC. If you lose the case, it’s difficult to win any other aspects of the debates. You can usually recover somewhat from losing other components of the debate. • Your perm arguments are entirely too quick. I would either: (a) slightly slow down so that the judge can get them flowed, (b) put them slightly lower in the speech, or (c) spread them out through the speech. Spreading them out has the added benefit of not allowing the negative to group all of your perm arguments together. • Try to mix in more analytical arguments with your evidence on these offcase arguments. You’re doing a great job getting a variety of cards out, but you can more efficiently make the block harder by slipping in a variety of analytical arguments questioning their disads at the link, internal link, and impact level. • I would change the formatting on the blocks away from a, b, c to 1, 2, 3. It’s easier to skip or cut arguments without completely screwing up your sub-pointing that way. • Don’t get caught up in arguing with the opponent in cross-x. Just ask the 2N questions and try to use the questions to move the answers toward a direction you want. You cannot win a debate in cross-x, it can only help you win the debate in a future speech. • Good job making impact comparison arguments on asteroid inevitability in the overview. Focus on comparing the impact in the different aspects (timeframe, probability, magnitude) to extend this even more. • It isn’t enough to just restate your permutation. You need to explain why it solves their impacts, or why it provides the best vision of the world. The perm debate is both the most important part of this 2AR and the messiest. • Nice work focusing on specific cards and arguments against the alternative, but this seems awfully new after the 1AR. Focus on those arguments that Saunder actually made.

-Talon

=6/30/2011= Practice Round #3 May(1A) and Sam (2A) VS Saunder (1N) and Gaochy (2N) Judge: Jane May—1AC Its great that you’re very clear! You lost some speed and clarity as your speech time went on, which might be because you’re tiring out. Keeping up with your speed drills will help with endurance (and lots of water and some sleep!) :) Try to time your 1ac ahead of time. Partner prompts made it appear you were running out of time and needed some key cards in other advantages.

Saunder-1NC If possible, try to make frontlines to each advantage. Even if you don’t have cards for everything, you can make defensive impact take outs and dealing with each advantage individually makes your case attack stronger, more credible, and makes it more likely you won’t forget about any of the specific impact scenerios for the 1ac.

Great speed. You may want to begin you speech a little slower to let the judge to adjust to hearing a new voice before you turn your jets on full force. However, you’re extremely clear, which is quite impressive. Try to work on stressing the most persuasive and important parts of your evidence by changing your vocal inflection.

Happy to see you ready to jump up right after cross-s, ready to go, with a clear order/roadmap.. Great beginning for a 1n’s ethos!

Need to more clearly note your transition to case arguments. I flowed a few of your solvency arguments on the Debris DA. Other judges may not be as familiar with the evidence packet and realize you were transitioning. Make sure to fill all your 1AC time. You had 30 seconds left.

You don’t have to defend conditionality with the K and two Das. You can say you’re either going for the K alt or the SQ. We call that logical limited conditionality, which means that a good policymaker should always have the ability to default to the SQ if the affirmative is proven to be a net bad policy. You’re not defending multiple conditional worlds, since you only have one K alt, so you can be a bit tricker with how you explain and avoid most generic theory arguments about condo.

Sam-2AC

When giving your roadmap, remember to label the off case arguments and tell the judge which order you are addressing them in. You begin reading multiple solvency arguments. Frontload these in the 1AC or extend evidence you already read in the 1ac. Generally the 2ac case debate can ideally be handled without reading any new evidence (unless they’re impact turning or read a hidden da on case). You save precious time to then unload on all their offcase arguments. Try to refer to their 1nc arguments in order instead of simply reading evidence. It gets slightly confusing where you’re at. It appears to be a flowing issue, so focusing on those skills will help your 2ac organization.

When permuting a k give us a text to the permutation. Typically these are “perm: do both”, “perm do the plan and the parts of the kritik that are not reject the plan” and “perm: do the plan and reject in all other instances”. This is more clear than just reading perm solvency evidence. Try to incorporate analytical arguments. Try with defensive arguments and logical reasons why their impacts are silly (like cap hadn’t led to extinction, empirically, Debris now and no trigger on econ, econ crisis now which proves wars will not escalate and break out when the econ changes, etc). Impacts are the biggest lies in debate so always start there.

Very clear and quick. Impressive you could keep up your speed for the entire speech! Try to number your arguments on off-case positions. If you get lost numbering, make sure to say next when transitioning to another arguments.

Try to avoid underviews like going back to case for the last minute. Instead try to make a variety of arguments, especially against the k. Include your own great creativity and smart questions in cross-x!

If you ask about the conditional nature of the K in your K and they concede its conditional, you should make a condo bad theory argument in the 2ac. Afterall, they spotted you the link :)

Gaochy—2NC

Good use of referring to their evidence and showing that it’s old in cross-x while also pointing out your k impacts are currently happening. Good use of your historical knowledge of Russia to logically prove your impacts are still plausible and theirs are unikely. Try to know how you’re splitting the block before cross-x of the 2ac. You and your partner didn’t sound like you had a pre-planed course of attack that will limit preptime. However, you may want to use a little more prep to prepare DA overviews and answers/indicts to the specific evidence read in the 2ac. Remember, that debate is all about a race to the warrants of your arguments and theirs. Excellent job integrating your cross-z examples to proves their don’t have history on their side!

