Schauvaney,+Samantha

toc =6/28/2011=

=6/29/2011=
 * Need to let May take care of the CX of the 1AC—your job is to make sure tha the 1NC is ready
 * Use CX to set up your arguments and to point out flaws in your opponent’s evidence—several of your questions allowed Zach to repeat his case arguments
 * Paperless debate takes practice to master—one good practice is to start the jumping process as soon as CX is over
 * Don’t need a roadmap beyond “x off and case”
 * When you stumble in your delivery, it is likely from reading ahead—sight-reading and “reading backwards” drills will help sove this
 * Counterplan is a clever idea—should try to set up competition in CX
 * 1NC is not big enough—you need more arguments (another DA or a K) so that you can put more pressure on the 2AC and 1AR
 * Good impact calc—should reference specific cards when you are making probability and magnitude claims… should have been in the 2NC, though. Be careful to avoiding overclaiming ev—do you really think that space weaponization would be _immediate_?
 * Need stronger answers to the perm—if it solves the DA link, “inefficiency” is probably not enough to overcome double solvency

=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!

=7/5/2011= 1N – Sam •I think you forgot to read the cite on the first couple cards. Be careful to read the citation or your judge will assume you are not reading evidence. •You need to push yourself to go faster. Your speed is only slightly elevated beyond conversational speech right now. When you’re doing speed drills, push yourself to go as fast as you can every day and you’ll gradually gain more speed. •When transitioning between flows, don’t use the phrase “And, on budget”. Use some transition word that clearly indicates you are moving to a new flow. Ideally use a transition like “next” or “next off”. •If you’re reading a China CP, you need to have a specific answer to the hegemony flow because it solves zero percent of that advantage. •Focus on improving your confidence in cross-x. You aren’t ever wrong, but you walk into some mistakes because you’re letting yourself get pushed around in cross-x. •You need to keep asking questions and not stall and waste time. Yes, cross-x can be a largely pointless exercise, but there are effective and productive uses of it. Pointing out that you’re just stalling will only make judges LESS likely to pay attention to anything you’re asking. •Judges can tell when you’re dawdling to steal a little bit of prep before your speech. You’re way better off not even trying. •If you’re kicking a CP, there’s no need to extend that the CP doesn’t solve in order to kick it. Just don’t talk about it anymore and make sure that you aren’t dropping any add-ons or theory. •On theory debates, you’re almost certainly better off if you make your own interpretation, and meet it. In this round, make the counter-interpretation that you get one conditional counterplan. •The first two and a half minutes of this speech are defense. Focus on extending offensive arguments. Remember that the 1NR is the most effective speech to put pressure on the 1AR. •Good job making comparative impact arguments, but you should focus on reading more evidence to bury the aff under on this DA, which at this point is pretty much your last clear offensive argument.

=7/14/2011= 2A – Sam • You need to be doing a much better job flowing the case arguments when you’re prepping your 2AC. I’m not sure what you’re doing, but it’s going to be impossible to do an effective line-by-line without flowing. • You should always put case on top of the 2AC. Even if you biff the other args a little bit, you can still conceivably win while undercovering them. You cannot win if you drop the case. • You read perm do both twice on the cap K. Why? • You need to focus on lowering the pitch of your voice when you do redos. When you start to pick up speed, you also rapidly are raising the pitch of your voice to the point where much of what you say is completely incomprehensible. • No one is flowing your speech. This is exceedingly problematic. How are you going to be able to tell what args you made and what to extend. If one of your arguments goes dropped, will you notice? Flowing is crucial – I would take more prep to allow your partner to flow your args. • You need to explain the warrants behind us “coming a long way in technology” since 1995. This is a true argument, but you really aren’t explaining why. Some warrants from 95 about why SSP is not feasible may very likely still be true. • A good chunk of the 1NC on case is simply not being answered. You need to do a better job flowing their speech in during the 1NC. • You need better warrants on the heg debate. Being the heg, having other countries become the heg, is hardly compelling analysis. • Demanding that Hanna find a warrant and then yelling “So you don’t have a warrant!” is not only utterly unpersuasive, it’s very annoying. • While you’re making all of the correct arguments, you need to focus on making COMPARATIVE arguments against the impacts they extend at the end of the round. The judge should be voting for you even if you don’t win any of the defensive args on the various flows. • If you’re done, just stop. Flailing around for arguments usually isn’t going to get you any more ground with the judge, and will only reduce your speaker points.

=7/15/2011=

Sam—think through how you will organize these t arguments, what is the overall claim that you are making on topicality, make that there and use the rest to support it—your theory argument should be something like “irony is cheating cuz u don’t advocate the plan, and even if they win irony is ok, the plan that they ironically advocate must be topical,” that’s a pretty good argument, makes them defend against t and the plan itself is clearly not t—If you are gonna extend these cps you have to be able to come up with something as a net benefit, I get that its nonsense.