Date of debate: 6/23/11

Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Great job citing the author to each card and knowing the warrants!
Be sure to answer all arguments made by the negative & be clear about which one you are answering.

Date of debate: 6/24

Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Charles
You're a little bit mumbly on analytics. Not a major problem but could be more crisp.
Too much re-explanation of the neg's argument when you signpost. You just need enough to identify it; you don't need to re-state the whole argument.
You're doing a good job on the uniqueness of the free market turn.
Try to provide easy to flow labels for your arguments. You dive right in and it's a little hard to follow sometimes.

Date of debate: 6/25

Debating on: T - Its = U.S. only
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Good job providing defense to their limits arguments -- now you need some offense for YOUR interpretation -- why is it good (better) for debate? Develop this more.
Provide a REASON to prefer your evidence, rather than simply stating "prefer it."
You need some more work on the competing interpretations/reasonability part of the debate. If they win that their interpretation is more limiting, and that that's a good thing, why should they still not vote neg?

Date of debate: 6/27

Debating on: constellation aff with NMD adv
Pretty good 2NC
You are rambling a bit – so keep up with your word efficiency
Not sure what the heck happened on the last part of the debate though?
You didn’t extend enough arguments in your 2NC – you had very few defensive arguments against the case, especially in contrast to the 1NC.
You should do a bit more explanation of the impact to winning each of these arguments.
Good job only extending the free market turn and not double turning yourself. I can’t believe anyone would tell you to extend more offense in that 2nc J

Date of debate:6/27 - redo of 6/27

Debating on: constellation NMD adv redo
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
ENOUNCIATION. Please focus on that in the future!
Your arguments about why heg can't solve accidental war (and thus you outweigh) were excellent - very smart preempts and pretty word efficient
If you're answering arguments in a lumping try for embedded clash. So, "it is NOT empirically denied", etc.
Explain your IL take outs to heg more - why is military overstretch so important?
Good job :)

Date of debate: 6/29

Debating on: assumed Constellation 1AC with spending disad
Instructor/commentator: Leeann, Liam and Chaitali
-really need clarity on the tags, we were getting the warrants in your evidence, but slow down and punch each word of the tags so that you get it on the flow
-differentiate between tags and evidence in both speed and tone to improve clarity and flowability
- the disad needed more focus on the timeframe debate, who accesses the impacts when, more analysis of threshhold, brightline on econ, etc
-consider an alternative causality argument for 2AC responses to the spending disad
- good use of 1AC evidence to crossapply on disad

Date of debate: 6/30

Debating on: Competitive bidding CP and debt ceiling DA
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn Kernoff
CX: Good questions attacking the case, but that's often a lower priority than setting up your arguments, especially since there are no case arguments in this mini debate. Don't ask the aff to list specific senators - it's not going anywhere and that's not what your DA is. Get a commitment about what the internal link to the advantage is based on so you can explain how your counterplan solves.
2NC: Start a little slower - don't try to start at your top speed. Good job explaining why postdating doesn't matter. To answer their link takeout, don't just talking about why spending is unpopular, explain how the plan will cost a ton of money. Don't just assert that Mead is empirically true - explain the empirical evidence. Good job making your impact calculus comparative.

Date of debate: 7/1

Debating on: DA and CP with theory
Instructor/commentator: Joyce and Will
1NC-- fast and clear but be a little clearer during the card rather than going only slow
1NC CX-- good cross-x and good questions about empirics
1NR-- not much you had to do here. you still want to have an overview on how the counterplan solves case so that the judge knows what the counterplan does and how it solves the case. you can read cards in the file on how NASA fails means that the plan is a failing mechanism and only the counterplan solves. on the competition question you might want to explain how the counterplan is different from the plan. the difference between the counterplan and plan in terms of spending is probably small, but you can say that the GOP likes the private sector.

Date of debate: 7/1

Debating on: Politics 2NC
Instructor/commentator: Lauren Salgueiro
Comments: On the pulsating arg impact why it doesn't matter and what that means for your case. In terms of mechanics, you can really benefit from speaking drills (esp. pen drills)- need more clarity and enunciation. Wouldn't have linked the impacts if I were you... but your impact analysis was very strong. Great Job :)

Date of debate: 7/2

Debating on: K minidebate
Instructor/commentator: Zach R
Great organization. Appreciated the subpointing.
Some of these arguments require cards. Realism inevitable is probably not an argument that you want to be making analytically.
For your no link, I'm glad you picked up on the fact that their card isn't entirely specific to your aff. However, you should try to add a more warranted arguent as to how the affirmative differs from the specific security logic their authors indict.

Date of debate: 7/7

Debating on: Practice Debate A
Instructor/commentator: Zach Markovich

Faster on Tags -- they should be roughly the same speed as the text of the card, just with improved clarity and a different inflection.

Boil down to a few nexus questions in the 1ar -- once you identify that there's no external impx to politics, spend more time on the k.

Date of debate: 7/7

Debating on: Practice Debate B
Comments: great limits overview on the T debate- spend more time on this cooperation affs inevitable argument- thats obviously his best answer and what he is going to siton in the 2NR, also try to spend more time on extra t and explain why its a voter if you are trying to go for it as a reason to vote neg- spend more time explaining why his specific interpretation is bad

Date of debate: 7/11

Debating on: Tournament Round 1
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn Kernoff
1AC – You need to work on clarity. Most of your tags are OK, but your cards are very unclear. You would be better off with fewer advantages that are more developed – that way you probably would not need to read cards on the case in the 2AC.
CX – Good point that you don’t fiat building the receivers on earth. This is the best answer to their T argument because it is obviously true.
1AR – Great, overall. Very effective T answers. In fact, you could have spent significantly less time on T. Work on embedded clash – you are doing a good enough job clashing with the block to do this now. On the case, you could get through it much more efficiently given how brief the block was. I don’t think you have the time to read three new cards on the K! Spend your time debating the line by line!
RFD: I vote aff because the plan does not fiat building anything beyond the mesosphere. They argue receivers would be built as a result of the plan, but it’s certainly not a requirement. They only build the space-based component.

Date of debate: 7/11

Debating on: Round 3
Instructor/commentator: Zach R
Great coverage in the 1AR.
You were making some good arguments, but try to extend more warrants and less tags. Why is realism inevitable? Why does Boggs say ceding the political is bad?
Work on efficiency a bit. You repeat yourself a lot. I think it might be nerves or a lack of writing on your flow. Either way, practice it in speaking drills.