Boone,+Micheala

toc =6/28/2011= Kyndra/Maci vs Purva/Michaela Good questions, but be sure just to ask the questions—you don’t have to make an argument in cx about them. Should a child go without shoes? Food? Not sure what argument these questions set up. You also want to make sure to ask questions for the full 3 minutes. You want to divide up the block more—Purva will have 2 DA’s to cover, which took about 6 minutes of the 2ac to answer. Your 8 minutes is spent answering 2 minutes of arguments. Good 2nr choice and minimizing of your arguments, but remember the 2nr can’t include the debris DA since it was not extended in the block.

=6/29/2011=

Make sure you flow carefully. Your second 2AC was much better than your first, but you could have improved your organization even more. Be sure you flow each argument, and answer them in order. Tell the judge which argument you are answering before you answer it.

In the 2AR, you should do the impact analysis at the beginning instead of the end. Also, you should answer the weaponizations DA by saying that you //won’t// weaponize space: in the debate, you basically conceded that you were going to weaponize space. You did a good job extending the perm on the kritik, but then you starting talking about how you will help the economy by mining resources – you should be arguing that you will be //ruining// the economy if you are trying to argue that you can use your aff to ruin capitalism. Helping the economy links you to their argument more.

=6/30/2011=
 * It seems like you have many of the arguments in your head, but have a sometimes have a hard time translating them to into words on the fly. The good news is that this will mostly go away naturally the more debates your are in. However, if you are interested in speeding that process up, try thinking of the tags to your arguments during prep time and an example of those of why that tag is true. Thinking about a few of these arguments ahead of time (try not to forget bringing up the right blocks though) will help to organize your thoughts and practice translating them to words.


 * It also helps if you can “get on a roll.” Generally, if you can start a speech consistent and


 * Good job with the sense of urgency, but be careful that your words don't run together. Clarity is more important that speed (even if it doesn’t feel like it sometimes)

=7/1/2011= 2N - Michaela 2NC- Good job on the solvency flow against the aff, clear extensions and extrapolation of those arguments against the 2AC was good. split up the block more again. Be sure to use all your time if you have time left over, read more cards against their case or add another impact module on your DA. If you are giving an overview of the DA make sure to tell a story like before, this is important so you and the judge are on the same page, and build credibility for your argument, and the judge feels more at ease voting for an argument he/she fully understands. Remember that cross-ex of the 1AC is a time to get links for your DAs. Try to think of ways to get your oppenent to say something that will give you a link, ask your coaches if you're having a hard time getting the wording down to ask a leading question Good debate

General Comments: Overall I thought this was a good debate in which clash was being made over the impacts and everyone was doing a great job with their impact calc. I felt that the debaters were doing a good job on the line by line isolating different areas of arguments on the aff's solvency to argue and referring to their opponent's cards when mitigating their importance. However I feel that the debaters focused so much on the micro that they forgot much of the macro or the big picture of the round. The aff should use their aff more as offense in the round against the DA's especially when the Asteroid Mining advantage is hardly being contested. This should be factored more into the impact calc that the 1AR and 2AR made, (This could even be utilized in the 2AC making these impact comparisons). The Neg, both in the neg block and the 2NR, needed to do a better job of explaining and extending the shell of the weaponization DA. The neg focused on the line-by line and the args made by the aff, but needs to also paint a picture of the DA as a story so the judge can understand the effects of the Aff plan.

Also there was a huge point being made about fiat in this debate. Fiat means, yes, that the plan happens, however it doesn't mean that money appears from no where and funds the plan. The plan is funded but the money must come from a source and that's the link on the Budget Trade-off DA, that it currently comes out of existing NASA projects. Fiating funding does no - link the neg's DA. I'd recommend asking your lab leaders/coaches how fiat functions in regards to the aff plan again.

This round was a great example of debating though with clash on a variety of different topics in the debate. This was especially good on case in which both teams debated the solvency evidence and used their and the opponents cards in their impact calc. Remember to always argue the merits of your impacts against those of the opposing team and give reasons why Time frame is more important than the inevitability of the aff's impacts and vice versa. This is especially important in the rebuttles where you tell the judge why exactly their voting for you and not the other team, so that the judge doesn't even have to think because you're giving all the reasons to sign the ballot your way.

=7/5/2011= Good recognition that the 2ac undercovered the CP/K, but don’t talk about it as him conceding it. He did make several arguments about every card that you read. Be sure to answer those, and determine whether or not you need to read a card to extend each argument. OK, some of this comes later. But, you spend all 8 minutes answering the analytical arguments about the CP/K, and Wendy has to answer the bulk of the 2ac on the case debate. Be sure to change up your impact calculations for the CP/K debate—if you solve the entirety fo the aff, do you have to weigh your impact vs theirs? Or versus something else? All: condense the debate more, especially in final rebuttals. You want to narrow the debate, in this case, how the cp interacts with the aff. The case arguments would link to both the plan and cp, so the 2nr probably doesn’t need to extend them, and the 2ar shouldn’t have to answer them. So, what part of the aff does the cp not solve, and how does that interact with the socialism impact? From there you can get into the specifics of the author qualifications and what the aff means, but I would assume the neg would want to spot them those arguments.