Date of debate:

Debating on: Fri. 6/24 Mini Debate #2
Instructor/commentator: Katie
Comments:
-Good incorporation of the spending "disad" as an analytic
-Good analysis of your own evidence and arguments, but try to explain why they are better than your opponent's

Date of debate: 6/25

Debating on: T - Weapons ≠ Development
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Good use of evidence to support your reasons to prefer -- that's a smart move.
You should be making a reasonability argument in the 2AC -- simply the words "not a voting issue" do not constitute a complete argument. Instead, explain that the judge should not vote for the negative if their interpretation is only a little bit better than yours -- and explain why.
Make sure that your "we meet" argument is an explanation of why the negative definition does not exclude what the aff does.

Date of debate: 6/27

Debating on: New Constellation Advantage
Instructor/commentator: Chris Crowe
Comments:
You incorporated lots of new analytical arguments I haven't heard any of the debaters use yet. Very nice. Work on making them slightly more efficient, though.
A little bit of directional language to eliminate (instead of "we are going to extend the khalilzad '95 card," say "extend the khalilzad card... [explanation]).
Missing a warrant for why Simberg is biased.
Don't forget to extend some of your better 2AC arguments in the 1AR (like the "damage limitation" impact argument from missile defense).


Date of debate: 6/29

Debating on: Disad Mini Debate
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
Good job explaining the warrants in the 1NC cards – but make sure you efficiently extend these. Instead of saying – the 2AC says we have no warrant, but we have a warrant <explain>, and then saying that’s why the card is true – instead you should make the claim and the argument of the card and then explain the warrant as an answer to the affirmative’s argument. You definitely demonstrated an understanding of your cards though, which was very impressive – and it’s good that you used logical arguments in addition to your evidence to make your points. Be sure not to speak into your laptop because it becomes very hard for a judge to hear what you’re saying when he/she can’t hear you.

Part 2- Redo - I'm glad you did a much better job impacting the warrants in your evidence. The comparison of the claims you were making with their arguments were very very good. Be sure to signpost your speech better - you have a lot of really good arguments but a little structure would go a long way in making your arguments much clearer.

Date of debate:6/30 -- Mini Debate counterplans

Debating on: Politics (and counterplan vs Constellation aff)
Instructor/commentator: Peter Cancro
Comments: Need to be able to articulate the internal links to impacts of the disadvantage more clearly. When in doubt, resort to reiterating the warrants in the impact or internal link card you read (why does Meade say there will be war?). Also, when giving impact analyses, do anything humanly possible to think outside the "lets list mangitude probabilty and sometimes timeframe" box, as it is a technically effective but entirely cliched method.

Date of debate: 7/7

Debating on: Practice Debate Round 1 SPS Aff
Instructor/commentator: David
Comments: Good clarity and good analysis on part of the arguments. Try to provide more warrants and work on hard numbering your answers to make line by line easier.

Date of debate: 7/7

Debating on: 1NR Redo Spending Tradeoff
Instructor/commentator: Zach R
Comments:
Nice analysis overall. Solid use of evidence, and good signposting so that I could tell where you were.
Work on impact calc. Split it up into subpoints so that the judge can easily flow each of your individual arguments. Empirical examples or warrants from your cards would be good here. Also make sure that you not only explain why your aff is big/probable/quick-also explain why theirs is small/improbable/slow.

Date of debate: 7/8

Debating on: Practice Debate D
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn Kernoff
Comments:
1NC: It started out well, but you started trying to go too fast on cards, making them unclear. Your fast speaking voice should not sound different from your normal speaking voice – it’s just faster. Why are you reading two impacts to US/China relations? Good analyticals on the case. Time your case arguments and have a time with you while you go. You had a ton of answers to the various leadership scenarios, but it would be nice to have some more time to get to the resource wars advantage. Don’t read case arguments that take out the only net benefit to your counterplan.
CX of 1NC: When they ask you about your analytical arguments, explain the warrant. Even if you don’t have a card, you can still have a well-warranted argument.
CX of 2AC: Good questions about the F-35 DA, but don’t JUST ask questions about the argument you are going for in the 1NR (you did move on after 2 minutes).
1NR: Good job kicking out of the K. Cover your bases by quickly stating that their theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument not the team. Good overview on F-35 with comparative impact calculus. You are correct that they did not answer your uniqueness, but their argument that the F-35 is too big to fail is a link takeout. I didn’t even have the F-22 argument on my flow – I think they may have made it briefly, but you certainly didn’t need to read three cards against it. You did need to answer the argument that the F-35 is too big to fail. Since this is your file, you should read through all the affirmative answers and write blocks to them so you know what they are and what you should say.

1NR redo (Kathryn): Good responses to the argument. You should write a block to each affirmative argument with your extension, explanation, and additional cards so you are super prepared.

Date of debate: 7/8

Debating on: Redo of 2AR from practice debate C
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn Kernoff
Comments:
Great job answering their case takeouts explicitly and doing impact calculus. I think you're actually doing too much impact calculus. Focus on extending your 2AC arguments against the DA, explaining them, and then answering the 2NR.

2nd time: Great! Make sure you always debate off-case arguments this way in the 2AR. Make sure you have a good flow of the 2NR so you're able to do this every time!

Date of debate: 7/11

Debating on: Tournament Round #4
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Great 2AC! Good coverage and diversity of answers to the off-case positions. You could probably make a few more arguments on politics, including a few analytics.
Be careful when kicking out of advantages—I think you said “we concede their turns will happen” which you would not want to say. Extend a defensive argument that takes out the impact. Remember to extend the impacts to the advantages you are going for.
2NC cross-ex – don’t ask questions about the 1NR is going to do!
2AR – excellent strategic choice to go for the asteroids impact and explain why the K doesn’t interact with it. You should maybe be a little more careful when answering value to life – I like your arguments but “losing at monopoly” is not the kind of loss of value to life that the K impacts are talking about.
I don’t think theory is a worthwhile investment in the 2AR -- it's kind of an "all or nothing" proposition when the 2NR has covered it sufficiently.
I like that you decided to sit down when you were done making arguments rather than repeat yourself, but do try to use all your time in the future (without repetition).
RFD: Extinction from an asteroid collision outweighs the impacts to the K. The negative makes a strategic blunder by ignoring this advantage in the 2NR. The aff effectively wins that extinction outweighs the endless war/value to life impacts of the K, and that loss of value to life is reversible.

Date of debate: 7/12
Debating on: Round 3
Instructor/commentator: Katie
Comments:
Be clearer! Sometimes when you’re reading cards, the text gets really unclear
Excellent analysis in the 1NR explaining why the warrants in your cards are good
You sound so much clearer and persuasive in this speech! You also have excellent eye contact and signposting!
Nice job realizing you’d made the arguments you needed to make without being redundant to try to fill time

EXAMPLE

Date of debate: June 23
Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!