Date of debate: June 23

Debating on: Constellation Aff - Day 1
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Work on hard numbering.
Good job with an analytic - great way to incorporate previous knowledge of space. Watch for rambling when giving your analytic.

In 2NC, good job extending warrants from 1NC cards and using your general knowledge to support your arguments. You want to try to focus on the 1NC ev warrants a bit more in your speech if possible.
Work on signposting and hardnumbering please :)
Good job :)


Date of debate: 6/24

Debating on: Constellation Aff
Instructor/commentator: Chris Crowe
Comments:
"They said" formula is a good way to start your speech, but you let it slide a bit later on. Great job referring to 1AC evidence that already answers the arguments.

Sounds like you skipped a few arguments. I know you think you answered them, but you admitted to a "rambling problem" earlier and it reared its head a little bit to make it seem like you weren't explicitly answering stuff. Remember to follow the "they said...my argument is" formula. Also, practice grouping arguments you are going to answer in a similar way.

Great job extending 1AC evidence in appropriate places, but make sure to extend the IMPACT to the aff.


Date of debate: 6/25

Debating on: T-military is not development
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn Kernoff
Comments: Great job answering all the 1AR arguments, especially the dual use argument. In the 2NR, you need to do more than just cover your bases, especially in a T debate. You need to really convince the judge that the topic would be huge and it would be disastrous if the aff interpretation were used.

Date of debate: 6/27

Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
Great job. Very clear arguments, and you pick out the best ones in almost every case. Very good sense of what is important that needs to be emphasized
On the hegemonic decline empirically denied argument, you should add in a little bit of detail about how the plan can recover things. It's a difficult balance to prove that we haven't declined YET, but will decline in the relatively near future.
For the 1AR:
Nice details about the success of Constellation in various areas. Maybe provide a historical example of Apollo, too?
Very persuasive on the inability of private companies to run our space development.
Work on efficiency. You make a ton of super-smart arguments, but (particularly for the 1AR) there is not enough time to really develop them with the detail that you attempt. One example is the "NMD works/doesn't work" debate, where you take 30-40 seconds when you could probably do it in 10.
Try to cite evidence from the 1AC/2AC a bit more.

Date of debate: 6/29

Debating on: Disadvantage Mini Debate
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
(cross-x of the 1NC)
Good job making the aff explain the warrants in their cards. You had really good pointed questions and definitely pointed out flaws in their evidence instead of asking generic questions.
(1AR)
Good job making logical and smart arguments about the politics DA, but make sure you build off of the 2AC arguments so that the affirmative strategy can have a consistent theme.
Also, I liked that you narrowed down your strategy and picked certain arguments to go for in the 1AR instead of trying to go for everything, at the same time I think you could definitely extend a few more of the 2AC arguments to give the 2AR more flexibility.

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

Debating on: Constellation Aff (vs politix DA and privatization CP)
Instructor/commentator: Peter Cancro
Comments: Needs more offense. your analytics are excellent, smart, true, and well developed. However, they amount to two non Uniques and an empirically denied. Even if they are good enough to win on, at least throw a random winners win or popularity turn in there to give the neg something to waste time on. Also, keeping in mind that you may not end up having time to read everything you prepare, put the "best" stuff on top.

Date of debate: 7/7 - Practice Debate One

Debating on: 1NR - FD + Case
Instructor/commentator: Alex
Comments: Good job making smart, good arguments - one thing to focus on if you were to redo this 1NR would be to make sure your debating the line by line - reference the other team's argument you are answering, rather than just reading a few cards, even if those cards do answer some of the arguments. this will ensure you answer all their arguments and don't miss any.
On case - its good that you're reading more cards, but you should also explain and expand upon the 1NC arguments - do more analysis, in other words, and less reading of cards.
Highlighting could be more efficient in places as well.


Date of debate: 7/7 practice debate B

Debating on: 2AR
Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
Need to go line by line on the case in the 2AC. Respond directly to the neg's arguments; don't just read more evidence. You picked out a couple aff arguments to respond to, but need to cover all of them.
You failed to cite one or two cards in the 2AC. Make sure you read the author name.
Good job attempting to emphasize important words. It would be nice if you made it more a constant thing, rather than just here and there - where it jumps out a bit
Great job on the off-case positions. Lots of good, diverse arguments.
Lots of great stuff going on the 2AR. You identify important places where their arguments break down - and extend the aff well. There are some places, however, where you could do more to develop some more tactically relevant responses to their strategy.
You need to extend the 'plan popular' arguments that were on the CP. This is the most important missing thing from the 2AR.
Your argument about the pettiness of people that would need to be true for the link is great. It would be nice if you supplement this by referencing THEIR arguments - that the Tea Party will supposedly freak out about anything irrationally.
You extend your impact defense on the DA, which wasn't in the 1AR. If you want to extend this, you need to do more to explain why it's legitimate to make the arguments - that they're not new.
Same is true for the heg advantage. The 1ar didn't go here, so if you want to revive it, you have to justify doing so. The best way to do this would be to reference the arguments on the CP that defended the premise of the advantage - just as well as anything the 2NR said to answer it.


Date of debate: July 11
Debating on: Tournament Rd. 1
Instructor/commentator: Lorelei Yang
Comments:
Extensions from the 1AC should be done by referring to specific cites. Manage your time more efficiently; grouping arguments on flows (especially the aff flow, where the neg makes a number of repetitive claims) would make you able to cover a much higher volume of arguments. Try to isolate key arguments before the 2AC — your coverage of advantage 2 in particular missed a number of key points that the neg made. It’s especially problematic that you ignored the case turn. During your CX of the 2NC, it should be you, not your partner, who’s asking the questions. Your 2AR on-case focuses on risk of conflict: however, to make this work for you, you MUST win back the K flow; otherwise, the language of the aff can only reinforce the necessity for me to vote neg to use the ballot as a tool of criticism against securitization. And on the K, the perm is a loss to begin with, since you guys dropped the mutually exclusive argument that Wenchen made. RFD: I vote neg on the K.

Date of debate: 7/11 (Round 3)

Debating on: Neg (Constellation)
Instructor/commentator: Matt Schnall
Comments:
Good that you recognize in the 1NC you are reading the same Mead card they did. Better if you realize it before you read it! In fact, consider whether the whole spending position might make more sense as a case turn than as a separate disad -- in effect they are reading a stimulus advantage, and making your disad into a turn allows you to get straight into the debate about whether short-term or long-term effects of spending are more important. I do appreciate the fact that you are thinking arguments through both before and as you make them. Nice job in the 1NR extending your arguments on the counterplan and kritik. You could do more by focusing on the evidence they are reading -- e.g., on the counterplan, their card is talking about mining, not transport, as the area in which government leadership is needed.

RFD: No answers to the kritik in the 1AR other than contradiction with the counterplan. 2NR kicks the counterplan and 2AR shifts to new link answers to the kritik rather than trying to find a way to make the 1AR argument stick.


Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:





EXAMPLE

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