Ramos,+Sienna

toc =6/28/2011= Strong delivery and good poise. We talked about this after the round, but I must insist, it doesn't do you much good to read almost every card from one DA as your only argument in the 1NC. Diversify your arguments, and don't just leave the rest of the offcase for the 2NC. Unless you have a strategy revolving around new 2NC arguments, it generally increases the power of the arguments in the block and throughout the debate in general if you keep all of your off case in the first speech. I thought that your weaponization extension was good. Make sure to answer their cards and compare the warrants of your evidence.

Tim

=6/30/2011= 2NC: You need an overview. You are clearly really smart but you read way too many cards that all say the same thing especially on the DA. Be strategic and read cards that answer their arguments and gain you more offense. Don’t read three cards that all say that space weapons can be both peaceful and military unless they push you on it.

2NR: It doesn’t really seem like you know what you need to do to win this debate going into it. An overview would really help. Tell me where you are going and how you are going to win in the broadest sense. You kind of get there at the bottom of case but you flounder around a little before getting there. In this debate you have the advantage on a couple of flows but you really need to bring it home. However your line by line was crazy good so congrats!!

=7/1/2011= 1A: Sienna -Good speaking, you are loud and fast, you could work on go a little slower on the tags- also highlight down your cards- you spent like two minutes on inherency -You need an answer to his cross-x questions- because that question devastates this aff -Good job pressing Wendy on the links of the Das- that is always a good place to start -The 1AR was really good- if you apply what I say about extending the 2AC arguments and explaining the WARRANTS in the cards- you will be really well off! -Those were good “even if” statements

= 7/3/2011 =

Milkie Luke - Make sure to not change the tone and pitch of your voice when you’re reading the texts of the card – you sound a bit like an auctioneer right now. - Good job distinguishing tags and the plan text though you probably do not need to slow down as much as you are right now. Daiquann - Try not to get so heated in cross-x: it is not increasing the credibility of your line of questioning and hurts your ethos – it’s good to be aggressive but not belligerent.

Sienna - Great speaking voice. You sound good so work on building speed.

Daiquann - Try to help Sienna answer questions but don’t take over your partners cross-x. - Also, you should not plan to read the rest of a procedural in the 1NC, in the 2NC. If you really wanted it as part of your strat, you should make sure to time your partner’s speech so that you can direct her when to switch flows with enough time to complete the argument.

Lee - Great job on analytics. - Your blocks are well written, but try to build in more offense. - You can always read more case cards to answer 1NC arguments and 2AC add-ons when you have extra time but don’t have any more cards to read on offcase arguments.

DAIQUANN! MILKIE LUKE! BOOO! Stop taking over the cross-x’s!!! - Sienna you are doing fine asking questions, just ask more! Lee you also are doing fine answering questions so be more assertive.

Daiquann - Organization!!! Flowing seems to be going pretty well for you but you want to make sure you are ready and have everything you need when you stand up to speak. - You should subdivide your arguments into sections (i.e. “link debate”, “perm debate”, etc.). - Make sure to answer every argument and always be making specific K links to the aff (cards AND analytics). - More permutation answers!!! Danger zone!

Sienna - Good speech but I want to see more of your own ideas! It’s good to have blocks but it also is bad for your aesthetics when it appears you are only reading blocks. - Don’t be afraid to speak up for yourself over Daiquann!

Milkie Luke! - Good speech: work on focusing on offensive arguments. - Great job on the perms and intrinsicness argument on the disad. - The “counter-perm” is really a floating PICs argument and that’s why you should also always make this a theory argument in the 2NC.
 * You should make intrinsicness a theoretical argument.

Daiquann - Woahhhh! Devolution! Need organization!! Think strategy – what is the 2AR going to try to go for? What can lose you the debate? What can win you the debate? - You really need to take the permutations seriously! They’re high risk arguments. - The weakest part of a K is always the alt so make sure to explain how it will result in the aff impacts etc. - The threat construction arg. is good to eliminate the degree of the impacts.

Lee - You are planting in the right place but make sure to answer the rest of the 2NR. - Explain your aff advantages, weigh their impacts versus the K, and explain them as net benefits to your pick of permutation. - Answer the threat con argument and all of the case defense. - Go for your alternative answers too.

