Dahl,+Alexandra

toc =6/28/2011= Cross-ex questions are very obvious (do you claim fiat, does life have value...) Cross-ex questions also seemed to be a little pointless. They didn't really help you exploit holes in the aff or setup any offcase args

Never use that much prep before the 2NC Use the podium The overview was kinda pointless. You could have extended the arguments more specifically because they never really refuted them Don't read enviro impacts when they put massive D on that on the budget DA Recognize what they refuted and read cards there. You don't need more cards if they dropped something (ex. the IL on budget DA) No underviews!!!!!!!!!!

Please do not ONLY do Ix calc and an overview in the 2NR (and the overview should not be new analytics...) You can't win the K if you don't actually extend it!

USE ALL YOUR PREP!!! Be confident

=6/29/2011= Try slowing down a little bit on 1ac tags. You are pretty loud and clear, but not pushing yourself as much to speed through tags and cites will make your speech sound more fluent and put together. Good job answering questions about specification during cross-x (in spite of the fact that you don’t know some of the specifics of how the aff would work you still give intelligent funding answers). Face me when answering questions. Good job pressing on the alternative to the K in CX, however, I don’t think Matt read the alternative in the 1NC, so I think you should make note of that. Good job dealing with Matt’s concession on the DA. When you’re on case, make sure to extend an impact argument on case and point out the neg has mostly conceding that an asteroid is coming. Good impact calc later in your speech. A really important skill to work on for 1ars is something called embedded clash, when extend your own arguments and through that answer the neg’s args (even though you are not explicitly saying “now onto their blah blah arg”). This saves you a lot of time and also makes you sound more in control of the debate, because you are constantly framing things in the context of the 2ac rather than the neg args. Next time you give a 1ar, try to start each argument by saying “extend 2ac argument” and then explain how that extension answers whatever the neg said. Very good for a first 1ar ever

=6/30/2011=

1A: Alex -You’re fast but you need to go slower on the tags then you do on the actually card text because right now it sounds like the same thing- you should also highlight down your 1AC cards -Read off a surface that is the same height as you- it will help you speak clearer and faster -Tell me why post dating matters and how it changes the debate- don’t tell me what they didn’t do- tell me what your cards say- I know what they did/didn’t do -Don’t reference authors- reference arguments and tags- and 2AC #s -You need to extend and explain your arguments that your partner wants to go for- like you did on the perm -I need warrants on your impact calculus

= 7/5/2011 = Don’t read a whole ton of cards on the CP. Read one or two cards you really need, and it will save you more time to read more disads or other off case positions. Your strategy in the 1NC is fundamentally bad – you only have once choice (CP and DA), which is disadvantageous because if you start losing the CP or DA, you have no other strategies to pursue. During the CX of the 2AC, you need to stop asking open-ended questions. They just give Sienna a chance to talk about her aff and make it sound better – only ask questions you already know the answer to.

In the 1NR, you do a good job on impact analysis and on the line by line, but there is one argument you did not answer adequately. Sienna makes the argument that SPS will increase the amount of money in the budget because we will no longer need to spend money on fossil fuels. Your answer is that the CP also solves the budget issue. This is not responsive, because Sienna’s argument is a link turn – even if the CP solves the budget issue, if SPS puts more money in the overall NASA budget, the link to the disad has been turned and there is no reason to vote for the CP because there is no longer a net benefit.