Yang,+May+Pa

toc =6/28/2011=

=6/29/2011=
 * Should have prepared questions for crosss—this is your best opportunity to show off your intelligence and topic knowledge to your judge
 * Should try to avoid splitting offcase arguments between the block speeches
 * Probaby take too much in the 2NC—a better block split would be either Weapons (2N) & case (2N) OR counterplan (2N) and case (2N), leaving a major offcase argument for the 1NR
 * Either an expository (this is what our DA says) or “turns the case”/”impact calc” overview would be appropriate for the weaponization DA at the top of the 2NC
 * Continue to work on speaking drills—clarity is very good, need to add some speed
 * Correct edthe block-split mid-speech—good
 * Did well in answering CX questions
 * Also saved plenty of time for 2NR. However, you weren’t quite ready when the timer went off
 * Impact calculaus is the place to start
 * Should cite specific cards when extending arguments in the 2nr (uq on da, link on da, impact on da, solv on cp)—did in some cases, not others

=6/30/2011= Practice Round #3 May(1A) and Sam (2A) VS Saunder (1N) and Gaochy (2N) Judge: Jane May—1AC Its great that you’re very clear! You lost some speed and clarity as your speech time went on, which might be because you’re tiring out. Keeping up with your speed drills will help with endurance (and lots of water and some sleep!) :) Try to time your 1ac ahead of time. Partner prompts made it appear you were running out of time and needed some key cards in other advantages.

Saunder-1NC If possible, try to make frontlines to each advantage. Even if you don’t have cards for everything, you can make defensive impact take outs and dealing with each advantage individually makes your case attack stronger, more credible, and makes it more likely you won’t forget about any of the specific impact scenerios for the 1ac.

Great speed. You may want to begin you speech a little slower to let the judge to adjust to hearing a new voice before you turn your jets on full force. However, you’re extremely clear, which is quite impressive. Try to work on stressing the most persuasive and important parts of your evidence by changing your vocal inflection.

Happy to see you ready to jump up right after cross-s, ready to go, with a clear order/roadmap.. Great beginning for a 1n’s ethos!

Need to more clearly note your transition to case arguments. I flowed a few of your solvency arguments on the Debris DA. Other judges may not be as familiar with the evidence packet and realize you were transitioning. Make sure to fill all your 1AC time. You had 30 seconds left.

You don’t have to defend conditionality with the K and two Das. You can say you’re either going for the K alt or the SQ. We call that logical limited conditionality, which means that a good policymaker should always have the ability to default to the SQ if the affirmative is proven to be a net bad policy. You’re not defending multiple conditional worlds, since you only have one K alt, so you can be a bit tricker with how you explain and avoid most generic theory arguments about condo.

Sam-2AC

When giving your roadmap, remember to label the off case arguments and tell the judge which order you are addressing them in. You begin reading multiple solvency arguments. Frontload these in the 1AC or extend evidence you already read in the 1ac. Generally the 2ac case debate can ideally be handled without reading any new evidence (unless they’re impact turning or read a hidden da on case). You save precious time to then unload on all their offcase arguments. Try to refer to their 1nc arguments in order instead of simply reading evidence. It gets slightly confusing where you’re at. It appears to be a flowing issue, so focusing on those skills will help your 2ac organization.

When permuting a k give us a text to the permutation. Typically these are “perm: do both”, “perm do the plan and the parts of the kritik that are not reject the plan” and “perm: do the plan and reject in all other instances”. This is more clear than just reading perm solvency evidence. Try to incorporate analytical arguments. Try with defensive arguments and logical reasons why their impacts are silly (like cap hadn’t led to extinction, empirically, Debris now and no trigger on econ, econ crisis now which proves wars will not escalate and break out when the econ changes, etc). Impacts are the biggest lies in debate so always start there.

Very clear and quick. Impressive you could keep up your speed for the entire speech! Try to number your arguments on off-case positions. If you get lost numbering, make sure to say next when transitioning to another arguments.

Try to avoid underviews like going back to case for the last minute. Instead try to make a variety of arguments, especially against the k. Include your own great creativity and smart questions in cross-x!

If you ask about the conditional nature of the K in your K and they concede its conditional, you should make a condo bad theory argument in the 2ac. Afterall, they spotted you the link :)

Gaochy—2NC

Good use of referring to their evidence and showing that it’s old in cross-x while also pointing out your k impacts are currently happening. Good use of your historical knowledge of Russia to logically prove your impacts are still plausible and theirs are unikely. Try to know how you’re splitting the block before cross-x of the 2ac. You and your partner didn’t sound like you had a pre-planed course of attack that will limit preptime. However, you may want to use a little more prep to prepare DA overviews and answers/indicts to the specific evidence read in the 2ac. Remember, that debate is all about a race to the warrants of your arguments and theirs. Excellent job integrating your cross-z examples to proves their don’t have history on their side!

