White,+Benjamin

toc =6/28/2011= - Good use of even if comparisons in your impact comparison, but you read multiple cards on a single issue that you could be more efficient on (read 1 card, extend 1ac cards) - Good job reading their evidence - Your theory arguments are too wordy. I’m never going to get all that on my flow, you might as well make the shorter arguments with just the simple warrant you need, the analogies can happen later. - Your clarity is decent, but you trail off towards the end of sentences/right before your next breath. Work on maintaining a consistent delivery - Your argument that the status quo will collapse cap is a NEG argument. It means the alternative of voting neg to do nothing ends capitalism, the plan prolongs capitalism by trying to find new resources to profit from. - The perf con arg is silly - Good double bind on the DA - It’s not worth reading a 4th card on the same issue at the end of your speech, make analytic presses or theory arguments vs the kritik alternative, or just sit down - It’s generally not worth ending cross-x of the 2NC early, most 1NRs wont need prep, and the 1AR can probably use it - Don’t editorialize your road map so much. Things like “then maybe the line-by-line” and “maybe an underview” should be avoided. Both make you seem more unorganized than you are. You want to project confidence, that you know what you’re doing, and you know you’re right, which is the message the actual speech conveyed - Work on maintaining pace in the 2AR – you slow down and stop a bit - “We can solve for through the Cranwell ev”. You should instead say something like “we solve exploitation – plan spurs investment that is key to our space program which solves these impacts because it prevents resource scarcity” - 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=

Start slower, that way you can get up to speed. Sometimes you slur words together. A lot of your clarity issues could be remedied by opening your mouth and enunciating more. Try the pen drill if you haven't already. I'm not sure saying there is no tech for mining is a solvency card for not mining- seems more like another piece of case defense. With that said, if you are going to read a PIC argument that is a little bit convoluted, you might talk with your partner about one of you articulating your vision in the debate in an overview in the negative block. I'm not sure you avoid the DAs like you think you do. The 1NR was pretty sharp. The overview was wordy at points, but you have a decent understanding of the Cap K. Spend a lot more time on their Democracy impact turn as this is the only argument that could win them this part of the debate.

Tim

=7/1/2011=

Joe/Ben Hanna/Marie Good explanation of case arguments you have already read. Really good diversity of arguments to answer each of the positions—mix of cards and analyticals. I think with more evidence you could probably read more arguments in the 2ac, so remember to keep diversifying those. With the performative contradiction argument I think you just want to make a conditionality argument—but, I’m not sure if you ask if the arguments are conditional. It is also too hard to flow the entirety of. Try to create flowable tags. Not sure an entire cx is needed about the 1 defensive argument about UN arguments. 2ar starts out way too fast—you do not have too much to cover, and this is what you want to emphasize. Let your arguments speak for themselves here.

=7/5/2011= 2A – Ben •You’re going ENTIRELY too slow on your analytical arguments. They’re clear and mostly efficient, but they should take maybe half as long as they do. •Good use of theory on the CP, but you should probably focus on the heg solvency deficit since the negative concedes the hegemony flow. •Good use making comparative uniqueness arguments and warranting them out. This is the single best way to win these debates. •You probably need to read a card on your “fiat solves the link” argument, which is actually a no budget tradeoff argument. If your agent wasn’t NASA, you might have an argument, but it is (I think? Maybe it isn’t. If it isn’t, ignore this point). •The “new sheet for theory” approach is the single most annoying debater tic I’m aware of. Put it onto an already existing flow. There’s no reason theory needs to be on its own sheet because come on. •Good focus on the heg flow at the bottom of the debate, but I’m confused why this argument wasn’t on the CP itself? In any case, at least you got to it. •Try not to interrupt your opponent during her speech. •Good job leading off with the heg flow. Heg should have been the centerpoint of the affirmative strategy from the 2AC on. •Focusing on having four scenarios doesn’t not make for good comparative impact analysis. You should focus on why each of the scenarios has a particularly good impact story instead of the sheer number of them. We can only go extinct once, so focus on why each of them is incredibly probable, high magnitude, and fast. •Good job focusing on the specific warrants in your uniqueness evidence on China. •The mitigation of their arguments on the DA is good, but make specific comparisons to their impact arguments for maximal effect.

=7/6/2011= 2A – Ben •You should almost always put case on the top of the 2AC. If you misallocate time on their offcase, you can usually come back. If you screw up part of your case you’re in dreadful shape. •Your conditionality block is too long for the 2AC. You need both a combination of making the arguments you’re currently reading more efficient and probably to cut out a few arguments. •When you transition between flows, make your distinguishing word more clear. I would either use a volume change or a very brief pause. In any case, make sure you send a clear signal to the judge to switch flows or you may lose an argument or two at the top. •Good job focusing on the link turn on politics. Becoming really good at drawing out distinctions on link versus link turn debates is the single best way to improve the quality of your politics debates. •When on the case arguments, try to use and extend more 1AC cards as opposed to reading as many cards as you are. It’s always better to make more comparative analysis and read cards in places where they are absolutely essential. This lets you both read more evidence where you need it and start making round-winning comparisons early on in the debate. •Harms can’t outweigh a solvency deficit in the world of a CP and a K that can ostensibly solve the impact to your aff. You need to focus on the warrants already contained in your 1AC evidence. •Good job isolating fairness and education and focusing on the internal links to the arguments you are making. •Enjoyability is a dumb arg, as is impacting fairness with education. Fairness is a value in and of itself because debate cannot operate as an effective competitive activity absent a fair opportunity for both teams to succeed. •The argument you’re making for in-round abuse is slightly incorrectly articulated. Instead of focusing on them kicking an argument, you should focus on them keeping multiple advocacies alive in the block, which skews the 1AR and nullifies a good chunk of their args. •If you are out of arguments, don’t keep going. Just end your speech as soon as you have convincingly answered all of the arguments. Overkill is completely unnecessary.

=7/11/11=

Try to be more efficient on case in the 2ac. I think you could go a little faster and read a couple less cards–use more 1ac evidence. I think the 2ar is good. I think you could reference evidence explicitly a little more. I also think that you could close down a very large, multi-impact debate a little more by talking about the interaction of impacts more. Econ and hege are clearly things that influence eachother (in some contexts, they mean the same thing), so use that fact when answering weaponization and comparing it to the case. I think you do a really good job on the line by line of the DAs, make sure you are extending offense on each flow.

=7/15/2011=

Ben—What is the point of these counterplans? Does either one have a net benefit? What is the answer to the permutation? In going for topicality, you need to explain why I should evaluate the plan under a specific conception of what affirmation is. You also really need to explain what precisely the interpretation is that you are going for, it’s a little sketch.