Peacock,+Joe

toc =6/28/2011= - You might as well sit in the chair instead of kneeling, sitting up with good posture would be better for your airflow - Good pace and clarity, work on inflection/emphasis in the 1AC - You should explain the timeframe on warming as “warming is occurring now, which is why we need to begin developing this new tech immediately, we’re already seeing some effects in terms of natural disasters due to climate change, these will only get more common and greater in magnitude” - Good questioning on the airplane analogy, you stay on it too long, you made your point once he admitted that they happen - “extend magnitude outweighs probability” – you should have a because statement on this, why is magnitude more important (your Easterbrook card makes some of these args) - You go into too much explanation with your analogy, you can get away with it in this debate, but the 1AR is about efficiency. - “extend the 1, 2 and 3” – don’t do this, it’s messy, instead you should extend each argument individually by name, it’s more efficient - With every argument you extend on the DA and K, you should try and have 1 more sentence that is the reason why this takes out their position. - With all these dropped arguments on the K, you need to impact them – why do they matter. - Same thing I said to Ben about the alternative – you can’t say that the status quo does the alternative. - You make the right arguments, if you redo this, work on organizing these arguments and having labels for them - The perf con is silly - I have no idea what it means for the K, it’s just kind of an FYI - Don’t swear in the debates. There’s no good reason to. I personally don’t care, I just think it makes you inefficient, but there are plenty of judges who will dock speaks.

=6/30/2011= Stand up. You are not nearly fast enough or skilled enough with your breathing to be able to sit and read at your maximum efficiency. I don't care if you think it looks cool. It kind of doesn't. You are obviously a technical debater and have some good line by line skills, but spend less time signposting. Don't be like, "They say that weaponization is inevitable but i say..." Say something the long the lines of "2AC 2 weaponization inevitable..." and then answer. This will help speaker points and give you precious seconds in tough rounds. Your 2NR is just fine. Don't spend a lot of time trying to beat this deontology argument that is new in the 1AR and technically against the rules.

Tim

=7/1/2011= Good reading pace, although you may want to work on speaking while standing. My guess is most of the time you will be standing rather than sitting during your debates. What is with the structure of the 1ac? You start cross-applying cards that you already read? This doesn’t make any sense. Just read impacts to those cards if you think those cards make those arguments. You also have 1:30 left in the 1ac. 1ar—you spent almost no time on the K or explaining your arguments, even though this is the likely place for the 2nr to go. You do a good job making comparisons earlier, but it seems more like a 2ar than a 1ar—you want to create a springboard for the 2ar, so he can pick one route to go then. Set him up rather than giving his speech.

=7/5/2011= 1A – Joe •Make your podium higher up. You have your back way hunched over, your voice sounds totally cramped, and you’re projecting almost exclusively into the podium. •Do your best to avoid mid-1AC laughter. •Good use of an overview because of the limited nature of the block, but honestly you can probably save it for the 2NR. Spend as much time as you can making warrants and comparisons that set up the 2NR on all of the relevant offensive positions. •Good job pointing out the lack of impacts on the case arguments. •Efficient case coverage, but you might want to extend and refer to your evidence a little more. You do bring up the Collins evidence at the end, but you should attempt to focus more on extending the impact stories on each advantage on the line by line. •Good job extending the fiat solves the dropped link argument. Do be careful on what exactly your plan says though, and they can easily read a link that makes the DA make sense. •There are a number of cards that do actually say that the lasers and microwaves from space will fry entire populations of people or become weaponized, but you are correct that they don’t read any of these cards in this debate.

=7/6/2011= 1A – Joe •Push yourself to read the 1AC faster. If you have extra time, you can just read generic preempts to case arguments, Ks, or other arguments that you expect to hear at the bottom. •You speak slightly hunched over when you’re reading cards. Lift your shoulders and raise your head and your throat will open and your voice will likely clear. •You need to explicitly answer the timeframe argument that Imanol makes at the bottom of the 1NC and throughout the 1NR. He frames the entirety of the case debate around the fact that other countries will be able to act because of the donut hole before deployment happens. Saying technology will be “implemented well” is not good enough. •If you want to set up this normal means argument, you need to set it up earlier (ideally in cross-x of the 1NC). Figure out exactly what the counterplan does (in this case, it includes some degree of “government oversight”) and identify how it is connected to the plan. •They are reading a number of cards on each of the points on the capitalism flow. You are not going to win the cap debate without picking a couple of arguments, really digging in to them, and absolutely providing offense and winning those flows. Absent doing this, you are going to be in trouble. •Good job making comparisons on the theory debate, but remember that all of these arguments on critical thinking are ultimate references to fairness and education. THOSE are the terminal impacts to theory, so focus on the magnitude of your links to them, and identify why they will not be able to access either level of the impact like you can. •All of the arguments you are making are buzz-word heavy. You need to ultimately refer back to the impact arguments as the reason to vote aff.