Martinson,+Sean

toc =6/28/2011= Good CX questions, talking about evidence specifically is great. Also, good work setting up arguments for the 1nc. Be careful in the 2nc of pointing out contradictory aff answers–the reason the aff has some cap/econ good and also arguments about how they solve cap is because you all read an econ good impact with the cap key. As long as everyone is fine with this contradiction, this is fine, but if you make it an issue it is easily turned back on you. Sometimes with kritiks, it is helpful to have a bit of an overview or discussion of the “story” of the K. Instead of reading just cards, try talking about what the alt does, why it means the aff doesn’t matter, etc. You do a better job of this on the debris DA, especially with impact calculus (which was great and comparative, well done). Good job pointing out dropped arguments. Once again, try and include some kind of overview or story on the K. Pick one arg in the 2nr and go for it. A lot of the theory stuff is new (you did make a contradiction arg before, but it wasn’t education based).

=6/29/2011= Sean: 2AC: Your coverage is commendable, but your strategy on the disads was almost entirely defensive. There are very few judges who will vote for a 2A based purely on defense, so try and differentiate your answers on the disads.

2AR: You extend all of the right arguments, all of the drops made by the neg, but you don’t consistently extend the warrants themselves. Spending more time during prep memorizing the warrants you need to extend will lead to round-winning 2ARs. You’re 90% there. You even extend the author/tagline, but going that next step is what Varsity debate is all about. Try pre-blocking out some of your common 2AR arguments, such as general case extensions or generic impact comparisons. It’ll help organize your speech.

Also, no underviews.

=6/30/2011=

Flowing is more important than prep. When you stood up to start the 2AC, your partner was planning to get cards for you instead of flowing. If he doesn’t flow, he can’t give a good 1AR, which means you won’t have a good basis for your 2AR.

You have good blocks, but make sure you make case outweighs arguments at the top of each block.

You have the right idea trying to extend your aff card-by-card, but saying “Extend our Easterbrook card” is not really extending the card – you need to explain the WARRANTS in the card in order to truly extend it. Because you didn’t really extend your aff impacts on the aff flow or by making impact calculus on the disad, you end up with a poor basis for impact analysis after the 2AC ends. Because the other team didn’t make any case arguments, though, you would have been better off making more arguments on the K or weaponization – for example, more perms or theory on the k. Good CX answers during the CX of your 2AC.

=7/1/2011= 1N – Sean • Start a little bit more slowly when you’re reading your tags. It takes you a little bit of time to build into your speech and then you’re fine, but at the beginning especially the need for clarity overwhelms the need for speed. • Once you group all the evidence together, there’s no need to refer to all of the authors again. Try to eliminate redundancy in your speech whenever and wherever you can. • I like the focus on case defense, but it puts a lot of pressure on the block to comprehensively win one of the offcase arguments to win offense. You might want to cut down on the case defense a little bit and read another short DA. • Good job doing efficient line by line debating in the 1NR, but keep working on talking faster when you’re presenting analytical arguments. Fast, efficient, and clear analytical arguments are absolutely devastating. The transition between the speed on your analytical arguments and the speed on your cards is jarring. • Good job creating a uniqueness wall in the 1NR. Doing that can be devastating, but because there are no new arguments allowed in rebuttals you have to be careful to articulate your arguments as either (a) direct responses to their points or (b) direct extensions of prior arguments. • Include impact calculus in your DA impact extensions! It will really help the 2NR a lot more than a few random Marx K impacts.

-Talon

=7/3/2011=

Start slower- when you start this fast, it affects your clarity severely. You vary in pitch, so practice finding a tone that you are comfortable in. Good impact arguments on case, but I would split the block differently. Use all of your time in the 1NR. You have 11 minutes to prep a 5 minute speech, there’s no reason to have 40 seconds left.

= 7/11/2011 =

Your 2AR was very convincing I liked it very much. I think that you let your emotions show a little bit too much, there are going to be debaters that are going to want to mess with you and make a worse debater but you gotta learn how to ignore them because if you let them get to you then they win and they will push you into debating worse. I think you had great analysis on T just don't get sucked into the negs game.

=7/13/2011= 2N – Sean • Good job reading an interpretation on theory, but make sure that you’re reading offensive reasons to prefer your interpretation. You get some good ones out, but you lead with the defense. Good job getting in a hard debate best arg. • Spend less time summarizing their args. The rule of thumb that I generally use is that you want to state their arg in four words or less. Any more is a waste of time since you’re just attempting to signal to the judge where they should be flowing your answers. • When you’re extending components of the debate, you need to make sure you’re pulling through the evidence from the 1NC. You will need to read new evidence as well, but you should also be focusing on extracting the warrants from what is ostensibly the best piece of evidence you have. • Don’t just say I need to prefer your evidence, but explain specifically WHY I need to prefer your evidence. Focus on the comparative and/or conclusive and/or recent nature of your evidence on politics debates. • Good job focusing on the impacts to your arguments, but you should probably articulate the reasons why your interpretation best accesses fairness and education in order to get full access to this arg. • You need to make choices in your 2NR. You are attempting to go for essentially everything, but you don’t have enough time to do this effectively. Pick and choose args, and efficiently kick out of those args you aren’t going for at the top of the speech. • Be careful extending contradictory arguments. When you extend the politics DA, you have created a mentality of security and then you extend the security K. A smart 2AR will point out this internal contradiction, if for no other reason than to demonstrate why conditionality is bad. • You’re repeating yourself a lot on the K. Focus on the impacts to your argument, and use the solvency deficit arg as a framing argument, then make sure they have no external offense or tenable permutation argument.

=7/15/2011= 2N – Sean •	Don’t get too yell-y in cross-x. You are making your points well enough by getting both of them to yell at you, don’t buy into their game. •	They have an impact to their case; it’s just not an impact in the traditional sense of policy debate. Their impact is just a moral analysis. •	Your comparisons between the means for evaluating how to treat morality and the impact within the debate is quite good. •	I would put some sort of overview on the Cap K which contextualizes it against the aff and extends your arguments. •	You should probably identify the fact that you are answering the Gibson-Graham card before you just launch into it. That being said, the tag does make it fairly clear what you are answering. •	Good job reading cards on why the alternative can result in the aff. You need to impact this argument in terms of the internal link claims contained in the 1AC in order to really make this effective. •	Be careful reading cards that they can criticize for having an impact claim that reduces people to standing reserve or means-to-an-end. You’re doing a solid job articulating why the K solves and turns their aff, focus on that. •	Why are you slowing down to an absurdly slow pace at the end of your speech? You aren’t even talking at conversational pace anymore? Keep up your intensity and speed, and make comparative offense. •	I’m not sure what the distinction is on the dropping an arg/kicking an arg point you’re making, but in any case, I’m not even sure what the impact is. •	You aren’t going to win on this theory argument if you don’t extend an interpretation and explain why their aff violates it, and why that violation is bad. •	QUIT MAKING WRONG FORUM ARGUMENTS. These arguments are pretty inane. You don’t have to advocate a specific policy, UNLESS YOU CAN WIN THAT IT IS BAD. •	Your 2NR is entirely too defensive. What is bad about the case? Why do I vote against them? Cap should be the centerpoint of your speech, especially after the coverage issues in the 1AR. •	All of these args about not being able to prove they find aliens are just more defense. YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME OFFENSIVE ARGUMENT FOR ME TO VOTE ON.