Zhang,+Raymund

=6/28/2011=

2AC: Raymond

- Great job integrating cards and analytical arguments! - Try to spend less time on case. - Kritik – you are right to make a permutation argument but you should lable it as such. - You do need to make more answers to the K other than this arg is silly/doesn’t make sense. - Good job doing timeframe comparisons to the K impacts versus the aff! - Try to make more offensive arguments versus defense

2AR: Raymond

- Develop a strategy for defending the aff and what arguments you’re going for to defeat the K. - Good job explaining the aff but you need to still answer the kritik. - Do more comparative impact calculus (assume a world that they win their impact) - Use much more structure versus just talking generally about the debate. - Identify where you can win the debate and whatmatters.

=6/29/2011=

2NC-Ray Make sure to use all your 1AC cross-x time to ask questions. If you have a hard time remembering enough questions, write them down ahead of time on a paper labeled Cross_X at top. Any time you’re listening during the debate, write a question about it down right then. All the sudden you’ll have more questions than you have time to ask. Also try and make sure the 1NC is ready to go before you stand up for cross-x. It took you and Will a few minutes to get your order together and this is time another judge might take out of your prep time. REMEMBER TO SPLIT THE BLOCK! I know this is confusing that the negative has two speeches in a row when you’re starting J You spend a good chunk of your 2NC reading new case defense vs the 1ac. Try making your 1nc DA and K shells shorter, so that you can BEGIN the case debate in the 1NC and you’ll have more time to answer their arguments, read extensions, and extend previously read evidence. You do an excellent job pointing out how ludicrous their impacts are. Your knowledge of nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction is great! Try to couple this impact defense with analysis about why your DA and Kritik impacts are MORE likely, will be bigger, and happen faster. You’re cap Mezaros card has a host of impacts you can cite and compare to the ridiculous aff impacts. Also prove why the root cause of the affirmative impacts (miscalc, space race, etc) is because we live in a capitalist world. This proves why your K TURNS the case. Make sure to include that phrase in your impact calculous..

Not enough time on the budget DA. Cut down your time on case or have the 1NR take the budget DA. Try to refer to the specific 2ac arguments on the off case positions when you are extending off case arguments. Refuting their argument, in order, one by one is the most persuasive way to cover and extend your off case arguments.

Watch out for swearing. Especially the F bomb. You never need to swear in a debate. While it doesn’t offend me, many judges feel differently and it will negatively effect your speaker points.

2NR-Ray

Make sure to kick out of your DA’s that you’re not going for. At the top mention you’re not going for them and make an argument about how even if they try to turn your DA’s the K impacts/alternative/FW should be evaluated first and how all their impacts are rooted in the harms of capitalism. Extend your evidence by author’s name. You do great impact analysis! Focus on articulating your alternative for how the judge should evaluate the debate. Am I a policy maker? Can I start the movement? Make sure to tell me why the negative BALLOT is key to jump start a transition away from a consumer based economy and ideology.

=6/30/2011=

I'll reiterate what the judge above said: USE YOUR CX TIME! It is essential, not only for setting up your arguments, but for giving your partner some time to prepare. Learn to use prep time. You look like you are uncertain when you are constantly shuffling papers around and organizing and reorganizing a pile of evidence. Use the part of the aff they PIC out of- it's pretty good. It's the best way to generate offense against a PIC and it's a rare luxury to have offense about the part that's excluded that is carded. You don't need to read more case cards (unless they are the 1AC cards William didn't read). Good use of evidence against the DAs. Good tone on tags and strong delivery, and quality 2AC overall. You are an excellent speaker. Remember, even if you have a new impact framing like deontology you still need an impact to connect with it.

Tim

7/5/2011
Great debate! I can't believe you are transitioning so well from LD! I think you need to work on your word count. You make great arguments but you tend to repeat them and over explain them especially for the 2AC. If they run the China CP remember to focus on your US key args and parts of your case they don't solve instead of answering their specific arguments. AKA be strategic about what args you extend. Also you need to read a perm. Perms are a key part of aff ground on CPs, if you can't think of anything else to say just say perm do both. But I think you have a lot of potential and you will do great int he LD season!

