Posey,+Noah

toc =6/28/2011= //2N – Noah//
 * WHY AREN’T YOU FLOWING? You are never going to be able to effectively respond to your opponent’s arguments on the line by line if you aren’t writing them down.
 * You’re doing a good job reading the cards out of the file, but you aren’t effectively responding to the arguments made in the 2AC. Focus on answering specific arguments instead of just reading more cards.
 * Your responses to the arguments they are making are good, and use reasonable warrants, but you could help yourself by using subpoints (1, 2, 3 or a, b, c).
 * You need to spend a little bit of time talking to your partner before the negative block to figure out how you want to divide it up. As it stands, you’ve taken most of the substance, so the block is almost required to cover the same issues multiple times.
 * If you have extra time (in this case 1:20), you should always be reading more cards. Don’t surrender time in an activity where you have very little of it.
 * USE YOUR PREP TIME! It can only help if you’re more prepared and written out in your comments and what you’re answering. While it’s a useful skill being able to speak off the top of your head, it should not be your first priority.
 * You’re doing a really good job mitigating their arguments, but you need to do some sort of impact comparison. Even if their impact is highly mitigated, you have to have some reason to vote against them.

-Talon =6/29/2011= 2AC- Noah While tag team cross-x is okay, you shouldn’t make it a habit to dominate your partner’s cross-x (especially of the 1ac). It undermines your partner’s credibility as well as risking a judge thinking you are too aggressive. I can tell you’re excited to talk though and that vibe is definitely a positive debate one! When giving your 2ac order, make sure to tell the judge which offcase positions you are going to in which order. You’re clear and energetic which makes it easy for me to flow you and tell where you’re transitioning between arguments. That’s great! Now try and number your arguments before you give them in the 2ac. Remember the tips we talked about after the round about counting with your fingers quietly on your leg. Also aim for your 2ac frontlines to alternate between analytical argument, card, analytical arg, card, and so on. This is important to help you make more arguments, beyond your evidence. You do a great job summarizing evidence and making some new arguments after you read evidence in the 2AC, but you should save most of this story type analysis for your 2AR. The 2AC is for you to make as many types of different arguments in your speech, so you have more choices in your subsequent speeches and you put more pressure on the negative block to cover! Great 2ac coverage! You made sure to put multiple arguments on each offcase position. Now try to make sure you have each //type// (uniqueness, link, impact defense) on each different offcase argument. A wise mentor once told me, “Impacts are the biggest lies in debate. Don’t every concede you’re opponent’s impacts..” Show how their DA impacts are historically and empirically denied. On the K, make sure to challenge their morality impact claims along with their claims that capitalism is the root cause of war, environmental destruction, etc. GREAT CX of the 2NC. You pushed him on his alternative solvency VERY well.

__2AR- Noah__ Great even/if statements. You do such an excellent job making their impacts seem unlikely and stressing the importance of your original 1ac impacts. You do a good job pointing out what arguments are conceded. Tell me as a judge why I should prefer conceded arguments and automatically vote aff on the quickest nuclear war.

=7/5/2011=

Start with a short overview. This makes the impact calculus easier for me and for your later speeches. Not sure how you are splitting the block, but if you are reading new cards in lieu of extending all of the ones read in the 1NC, why? Why would Blaize read all those arguments and run out of breath for no reason? Don’t summarize cards you just read! Summarize the cards from the 1NC! Don't go for everything in the 2NR. You are getting smashed on debris- move on. You have not response to the fact that they solve the impact, no matter what happens with the uniqueness debate. Quicker on the flow- do some rebuttal redos. Sort of thin on impact explanations. Remember don't just extend your impact, compare impacts in the round. Don’t just say you read quality cards- tell me what quality cards you read and why they are good.

=7/6/2011= FLOW FLOW FLOW—you only pretend to write down some of the things some of the time. Without a flow you will certainly drop arguments. Make sure you are reading citations with your tags—several of the first things you said on the CP I think are cards but there is no citation read. The questions you ask in CX are really good, but you need those arguments both in the 2ac, and probably need to be asked before the 2ac, not after the 2nc. You want to make sure to read more answers to the CP—you don’t even make a permutation. When doing speaking drills, focus on reading through without saying some of the words again. Ideally, you don’t want to say any words doubly, but some is understandable—you are repeating about every other word though. Think about how your 1ac interacts with the negative arguments as well—don’t just read evidence to answer these arguments, but extend your case and reasons why the cp cant solve or how the case works with the DA. Good arguments on case to answer their arguments, but be sure to answer in order and recognize if you need evidence or not to answer those.

=7/10/2011=

--your understanding of these arguments is already pretty good, like notably good—you should work on cutting more evidence and really getting inside the literature that surrounds your arguments—I think you would make a huge jump as a debater with the skill you already have at using the specifics of your evidence --you should focus on eliminating some of the extra words that you include, so things like “um” and “like’ or repeating something several times—not only do they break up what would be otherwise convincing arguments, they slow you down and keep you from getting into a good rhythm --you are extending and making your arguments well on a micro level, but not explaining these things nearly as offensively as they should be—at least on politics (which isn’t really gone for, but whatever…)—you extend ux and a link turn, but don’t explain how they work together or tell me an overall story on it