Grosser,+Josh

toc = 6/28/2011 =

Practice Round 1

1A –Brandon/ 2A- Katlyn vs 1N-Josh/ 2N-Blaize __1NC/Josh__

When giving your order just say the amount of off case arguments and then say case. You don’t need to tell us you’re going line by line on the case. However, if you are reading different evidence on separated out advantages (this is ideal. You want to strive to put unique arguments on each affirmative advantage). Speaking wise, you do a good job maintaining clarity while you read quickly. However, watch out for overusing words like “um” and apologizing after you slip up. Just keep smiling and going and chances are no will notice your verbal slip J Aim for smoother delivery of on case arguments. You should try to number specific arguments for the judge and your opponents can follow your order.

__1NR-JOSH__

Cross-x of 2ac is ok—try to have a piece of paper ready with questions you think of during their speech when she makes arguments you don’t understand. Try your best to stay away from asking which specific arguments you may have missed because it allows the 2AC to wax poetic and functionally extend their speech time. Make sure to use every second of your cross-x time because it allows your partner free preparation time. __1NR__ The 1NR typically should not need to use prep time. You already had 14 minutes of prep/speech time after the 1ac ends, so you should have plenty of time to prepare.

Try to sound more enthusiastic. You start your speech with a very monotone voice. Especially at the beginning and ending of a speech you want to change your inflection and grab the attention of the judge.

You do a great job of making the case debate difficult for the 1ar to answer. However, try to engage their 2AC answers and extend your original 1nc arguments and not simply read a bunch of new cards.

On the budget DA make sure you’re clear if you’re extending a Uniqueness, Link, or Impact argument. You should have “walls” where you extend the basics of these parts of the DA, along with reasons your original 1nc evidence was better, and then a wall of cards with new warrants. Make sure to try and stick to the order the 2ac constructed on the offcase positions.

=6/29/2011= Blaize/Josh vs Ayan/Tiana Josh No prep for the 2ac? Even if you are sure, you should always take just a little time to make sure you know exactly what it is you want to say. Good extensions of your 1ac arguments by author, but be sure to extend a warrant as well—ie, why is space key to survival. You spend a minute answering the DA the 1nc did complete, and 2 minutes answering the DA that was incomplete in the 1nc. You want the 2ar to be less technical—don’t just extend every argument, but explain why those arguments are important in the context of this debate. Compare your arguments to the negatives—you don’t have to win every flow to win the debate, just have to win that 1 flow outweighs the others. What do the cards you extend get you in the debate—don’t just extend the cites for the cards, but the warrants as well.

=7/11/2011=

I think you should start the 2nc with an overview of sorts–just a quick 20 seconds that explains how the affirmative has fucked up case (or the DA, or the other DA) to the point of not being able to win the flow anymore. This sounds a lot cooler than starting with a card, and frames the rest of your speech better. I think the impact calc at the end should be moved to the top. I think you should start with one of the DAs and explain why its impact outweighs case (you do explain why the debris DA outweighs, but should do this first in your speech). Kick out of the rest of the DAs and go hardcore for one of them. Good ups on the even if statement. You should be talking specifically about each portion of the debate and how it interacts with the affirmative.

=7/11/2011= 2A – Josh • Don’t cheat by looking ahead at their cards and flowing them. That’s pretty uncool. • You absolutely need to go slower at the beginning of your speech. Your voice isn’t warmed up and it’s definitely slowing down your speech when you stumble over what you’re trying to get through. Build into your speed in this speech. • Good job reading the Taft-Kaufman evidence on the analytical K (which focuses on discourse). You will need to articulate a specific reason why it is offense against both their framework and their K itself in order for it to be truly effective, however. • You need to articulate your framework argument in the 2AR around some interpretation or offensive argument. Because you don’t, it’s difficult to tell precisely what you’re arguing in favor of. • Framework debates are theory debates are impact debates. You have to win the best internal link to fairness and education to win these debates. You’re making decent link arguments, but failing to make clear why this matters at all as a consequence of fairness or education. • You left 3 minutes and 30 seconds on the table in the 2AR. WHAT ARE YOU DOING? There are tons of arguments to answer, contradictions, failures to articulate impacts, etc. You have to keep talking and make offensive args at the end of the debate.

=7/13/2011=

--you are absolutely correct to start by going for framework, but you should talk more about what it means to vote on it---you are essentially extending the better part of the argument, but not taking the easy cheap shot they are giving you an opportunity to take --you need to be going for some substantaive offense (besides framework) on both of these positions—either why weapoinization is good or why the plan prevents it—I think you can make a good argument for either level of the turn --either on the top of case or the top of the disad, you need to really throw down on the impact comparison debate—use the evidence that you are extending to explain why you have a large, fast, probable impact—you get to some of this, but it happens at the tail end of the speech and isn’t connected to any of your evidence

=7/14/11=

Good CX. Good ups on the overview on T. I think you should discuss standards more in the overview and/or how the 2ac is short somewhere on the T flow, and why that means they can't win the flow anymore. Explain why you should prefer qualifications to non-qualified evidence in topicality. Why does it matter if their definition is from some rando? I think the caselist you provide on the aff is good, make sure you have one for your own interpretation as well so you can compare the kinds of arguments they allow. Have an overview on the DA that includes impact calc. Make sure in addition to answering their arguments, you make args about why their evidence sucks, arguments dont make sense, etc etc. The impact calc at the end of your speech is good, put it at the beginning. Pick one arg to go for. You should use all of the 2nr discussing one or two positions very very in depth, shutting doors for the aff. If you are going for T, go for JUST T. You are doing a lot more evidence discussion in the 2nr, which is awesome, make sure you justify those new arguments. I think you would benefit from some big picture framing at the beginning of your speech, have an overview explaining why you win.