=7/11/2011= 2N – Raymond • Solving the economic crisis and existing within a capitalist system are two entirely different considerations. You can easily draw lines between these two arguments, but you can’t just assume that these are the same. • The biodiversity and extinction arguments are at the very least similar, so you shouldn’t just blow it off. You need to focus on specific distinctions between your impact and theirs. • If people are starting to ignore heg now, that would seem to be a brink argument supporting why it should be propped up. The better argument, and the one you should be making is that states ignoring heg now disproves the apocalyptic/great power war impact arguments that the aff claims. • Your 2NC is way too defensive. You need to extend a lot more arguments that explain why the case itself is a bad idea, not just a series of impact takeouts and link mitigators. • When you’re kicking arguments, you’re correct to put them first, but remember that you have to kick them FAST. If you’re kicking out of the Cap K by saying “we’re not saying anything”, you’re just wasting your time. • Quit whining about reading cards when your argument is why cards themselves are bad. You need to identify the reasons why evidence in and of itself is bad, something that you guys have never really done in this debate. • It’s clear that you’re attempting to articulate this argument correctly, but you are so caught up in your precious “deontology” buzzwords that it is almost indecipherable what you are trying to argue. Identify the specific link from within the aff, then explain the impact to each of these arguments. • This 2NR demonstrates why reading an argument on why evidence is bad and reading evidence is so damning. You can’t help but rely on the evidence that you’ve read even though you’re indicting it, which means there is ultimately no value to your impact claim. • Saying calling the Nazis bad is “judgmental” is perhaps not the ideal argument you should be making while trying to defend Heidegger’s Nazism.

=7/14/11=

You spend waaaaayyy too long on T. Take out some of your definitions, stick to one solid interpretation, and one or two week meet arguments. You should explicitly extend both of your advantages and frame their concession in the context of the rest of the debate. What does it mean on the DA and the CP if exo politics is conceded? Don't just say "extend the adv/impact". Explain it and how it interacts with the advantage. You are extending what you need to be extending, but make sure you are extending by ARGUMENT not by evidence. Evidence is useless unless it supports an argument with a claim and a warrent, so make sure that each time you are extending a card, it fits into a broader argument you are making. You should have an overview in the 2ar, explaining that the 2nr was shallow on the most important parts of the debate (your case) and why that matters. You do a good job on exopolitics on the DA, i think you could explain this a little more at put it at the beginning of your speech. You do a REALLY good job on T in the 2ar, but a lot of it sounds a little new. Try and use the same language and phrasing as the 1ar, even if you are making new arguments it will make them sound a lot better.

=7/15/2011= 1A – Raymond •	I am very confused about the general thesis of this aff. Why is exploration moral? Why is development moral? Do you need to do both? •	Reading a bunch of deontology framework cards isn’t enough, you need a warrant explaining why the aff itself is the moral act that should be taken. •	I don’t really understand the exopolitics stuff in this aff. It seems like it doesn’t follow from the rest of the affirmative. •	Take control of the cross-x. You are entirely knowledgeable about this aff, you can tell Straw to sit down and let you handle the questions. •	Your education arguments rely on them creating the education, but if you create a completely unpredictable framework within the round, it is impossible for them to adequately respond. This is the warrant you need to answer. •	Not dropping anything is hardly a reason why I should vote aff. You need to provide reasons why focusing on the whole resolution is GOOD for fairness and education. Your speech is extremely defensive. Make more offensive arguments. •	You’re starting to get more buzz-wordy again. Remember that you need to focus on the impact claims that you’re making, and compare them to their impact claims. MAKE THE DEBATE ABOUT THE IMPACTS. •	You need to win the K args! I’m not entirely sure why you’re spending so much time on the case args, but the capitalism K is clearly the most important issue, and it almost seems like a side issue in this 1AR. •	Your 1AR needs to be more offensively focused.