DeBellis,+Ruby+V

toc =6/28/2011= //1A – Ruby//
 * At this point, it seems like you’re trying to go faster than you’re ready to speak. That’s not really surprising, and will get better as you keep debating and doing speed drills. For now, focus on speaking smoothly as much as quickly, and then ramp up your speed as you go.
 * I don’t know if you’ve read this 1AC before, but it seems like you’re fast enough that it isn’t quite long enough. I would add more of the impact and must act now cards from the 1AC extensions into an expanded 1AC.
 * GREAT JOB pointing out that they never extended an impact on any of their flows. That’s a great argument to make in the 1AR because it makes the 2NR much more difficult
 * Good job on the line by line and extending arguments that were dropped or conceded.

-Talon

=6/29/2011= Face me when cross-xing Alix. You seem to be getting to a lot of really good points with your questions (how much money is the plan, how exactly does it happen, etc) but let them go after Alix provides the initial answer. Try and push a little harder on certain questions if you don’t get the answer you were looking for initially. In the 2NC, you are very good on the line by line (getting answers to all their arguments etc). You are also very fast and clear. I think you would benefit from having a little overview at the beginning of your speech, explaining the “story” of the DA and why the impact outweighs the aff. The aff doesn’t make any impact arguments in the 2ac, so if you win the link and uniqueness claims, you have a guaranteed extinction impact! You do have GREAT impact comparison later in the speech, just move it to the beginning. I think the same overview type thing would be good on the cap k, especially if you are just reading cards otherwise. It is important to “frame” arguments for judges, and overviews help do that. I’m glad you kick out the K in the 2NR, all you have to say to kick out of it is “they have no offense, perms are a test of competition means they can’t advocate them in the 2ar, DA outweighs any risk of offense” and move on. That way, if the aff does try to go for a permutation (which they shouldn’t!) or some other argument they had on capitalism, you are covered. I think you should go to the DA before you go to the case. First, even though you go to case first, you end up doing a lot of DA based impact calculus, which makes more sense to have on the DA anyways. Also, it is important to always go to your offensive position (reason the plan is a bad idea) first, to make sure you get enough time on it. I think that the differentiation you make between types of extinction is smart and should come at the beginning of your speech because it is a good framing issue/tiebreaker for the judge.

=7/1/2011= Ruby - cx: push them harder on questions they dont want to answer. make sure you are rooting around for links Ruby - word economy, efficiency. only need the overview on the kritik, not on the case flow as well. Structure your overview as an extension of the flow as well. Ruby - deeper explanation of the evidence and why it takes out the aff. good job emphasizing solvency takeouts. talk more about why the alt solves the aff and emphasize what the disads to the perm

=7/13/11=

Start with an overview on the counterplan, point out they didn't make a solvency deficit, have terrible answers etc and use that to frame the rest of your arguments on the CP and the DA. Make sure you are talking about why their evidence is garbage in addition to reading cards/making analytics that answer the claims of their arguments. Don't use statements liek "I think", "maybe", etc. Sound certain about everything! Same thing on politics–you are quite fast and reading a lot of cards, but should make sure to talk about their evidence. Don't go to flows that you aren't going for (T). While it is good to point out how the affirmative fucked something up (and you always should), you should answer their arguments as though they are made as well as possible to ensure you shut all possible affirmative doors. You should go HARDCORE for timeframe on the DA–you explain that you win on timeframe, but what about it uniquelly is a reason to default neg? Explain that as a sort of time allocation argument–we can solve the aff later on, but only if we prevent the death that's coming tomorrow. Good call on the new 1ar solvo deficit args. I think you should kick one of the DAs in the 2nr so you can talk more in depth about each of your positions in the 2nr (especially if part of your speech already has to be devoted to a CP).

=7/15/2011=

Ruby—I get that the aff is funny, but if it is so debilitatingly funny that you can’t read it, it kind of loses the ironic affect—I don’t really know why it is that this is related enough to this topic that it would make sense as an ironic intervention into the topic or the discourse about anything. The 1ar is pretty good, it is responsive to most of the things necessary. I would have changed the order a bit, put the cps before the case, cuz you can deal with them virtually instantly.