Good job evenly splitting your time on each of the positions you are extending. However, you run out of arguments on the Debris DA and cut your speech short. Your summary of the Debris DA story that comes at the very end of your speech would be more persuasive as an overview. When extending each offcase argument, you generally want a short (30 sec or less) overview explaining the thesis of your !NC argument you are extending and pointing out a strategic slip up on that flow by the 2ac which means you’re automatically winning a uniqueness debate, a specific impact, a link (whatever the 2ac glossed over) and make it the biggest issue.

Saunder-1NR Have a plan when you go up to cross-x the 2ac. Have a piece of paper you right cross-x questions and strategies on before hand. Make sure to use all the time.

Great line by line at the beginning of the k. You are correct to make arguments about the K’s alt being mutually exclusive with the alternative. Next make an argument about why the permutation still links (or read your link block there). You make a decent cooption argument too! However, it appears you are free flowing without any blocks. Try to write blocks to arguments you know are coming.

Also, I heard you say to your partner during the speech that you can’t read new evidence in the 1NR. Not true! You should def read new evidence in the 1NR. You need to in order to compete against the 2ac. You just don’t want to read new off case postitions in the 1nr.

Good job being comparative on the case debate. You extend your stories of the 1ac well. Again, watch out for those dreaded “underviews”. All your extra logical analysis should come in your overviews for the arguments where you quickly restate the arguments thesis, impact, prob, and point out a 2ac strategic error. Use all your time, even just 10 secs!

May—1AR Make sure to include ALL offcase positions in your 1AR order. You forgot to put the K in your order. Good job extending previous evidence you read. Reading a few new cards in the 1ar is good, but you might want to focus on covering each of the offcase positions by extending specific 2ac arguments as well. Make sure that you use all your time. Even 20 seconds is a bunch of time you could make some analytical takeouts on cap or any of the Das. Your 1AR had some very good moments. Your impact analysis was excellent, especially when you pointed out that an arms race cannot take place if everyone on earth is dead. Your argument that Canada can detect asteroids, but can’t deflect them, is also a very good argument. But you did not properly address some arguments

Gaochy—2NR Try to begin the 2nr a little slower and emphasize clarity. While you’re telling a good story, make sure to at least extend the specific impacts on the k and tell me why voting neg is better than the aff (yes it’s conceded) but a conceded off case argument should garner more than 10 seconds of the 2nr. Explain how I should start my decision. Should I start with the Weaponization Impacts and reject the aff for the sq, or do I embrace the k alt? Can I do both? Is it an either/or/gateway issue? This would allow you to explain advocating a k alt and if I don’t buy it I then evaluate the affirmative based on their policy implications (your DA). Watch out for making underviews at the bottom of your 2nr. Again, these are great summaries that are more strategically used as an overview at the top of each of the offcase positions. Excellent use of all your time to extend as many case arguments as possible. Definitely a strong 2nr that you should do a rebuttal redo on where you work on framing the debates at the top for judges, in light of all the shit I said above :)

Sam-2AR Don’t admit you don’t know where you’re going before the roadmap. You correctly identify all the arguments that the 2nr made. Don’t undermine yourself by saying “we may have screwed this up”. A golden piece of advice I got when I was younger was “even if you’re confused just spend your times talking about YOUR argument. There’s a good chance your judge is just confused” J Great impact analysis with timeframe, probability, and magnitude. Watch out for saying they are each individually the most important. Pick one. Good 2ar though, you picked up your 2ac arguments and reextended them well. Try to justify your new arguments based on 2NR new arguments or as “framing my decision calculous”. That can justify you making a bunch of new logical arguments. Great debate! :)

=7/5/2011= 2N – May •Try to ask questions toward a specific end (set up links, figure out and challenge their internal links, identify missing pieces of evidence within the logical chain). Asking your opponent to restate their arguments isn’t enough. •Your extension of your cards is good, but it can be done more effectively if you use your explanation comparatively against the evidence the aff reads. •Having your partner run cards to the front and just point at them is largely counterproductive. Instead, take more prep time and figure out exactly what you want to read and where. •Don’t just read more evidence in the 2NC. Focus on figuring out precisely all of the arguments the affirmative is making, and do your best to both answer them on the line-by-line of the debate and to explain why your arguments outweigh theirs. •You need to impact your arguments. Saying we are in debt by itself doesn’t have an impact, but placing an actual impact on why increasing the debt would be bad could potentially be devastating. •Try to focus less on reading cards in the 2NR and more on making comparative analysis and explaining why your impacts are bigger and better than theirs. •I’m not sure I understand your fiat argument, but you should try to make it earlier. At this point, it’s difficult for me to accept your argument because it has come so late. •You’re doing a much better job on the line-by-line in the 2NR, but you need to figure out exactly the way by which you’re going to win the debate and use that strategy to finish the debate. Offense wins debates, so figure out which argument proves the plan is a bad idea and outweighs the aff and focus on that.