Kinsman,+Wendy

toc =6/28/2011=

=6/30/2011= I think that the 1A was able to confuse you in terms of the Cap K in Cross X. If I were you I would talk to Laura or any of your other lab leaders in order to clarify it more so you can be ready for Cross X questions like hers which are pretty common like, “What is the Alt” However I think you did a great job fielding questions about the DA and your case answers were great!

=7/1/2011= 1N: Wendy -Remember what I said about order- you don’t need to say your off-case positions- you just need to tell me how many off case- you did a good job of this after I corrected you  -I think you are a good speaker- but you need to stay still when you speak and me more confident -PREP DURING YOUR PARTNERS SPEECH AND HIS CROSS- X  -Good job referencing their cards and responding to them -Also thanks for taking my comments and talking off the chair instead -Remember how I told you to reference their cards (2AC #1, they say…” but) also overview on top- but it was a good overview -Good job saying why to prefer your ev- but point out the contradiction in the ev don’t just say it

=7/5/2011= You don’t have to say “this is connected to our cp”—let the other team figure that out. You want to give a name for each position before reading it—ie, don’t start the 1nc by saying plan: X. Really good job in cx getting them to talk about their evidence in a particular way to put them in a double bind, and a good extension of that argument into the debate. Be careful in your explanation of the CP—if the FG funds the R&D, it is still taxpayer dollars, which you argue is the link. All: condense the debate more, especially in final rebuttals. You want to narrow the debate, in this case, how the cp interacts with the aff. The case arguments would link to both the plan and cp, so the 2nr probably doesn’t need to extend them, and the 2ar shouldn’t have to answer them. So, what part of the aff does the cp not solve, and how does that interact with the socialism impact? From there you can get into the specifics of the author qualifications and what the aff means, but I would assume the neg would want to spot them those arguments.

=7/13/2011= 1A – Wendy •	You have to go faster than this in your 1AC. Push yourself both in speed drills and in reading your 1AC every time. Until you do, you’re never going to be able to get through enough cards. •	Not reading the heg advantage is highly questionable, especially since that’s the main solvency deficit against most of the counterplans. If you were talking faster, this wouldn’t really be an issue. •	Quit bossing Gaochy around in cross-x. Not only is she doing a fine job, most of the points you’re trying to butt in with are inane and time-wasting. •	You need to flag which argument you’re answering. When you begin, it is almost incomprehensible what you’re arguing, especially since you just refer to what you’re answering as “the card”. •	Skipping back and forth between flows is messy and can only make your 1AR much more likely to lose you the round. Take the extra time to prep your 1AR if you need it. It’s well worth it for the 2AR. •	You can’t just extend cards generically. You need to extend a card by name and date, and then explain why the warrants apply to the argument that you are making. •	Perms bad was barely an argument in the negative block. Don’t spend almost any time on it. •	Your arguments about politics and the CP linking to each other is not warranted, you need to spend more time making clear the warrants and links between the args. •	“Resource wars are already happening over the lack of resources”. This is a pretty good example of the non-argument arguments that make up most of the 1AR. You need to include warrants, clash, and impacts in your arguments in order for them to hold any weight. •	What does it mean for Congress to “go after the public”? •	If you’re extending a card or reading a new card on politics (it’s unclear which you’re doing), you need to refer to the citation. •	The K is not about whether or not warming is happening, but more a fact that the aff securitizes warming as a concept. You need to justify the way that you represent warming.