Date of debate: 6/23/11

Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Great job indicting specific aff evidence.
You don't have to say that you aren't a rocket scientist -- we'll never know!
Be sure only to use the phrase "double bind" in the correct context.

Date of debate: Fri. 6/24 - Mini Debate #2

Debating on: Aff
Instructor/commentator: Katie
-Make sure to signpost in the 2AC - what argument are you responding to? It's good to quickly reference the 1NC argument on the case flow so everyone know you are!
-Great job indicting the qualifications of the Neg's authors - you do a nice job of pointing out bias.

Date of debate: 6/25

Debating on: T mini debates
Instructor/commentator: Charles
Really great job. You've incorporated a bunch of the arguments we've discussed and made them well.
The main thing to improve is to provide clear and punchy taglines to situate the arguments. You have all the good content of the 'dual use' argument, but you could do a bit more to explain its impact in the debate.

Date of debate: 6/27

Debating on: constellation mini debate - adding NMD
Your 2NC was good :)
If you extend dropped arguments, you need to specifically explain the warrants and the explanation of why they matter. It’s not a lot of additional time, but does require some time investment to win on them.
53% not successful is a good argument – but only say it once :)

Date of debate: 6/29

Debating on: Politics mini debate
Instructor/commentator: Nicole, Cory, Robert
1NR—Work on sign-posting and line-by-line. The 2AC dropped a couple of arguments and if you explained what those arguments were then you are in a much better position. The beginning was difficult to flow because I didn’t know which authors you were indicting, even though the explanation was good. Explain why they cant solve the advantage.
§ Not really line-by-line this was why I was worried about the flow
§ Ev indicts need to be where the ev was actually read
§ Try to impact your arguments more why they implicate the aff
§ Tag-line extensions are bad explain the arguments in further depth
§ No need to extend every arg

Date of debate: 6/30

Debating on: constellation aff vs. private sector CP + politics DA
Instructor/commentator: Zack Elias
-2NR has the correct direction, but there are issues with the actual arguments
-you need to EXPLAIN why the disad turns the case, even if it's conceded
-less theatrical on the ideology means no spillover arg
-need to make the speech more efficient as a whole
-need to do evidence comparison on both the uniqueness and CP solvency debates

Date of debate: 7/1

Debating on: DA and CP with theory
Instructor/commentator: Joyce and Will
2AC-- more diversity and more analytics. read some cards on the counterplan and make sure you have a solvency deficit. but you have good emphasis while you are reading.
2AC CX-- good call to ask about theory so you don't drop stuff.
2AR-- you might want to match it up a little more to the 1AR. you want to spend more time on the impact because that was the focus on the 1AR. get more with warrants for the uniqueness debate. you can't extend the plan popular card because that was never read. you need to extend the defense on the internal link on the disad. you can be more clear during transitions between flows so that the judge knows where to go. have an overview with a story—you’ll probably have to win the perm debate. extend that the CP links to politics and explain it. no neg fiat is probably a waste of your time—you either have to go all in or not do anything at all. explain more on the uniqueness and extend your warrants and answer theirs. extend the no impact args on the disad.

Date of debate: 7/7

Debating on: Practice Debate A (Heidegger K)
the 2NC was unorganized- for the redo you should go back and compartmentalize your speech more efficiently, making sure not to drop the bottom of the flow.
try to make the 2NC more offensive- most of the 2NC is spent just trying to cover all of the random analytics from the 2AC, try to do a more efficient job grouping these in terms of what part of your K debate you are on so that you don't have to answer all 17 of them explicitly.
The 2NR was almost totally focused on the framework debate, before you even get there you should explain how you've won the link debate and the alt debate.
on the framework debate, you spent a lot of time reiterating that you didn't drop the args- you need to explain (using your evidence) why the K is a prior question and what that means for the judge evaluating the deabte- give me reasons to vote NEG!

Date of debate:7/7

Debating on: redo of 2NC on Heidegger
Instructor/commentator: Marissa
Comments: much better job on organization and ordering your speech and grouping all of their silly analytics. try to do a better job of referring back to your 1NC evidence or reading more evidence when necessary to make your point.

Date of debate: 7/11

Debating on: tournament debate #1
Instructor/commentator: zack elias
-needs more embedded clash and more direct extension of 2AC arguments
-need to get to the disad - work on time allocation
-could be more efficient

Date of debate: 7/11 (round 2)

Debating on: Neg (REE)
Instructor/commentator: Matt Schnall
Nice, thorough development of the kritik in the 2NC, and I liked the Chernobyl/Fukushima analogy in the 2NR -- you might even want to make that part of your 2NC story, which would allow you to just resignal it in the 2NR in the event you go for the kritik and another argument and need to be more efficient. I suspect that it is possible to deal with the Naziism indict in a way that is both more powerful and more efficient, though I am no Heidegger expert and can't suggest exactly how to do so (maybe it's just a question of more powerful evidence). 2NR was rhetorically effective, clear and felt efficient despite not having a large amount of aff ink to cover -- good job.

RFD: Negative goes for the Heidegger kritik. The 2AR arguments about why extinction outweighs are new -- these arguments needed to be made at some point earlier in the debate in order for the negative to frame a response. Up to this point, the affirmative had conceded negative arguments that ontology should be evaluated first and that the kritik turns solvency.

Date of debate: 7/12

Debating on: Tournament Round #6
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: ALWAYS put case first in the 1AR!! I don’t see any reason the CP should come before case in this debate.
You should extend more than 2 arguments on the CP. You are good on the DA, but it would also help to extend more than just uniqueness overwhelms the link. You also need to deal with the “turns case” arguments on the debt ceiling.
Try to be more efficient on case!
RFD: The DA outweighs and turns the aff [Thomas spends a lot of time explaining these arguments]. I’m disinclined to vote for perm do the CP when it’s brand new in the 1AR, but I don’t think the negative actually needs the CP in this debate. The only real argument on politics is that uniqueness overwhelms the link, and then negative wins that Obama’s political capital is necessary for passage.


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