Good job evenly splitting your time on each of the positions you are extending. However, you run out of arguments on the Debris DA and cut your speech short. Your summary of the Debris DA story that comes at the very end of your speech would be more persuasive as an overview. When extending each offcase argument, you generally want a short (30 sec or less) overview explaining the thesis of your !NC argument you are extending and pointing out a strategic slip up on that flow by the 2ac which means you’re automatically winning a uniqueness debate, a specific impact, a link (whatever the 2ac glossed over) and make it the biggest issue.

Saunder-1NR Have a plan when you go up to cross-x the 2ac. Have a piece of paper you right cross-x questions and strategies on before hand. Make sure to use all the time.

Great line by line at the beginning of the k. You are correct to make arguments about the K’s alt being mutually exclusive with the alternative. Next make an argument about why the permutation still links (or read your link block there). You make a decent cooption argument too! However, it appears you are free flowing without any blocks. Try to write blocks to arguments you know are coming.

Also, I heard you say to your partner during the speech that you can’t read new evidence in the 1NR. Not true! You should def read new evidence in the 1NR. You need to in order to compete against the 2ac. You just don’t want to read new off case postitions in the 1nr.

Good job being comparative on the case debate. You extend your stories of the 1ac well. Again, watch out for those dreaded “underviews”. All your extra logical analysis should come in your overviews for the arguments where you quickly restate the arguments thesis, impact, prob, and point out a 2ac strategic error. Use all your time, even just 10 secs!

May—1AR Make sure to include ALL offcase positions in your 1AR order. You forgot to put the K in your order. Good job extending previous evidence you read. Reading a few new cards in the 1ar is good, but you might want to focus on covering each of the offcase positions by extending specific 2ac arguments as well. Make sure that you use all your time. Even 20 seconds is a bunch of time you could make some analytical takeouts on cap or any of the Das. Your 1AR had some very good moments. Your impact analysis was excellent, especially when you pointed out that an arms race cannot take place if everyone on earth is dead. Your argument that Canada can detect asteroids, but can’t deflect them, is also a very good argument. But you did not properly address some arguments

Gaochy—2NR Try to begin the 2nr a little slower and emphasize clarity. While you’re telling a good story, make sure to at least extend the specific impacts on the k and tell me why voting neg is better than the aff (yes it’s conceded) but a conceded off case argument should garner more than 10 seconds of the 2nr. Explain how I should start my decision. Should I start with the Weaponization Impacts and reject the aff for the sq, or do I embrace the k alt? Can I do both? Is it an either/or/gateway issue? This would allow you to explain advocating a k alt and if I don’t buy it I then evaluate the affirmative based on their policy implications (your DA). Watch out for making underviews at the bottom of your 2nr. Again, these are great summaries that are more strategically used as an overview at the top of each of the offcase positions. Excellent use of all your time to extend as many case arguments as possible. Definitely a strong 2nr that you should do a rebuttal redo on where you work on framing the debates at the top for judges, in light of all the shit I said above :)

Sam-2AR Don’t admit you don’t know where you’re going before the roadmap. You correctly identify all the arguments that the 2nr made. Don’t undermine yourself by saying “we may have screwed this up”. A golden piece of advice I got when I was younger was “even if you’re confused just spend your times talking about YOUR argument. There’s a good chance your judge is just confused” J Great impact analysis with timeframe, probability, and magnitude. Watch out for saying they are each individually the most important. Pick one. Good 2ar though, you picked up your 2ac arguments and reextended them well. Try to justify your new arguments based on 2NR new arguments or as “framing my decision calculous”. That can justify you making a bunch of new logical arguments. Great debate! :)

= 7/7/2011 = Goachmeister: Mav Great debate overall. First you should not have to stop in your 1AC to get more cards or figure out where your solvency is. Before you start speaking you should know. Your 2AC was great. Nice impact comparison! You do however spend too much time on timeframe etc. when you need to focus on the round winning arguments. Impact calculus is important but it's hard to win on it if you don't win on the line by line. So during your prep take more time to write line by line answers and less time writing overviews (which are great!) It is not abusive for the neg to read more cards in the block, it is generally accepted that it's ok for some new args in the block. You sound really good on the Cap K, especially on the perm! Great jorb Goachy!

=7/13/2011= 2A – Gaochy •	You need to be clearer on theory. I would advise you to NOT begin on theory, and instead begin on case and build speed, THEN read your theory args. •	Focus on the line-by-line as the first order question in the debate, then focus on reading evidence. As of now, you are just reading more cards, but you need to answer the specific arguments made in the 1NC. •	The examples you give to prove global warming are just isolated cases. I would focus on the scientific consensus and the specific temperature readings that demonstrate a pattern of warming. •	Good job with coverage in the 2AC. Make sure that you’re reading enough diverse answers on the K that you’ll be set. A trick to help with this is to read a critical add-on—even if they kick the K, you can leverage that offense against their args. •	Get off this clarifications cross-x kick. It isn’t getting you anywhere, and in fact may be actually deleterious. •	They didn’t drop conditionality. Admittedly, the argument that they were making was pretty atrocious (the whole cards outside of the set whine) but you HAVE to answer it. •	Isolate the impacts of your 1AC and center your 2AR around that, you have to win that debate in order to win a framework on which to win the rest of it. •	I’m not sure why you’re slipping in “Matt is a jerk” randomly in your speech, but it’s pretty weird. •	The problem on the K isn’t anything except for the way you frame your impacts, if you cannot justify this, it will be very difficult to justify this argument. •	You need a center theme for this 2AR (a “thesis”). Without one, your speech sounds like random jumping around, with it, you can tell a consistent story throughout your speech.