Downey,+Sophie

toc =6/28/2011=

1AC (Sophie)- you could do a better job of highlighting these cards down, I hear a lot of unnecessary words, the tags could also be slightly better to differentiate the warrants as to why asteroid collision will cause such massive destruction You’re still stumbling over some words, this might be a result of just reading it for the first time in a debate, but you need to work on just getting through those words

A lot of time left in this 1AC, I think you could make better solvency claims on the technology and spin a little more specific story that can’t be solved by counterplans

Cross-X of 1AC: I feel like you could be getting yourself into bad territory by making those claims about the lack of technology, especially if they are planning on arguing lack of solvency mechanism, just say there is no funding for the technology, or at least specify something that seems like an overcome-able barrier

Cross-X of 1NC- Sophie- You are letting this cross-x get out of your hands, you need to make sure that all that happens in the cross-examination is that you are asking questions that make them look bad. Ask more about this “point” at which space debris means we can’t have any cell-phone satellites, because that to me sounds like we will have really pretty significantly altered the physical composition of the earth. Also, never leave cross-examination with more time on the clock, start to interrogate the qualifications of their authors if you have nothing else to ask, or find some evidence that is bad. Center your cross-x around undermining the credibility of their positions through questioning evidence they are reading. Refer to the specific evidence when you are asking questions.

1AR – I like the work you did on case, I think you characterized their arguments pretty well, but you could go further with your responses to those arguments, and you also could use your 1AC evidence a little bit better to draw out the warrants and strike a little more fear into my heart about an asteroid attack.

Your budget answers were pretty consistent with what the 2ac said, which is ok, but you need to explain more clearly why the disad doesn’t matter in light of those answers and I think you need to characterize the arguments your making as dropped arguments, because for the most part they really are dropped arguments. Either way, the debate is down to one simple issue here, whether or not global warming poses an existential threat to humans and especially as compared to asteroids. Try to draw out your warrants as to why arguments like humans resilient really matters which you start to do with your argument about our ability to evolve. Make comparisons to the rhetoric that is used by their authors that argue that global warming is a big deal. Try to point out portions of the card that would indicate that it isn’t as big of a deal, they may be not underlined, or their may be bad qualifications to the authors. Find these flaws in their evidence and exploit them as much as you can.

One the debris disad, I think you are straying a little bit away from what the 2ac strategy on the disad was. You are focusing more on the timeframe, which is awesome, and a good argument to be making, but then you start to make this argument about the ability to just adopt technology to fix the problem which is not in the 2ac, your 2ac strategy is mainly about the inevitability of the impact.

=7/5/11=

Good CX questions. Try to sound a little more assertive sometimes–a strong presence in CX can go a long way in the debate round. Start the 2nc off with an overview–what the impact to the DA is and why it matters. You are reading all the right cards to answer the aff’s answers, but you should make analytic arguments as well. It becomes difficult to stay tuned in when it’s just cards, and also means you’re missing making good arguments about your opponents evidence or your own impacts (and comparing the two). You sound good when you make analytics on the perm. Good impact calculus on top of the DA. Your speech is much better now that you are making your own arguments on various cards and positions–include some of this in the 2nc!

=7/12/11=

Try asking more offensive CX questions. Almost all your questions are explanatory. You get a lot stronger toward to the end of CX when you are talking about missiles and peace–try to make this type of questioning (when you are asking something but really know the answer and are just trying to make a point) what you do for all of CX. I wouldn't read politics Da with econ and cap in the same 1nc. I think you should start with an overview on T, and spend much much more time on it if you want it to be a viable option. Tell a story about how the affirmative has abused you in this round and why their interpretation is crap for debate overall. Good ups on explaining the distinction between the DA impact and the alternative. Make sure you extend additional links on the capitalism flow to the weaponization part of the aff. I think you need to also be making root cause claims and explain why the alt solves the aff. Make arguments about why capitalism will return with the permutation. I think you should take only one of the Ks and T, or maybe only one K. If you do take security, make sure you start with an overview that explains how the aff views the world and why it results in a recreation of their impacts. Don't make your alternative about your judge changing her mind, but about the anonymous endorsement of a type of thought. I think your explanation of the distinction between econ collapse and the alt is good. There is alot more impact discussion in this speech (which is good), you should put it in the context of the aff (root cause etc). I think you should pick either security or cap to go for, but be aware that the arguments of each impact the other flow when kicking out of one of them. I would extend your China threat arg as a cap link and a reason the alt solves the impacts (you are rejecting the system that mandates that securitization). Answer theory.

=7/13/2011=

--you should really start the 2nr with an isolated overview that performs the meta-level work that you are trying to sort of integrate with the line by line in the 2nr, its hard to figure out exactly what you are talking about, what impacts you are going for --good job extending the weaponz da, even if its dropped, you should try to talk about the evidence that you are extending, why it is good and why it matters—especially when u are doing your impact work, also explain some of the other warrants behind this—for instance, it may take us a while to actually deploy the satellites, means we will get the impact to the disad way before we get the impact to the aff --how does the cap debate work with all of this? Are you advocating the alternative? Is weaponziation a net benefit to this? Are you advocating the status quo, its not really clear to me. I think an overview would solve this problem, as would the decision to just go for cap. --need more discussion of your evidence on the cap debate as well, you need to explain the linkfrom wanting more to the root cause of war, as well as the reasons that cap causes environmental destruction --more time on cap would allow you to make the argument you clearly should be saying, that cap is the root cause of their impacts (especially warming, but including great power competition)