Leinbach,+August

toc =6/28/2011=

=6/29/2011=

2NC: The 2NC is a great speech to put pressure on the 1AR by overwhelming them with arguments. You make a lot of good analytic and extension arguments, but you don’t read enough cards to create the kind of pressure needed to throw a 1AR off of their game. Trying to squeeze in some more cards will dynamically change the difficulty of the 1AR in your favor.

2NR: You put up a valiant effort but ultimately a few strategic errors in the neg block prevented your impacts outweighing those of the affirmative. Specifically, the drops included:

Defense on debris DA (Empirical denied, non-ux, evidence hypertag, wright ev) Defense on weaponization DA (Non-ux, no link, intrinsicness)

You do a good job of extending the magnitude of your impacts but the uniqueness and link drops prevent you from getting the offense you need to win.

=6/30/2011= 2N: Gus -Don’t see the Inherency cards they probably aren’t relevant- I like the “why is NASA key” question- press them on their internal links -Good job telling your partner to skip the last off so you guys could get in more case arguments -You should prep your speech during the cross of the 2AC of the cross-x- grab cards and write down argument on your flow -You speak really well but I also want you make the cards and tags separated when you are speaking -On the K do impact overview and then line by line- make sure you are answering every argument- you don’t have to read more cards on the impact level- you need to explain your arguments more and your original 1NC impact -The same thing I said about your 2NC needs to be applied to the 2NR as well- IMPACT OVERVIEW AND THEN LINE BY LINE -You need to kick the asteroid disadvantage because it doesn’t go with your K

=7/14/11=

I think you should spend a little less time on T in the 1ar. You do a good job on case, I think you should point out that the majority of their arguments are defensive and don't answer the warrents of the 2ac arguments. Extend your impact on case and explain why any risk of a case impact is a reason to vote aff. Make sure you are extending a solvency deficit on the counterplan. Also, use embedded clash in teh 1ar–rather than saying "they say this, we say this", extend your 2ac argument and then within the extension explain why it answers the neg argument. I think your explanation of the perm as cooperation is good but a little new...put it in the 2ac.