=7/5/2011= 1AC: Say “and…” and slow down a little on tags to make them distinguishable from the cards.

2AC: Make analytical arguments! They take less time to make than cards but can be just as devastating, especially because they take a long time to answer. You should make perms on the CP, theory arguments, and reasons why the CP doesn’t solve the case. On the DA, you should make case outweighs arguments. You did a good job reading offense on each flow, however. Why did you read cards that say that global warming is not realistic? It is your advantage; you don’t want to read evidence against it.

Your CX of the 1NC was very weak, and this should never be the case… most DA shells have holes in them you can talk about during CX. Your answers during the CX of your 2AC were good, however.

1AR: Use all your time! The 1AR is already very time pressured, you don’t want to give up a minute of your speech. Also, there were some important arguments you didn’t answer, like the “socialism causes extinction argument”. Also, you need to IMPACT why job creation is important when you make the argument that NASA can create more jobs then the private sector. Don’t make arguments about the 1NR not being allowed to read cards – even though the 1NR is technically a rebuttal, it is usually considered to be a constructive because it is in the “neg block”.

2AR: You tried to extend the privatization is corrupt argument, but you did not extend this in the 1AR and so it isn’t legitimate for you to extend it in the 2AR. You can only extend arguments which have been carried through for the entire debate. You need to have a little more ethos in your 2ar – be sassier and more confident! Also, you need to be more organized – good job doing impact analysis at the beginning of the disad, but you need to be more systematic and organized in answering all of their arguments on the line by line.

=7/10/2011= 2A – Sienna • You really need to go faster in the 2AC. This is the last chance you get to bring up new offense in the debate, and you only get 8 minutes to preempt 13 minutes of negative block, so you need as diverse and widespread of offense as possible. • If you aren’t exactly sure what you’re reading, you should probably take a little bit extra prep time. The 2AC is too important to make mistakes on. • You’re doing a good job reading the best arguments in the evidence set on the case, but you need to make sure that you’re making smart analyticals alongside them. Not only are analytical args faster, but they often can make arguments you will never find cards on (specifically, stuff that is ridiculous about debate args themselves). • While there are only two offcase arguments, it seems like you are spending a ton of time on capitalism. Be sure that you’re adequately leveraging your case so that the 2AC is useful even if the 2NR doesn’t go for capitalism. • Good use reading cards on hard power that you can impact with your case. Be sure to extend the 1AC impact alongside these args in order to make them especially potent. • Good answers to the arguments about recession and economic collapse. You might even want to be a bit more upfront about these arguments, although you do a pretty good job making them go away, so I wouldn’t blame you for not thinking this way. • Good job focusing on global warming as your net impact, but the impact itself probably isn’t the distinction that you want to draw. You need to focus on how global warming is now AND CAN ONLY BE FIXED WITHIN CAPITALISM. Because of the number of people on the planet and the amount of embedded technology right now, only centralized, organized, efficient responses can solve it. • While I understand your “not seeing capitalism impacts now” argument, there are tons of cards that answer this point. Just because we don’t see tangible impacts doesn’t mean that they don’t occur (especially in light of the thousands of people who die in poverty every single day). • Good job identifying and explaining all of your impacts, but you should probably make this in an overview so the centerpoint (the “thesis”) of the debate is focused on resolving the impact questions rather than focusing only on smaller level impact distinctions.

=7/13/11=

I think you could go a lot faster in the 2ac. You are quite clear, so push yourself a little more. Your 2ac is top heavy and does not seem very efficient in the beginning, speeding up will help this. Try eliminating some of the cards you read on case, your 1ac has a lot of answers. You should make a solvency deficit argument first thing on the CP flow. I think you should spend some more time there. Good job extending your solvency deficit on the counterplan. I think you should frame the debate around your hege impact, as both a solvo deficit to the DA and something that outweighs the DA. I think you can make an argument for why hege has a shorter timeframe than the DA because it is the perception of the US doing stuff with SPS rather than the actual successful production of the satellites. That answers their best offensive argument and explains why you should win the debate round in terms of their framework. I think you should work on organization–extend arguments in the same order the 1ar did, and make sure there is consistency between your speeches.