Date of debate: 7/2

Debating on: Security K
Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
Your framework arguments beg the question a little bit.

Good articulation of the cede the political argument, except for the floating claim about the state link. It's not clear that the neg has taken a position on this yet.

I like the argument that you're not making an absolute truth claim, but you could expand it a bit and apply it to the idea of security itself - that security CAN be good without insisting that it must ALWAYS be the first priority.

A little bit of wasted time at the end. The K isn't a floating PIC and it's not clear how it would be. Just wait for the 1AR to say this if necessary.

Date of debate: 7/12

Debating on: Round 6
Instructor/commentator: Katie
Comments:
Be much clearer!
You read some args that are repetitive in the 1NC – space debris disad and space debris turn on case? Try to diversify your 1NC args a bit more
Do more impact calculus and alt solves analysis in the 1NR - make sure to explain how these arguments interact with the aff

RFD: The 2NR doesn’t spend nearly enough time on the CP debate – the aff makes a compelling argument about why private sector development doesn’t access the leadership advantage. Significant solvency deficit on the CP. Severance is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, and the aff doesn’t go for the permutation (smart decision by the 2AR).
Politics: At the end of the debate, the aff has 100% solvency (neg doesn’t extend any case arguments and the CP doesn’t solve a lot of the aff) and the neg has almost a 100% risk of a politics disad. It would be smart for the aff to extend some uniqueness arguments in the 2AR to make their link arguments offensive. The neg’s link evidence is substantially better than the aff’s so I don’t think the aff wins any link defense. I think the case outweighs the disad. It would be really useful for both teams to do more impact calculus in terms of timeframe – for instance, the aff solves the economy (which is conceded by the neg after the 1NC), but probably not in the short-term. Economic collapse via the disad would be short-term, but this isn’t an argument made by the neg so I conclude that the aff solves the economy impact to the disad. This also means they solve much of the turns the case args, since economic collapse is the internal link to most of these arguments. Regardless, they also independently solve for leadership, international co-op and warming as well, which outweigh the disad.


Date of debate: 7/11

Debating on: Round 1
Instructor/commentator: Arjun Vellayappan
Comments:
RFD:
I voted aff for Team 32.
Inherency doesn’t matter because the aff proves that even if there are REE’s now, they can’t be mined
CP doesn’t solve the aff’s heg advantage and that outweighs the mitigated risk of the China Relations NB

-Good 2AC but on politics make sure to label your politics uniqueness cites have dates like 7/11 instead of just 2011
-Good CX of the 2NC, but question the K alternative a bit more
-Good 2AR, need to focus a bit more on hegemony since it’s your key impact

Date of debate: 7/12 (Round 5)

Debating on: Aff (REE)
Instructor/commentator: Matt Schnall
Comments:
Very smooth delivery and clear diction in the 2AC. The subpointing all over the place on offcase arguments is distracting, particularly with short analyticals -- easier if you just number the arguments straight through. Why isn't the trade war advantage a turn to securitization? Good job on argumentation in the 2AR. Try to look over the material your partner is prepping before you start your speech -- you are moving fast enough that if you don't know exactly what you're saying, your verbal emphasis deviates from the normal and throws off the listener.

RFD: Aff is winning some advantage on asteroids which doesn't feed into the kritik. Sherriff 05 is a potential impact reducer (says we have model for how to deflect but doesn't say it will work), so it's not exactly try or die, but it's still a huge impact. On the kritik, aff is making inroads in too many places: On the empirics/source quals debate, negative response is just to resort to name calling ("neocons") without pointing to specific evidence or defending the qualifications of their authors, or even specifically indicting particular aff authors. This is particularly telling in terms of weighing the warming advantage, where aff is relying on a broad scientific consensus. On the threats are real analytic, the aff brings a powerful historical analogy and the neg does not bring much to bear in the way of evidence or analysis. Finally, on the performative contradiction argument, I do not hear an effective answer to the argument that once the negative incorporates securitization into their own discourse the kritik fails to force a choice between the aff and the neg. The closest answer is the cross-application of "all we are required to do is negate" but that doesn't explain why the kritik effectively does so: if the kritik is not a basis for choosing between the aff and the neg discourse, I need to hear some explanation as to how it is still an effective negation.

Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:

Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:

Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:

Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:

Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:


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!