Date of debate: Thurs. 6/23 Mini Debate #1

Debating on: Aff
Instructor/commentator: Katie
Comments:
-Great mini impact overview discussing why hegemony outweighs
-Good organization and signposting
-Remember that there's no reason to read super fast if you run out of things to say and have a minute left!

Date of debate: 6/24

Debating on: Constellation Aff
Instructor/commentator: Chris Crowe
Comments:
Your taglines are nice and clear, but you're going substantially faster and slightly unclear in your evidence. Practice building up your rate of delivery and then sustaining it. There should not be as much of a difference between the rate you deliver tags and the rate you deliver cards. I think this habit develops in most debaters because it's a handy transition, but there are much better methods. Find some transition words or a short pause and you're good to go.

Need a few more warrants in some of you answers. For example, when you said the 2AC only answered the "money" portion of the Simberg evidence and not the "architecture" component, make sure you explain WHY the architecture component is more important.

Using author qualifications to bolster your argument even if the other team didn't indict them: nice touch.

Date of debate: T Mini Debate Sat. 6/25
Debating on: 1AR
Instructor/commentator: Katie
Comments:
-"Only 3 types of weapons systems means we don't under-limit the topic" is a smart argument to make at the top of your 1AR - it's a good way of framing the topicality debate in your favor
-Good signposting - it is smart to reference the 2AC arguments, especially if the neg block doesn't go straight down the 2AC order
-Try to be a little clearer - you start off really fast, but you need to gradually build up your speed and give the judge time to get used to your speed

REDO - Katie
1AR vs. development isn't space weapons
-Lots of improvement!!! Yay!! I can tell worked on some of the stuff we talked about
-Keep in mind our discussion about why predictable limits is a stronger argument than just "limits good"
-Good use of the "dual use technology inevitable" evidence - remember that it's not a question of whether dual use is good, but that it’s inevitable which solves solves your predictable limits argument

Date of debate: 6/27

Debating on: New Constellation Advantage
Instructor/commentator: Chris Crowe
Comments:
1NC was good. Pretty fast, pretty clear, got all the arguments in there, but left about 30 seconds or so. Either slow down a tiny bit or let's put some new, smart, creative analyticals in there.
The few moments you weren't clear it wasn't terrible, but work on the clarity drills we talked about (mostly over-enunciation, my favorite!).
Reading turns on each advantage was a double-turn in this case. Choose one or the other and remember the difference between double turns, contradictions, inconsistencies, and "even/if" arguments.
The 2NC line-by-line formula was super good, but try to give a more concrete reference to which particularly aff argument you are answering.



Date of debate: 6/27 - redo
Debating on: constellation mini debate redo
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
extend by argument and not cite
- work on efficient signposting
- postdating needs a specific reason why its relevent or its probably not worth making the argument
- good job identifying the nexus question of heg
- grouping some of the previous arguments will prevent some of the repetition.


Date of debate: 6/27 -- Mini Debate 4

Debating on: Constellation (heg Advantage and politics da)
Instructor/commentator: Zach Markovich
Comments: Good 2ac coverage. Maybe could have been a little clearer on tag lines. You also want to have an impact comparison argument somewhere in the 2ac.

Date of debate: 6/30 - Mini Debate counterplans

Debating on: Constellation Aff (vs politix DA and CP)
Instructor/commentator: Peter Cancro
Comments: Excellent coverage of off case given mini-debate time constraints. Biggest need for improvement is in presentation and structure (or lack thereof) of analytics. Try to make the first sentence of each analytic approximate a flow-able tag, and have at least a sentence worth of warrant or analyses to go with it. Also, be wary of superficial grouping (ie, group the uniqueness debate), its sloppy and imprecise, and encourages intellectual laziness with regards understanding and truly refuting the warrants underlying all those arguments.

Date of debate: 7/1

Debating on: DA and CP with theory
Instructor/commentator: Maggie and Liam
Comments:
On the counterplan, good analysis on perm do both. Try to be a little more efficient on your conditionality analysis, although it was very complete. On the politics flow, very good overview and impact analysis, but try to spend a little less time on the counterplan and try to extend a few more arguments on the disad and on the link debate that may have been undercovered or dropped in the block. Overall very good 1ar with good analysis and extensions.

Date of debate: 7/2/11

Debating on: K Mini debate
Instructor/commentator: Zach R.
Comments:
Great speed/delivery.
Very solid block overall. Try to add a bit more depth to the root cause debate-don't just assert that root causes are useless, give examples why they don't access the root cause of the aff and why the alternative wouldn't be able to solve the entirety of the aff.
Good diversity of arguments as well.



Date of debate: 7/7

Debating on: DDW practice Debate A
Instructor/commentator: Zach Markovich
Comments:

Pick an impx to focus on in the 2ar. You need to do substantial impact comparison with rsrce wars.
challenge alt solvency on the k.
Try to have a more warranted discussion on uq. You need to engage the warrants beyond "obama pc k"

Date of debate: 7/7

Debating on: Practice Debate B
Instructor/commentator:Marissa
Comments:
1NR- I liked the 1NR but thought that you spread yourself a little thin by taking both the DA and the T arg.
on the disad, the DA outweighs analysis at the top was good, could have done a better job with impact analysis on the other advantages (besides china). For your redo work on better answers to winners win and more impact analysis.

Date of debate: 7/11

Debating on: Tournament round 1
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn Kernoff
2AC – Great line by line on the case. Why read generic K cards instead of ones specific to the security K? Good analytical arguments on spending. You should read fewer advantages that are more developed in the 1AC – that way you probably would not need to read cards on the case in the 2AC
CX – Good cross-ex questions about the kritik.
2AR – You did a very good job explaining your arguments, but need to do more to clash explicitly with the 2NR. You were somewhat repetitive because you had stuff written by two people on two computers. This is generally not a good idea unless you want your partner to write out something about one specific place in the debate. Otherwise, do it yourself – you will be better at reading stuff you’ve
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
Comments:
Fantastic 2AC. Fast, Clear, lots of ground covered with a variety of arguments.
Work on organization a bit. Split the theory arguments (framework, floating pics, and utopian fiat are different arguments) and group your realism arguments together. Also spread analytics between cards to give the judge a better chance to flow them.
Very good 2AR. You went for some smart arguments and did a good job of interlinking the different alt solvency takeouts. You also did a nice job explaining why you get to way your aff. However, I would've liked to have seen a more coherent strategy. You win everything you're going for, but I'm not sure how it all comes together. Perhaps most importantly, all of the "we get to weigh our aff" work on discourse first and framework seems odd without some actual impact analysis of your case.