Date of debate: 6/24

Debating on: Constellation affirmative (1NC)
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn Kernoff
Comments: Good job interspersing arguments supported by evidence with your own analytical arguments. You are a good, clear speaker. When you make the argument that science isn't the most important thing for our leadership, give examples of other things that are more important for our leadership/hegemony.

Date of debate: 6/24

Debating on: Constellation affirmative (2AC)
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn Kernoff
Comments: Great job talking about how the space shuttle program is about to be shut down so we'll have to hitch rides. I like how you refuted each point relatively efficiently. Try to number your arguments, which forces the judge to write them down and forces the negative to answer each of them.

Date of debate: 6/25

Debating on: Topicality
Instructor/commentator: Chris Crowe
Comments:
If nothing that falls under the topic occurs entirely outside of the mesosphere, give examples of cases most people consider to be topical that the negative interpretation limits out.
Great job explaining why you meet your counter-definition.
As above, if you think the negative definition is too narrow, what does it exclude besides just your aff?

Date of debate: 6/27

Debating on: Constellation aff including NMD advantage
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Great 2AC structure -- your use of both analytical responses and cross-application of 1AC evidence is fantastic. Also very well done in the 1AR, using different parts of your evidence.
You don't need to re-read parts of the 1AC evidence.
Eliminate "I would like to say..." from your speeches -- just make the arguments!
Be a little bit more efficient in the 1ar -- you need to consolidate and spend less time making arguments.

Date of debate: 6/30

Debating on: CP mini debate
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Literally a perfect 2ac!

Date of debate: 6/29

Debating on: Debt ceiling DA
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela/Maggie/Jared
Comments: Cross-ex -- try to ask less open ended questions.
Great explanations of your arguments! Make the argument first, then say the author's name, rather than the reverse.
Good choice of arguments. Read more evidence where it's feasible to bolster your arguments more.

Date of debate: 7/1

Debating on: DA and CP with theory
Instructor/commentator: Hannah and Cory
Comments:
Hannah:
2AC
-You made strong analytics on the counterplan, but you need to support these with cards.
-Strong variety of arguments on the disad.

2AR
-Try comparing the worlds of the affirmative and negative—what happens if the judge votes negative, and what if they vote affirmative? Phrase the world of the affirmative as clearly preferable.
-Use even-if statements.

Cory:
2AC—You should have prepped your 2AC before the round, since you knew what was being read. The
counterplan block was really good. I liked how you were time efficient, but still hammered down and quickly
explained each argument. Read a few cards. When explaining the perm, you should quickly say why it doesn’t
link to the net benefit. You also did a good job on politics—even though you didn’t finish, you still got down a
good variety of cards and analytics.
CX Answers—look at the judge when answering. Your answers were very good but its more persuasive if you
are talking to the judge and explaining your arguments.
CX—Good job putting the pressure on him about how there is no impact, but then I was a little confused about
some of the other questions you asked. Good job talking to the job, though.
2AR—Good job going line by line. I think you need to better explain your arguments on the solvency deficit.
You should have brought something up about how the counterplan links to politics. Give a global overview
about how the plan is good and the counterplan is bad because it links just like the aff might link.

Date of debate: 7/7

Debating on: Practice debate #1
Instructor/commentator: Zack Elias
Comments:
1NC CX: I really like the cx direction on politics and the question of why the plan triggers a unique link
1ar: try to extend warrants when extending your evidence - but do so quickly

Date of debate: 7/7

Debating on: Practice debate B
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2NC -- Excellent explanation of why spending is a net benefit to the CP!
You need to answer all arguments made on the CP, and in the order of the 2AC. You are excellent on the arguments you do answer/extend, just need to make sure you are answering everything.
First priority during 2AC = flowing. Don’t write out your answers to arguments until after the speech. It is causing you to miss 2AC arguments
Need to split the block so that you leave arguments for the 1NR to answer/make.
Need to extend impact to the DA – the reasons it would be worse for the DA to happen than for the aff not to happen


Date of debate: 7/8

Debating on: Practice Debate C
Instructor/commentator: Lorelei Yang
Comments: 1AC: Great clarity! You started slow and built up speed as you went; that's always the best way to go. It's great that you have time left in the 1AC; this means that you'll be able to add more cards once you get more evidence.
CX of 1AC: Good job answering Margarita's questions with an eye to keeping the aff on advantageous ground.
CX of 1NC: Ask more pointed questions; for example, link/brink and timeframe. Also, why didn't you ask about the status of the K alt?
1AR: Good job covering all the flows enough to keep them in play for the aff. Emphasizing the case and DA (since they undercovered the K) would have been a smart choice at this point; and you made that decision.

Date of debate: 7/11 (Round 1)

Debating on: Neg (REE)
Instructor/commentator: Matt Schnall
Comments:
Good job on the line-by-line in the 2NC, especially on the prizes counterplan. In the 2NR, you had exactly the right instinct to jump on the 1AR's coverage problems on case, but make sure that you point to specific unanswered arguments and explain their impact on the case advantages, and the impact of that on the debate. Not only will it help you and the judge work through the substance of how the concessions help you, spending a little time will also fix those issues in the judge's mind so that they are crystal clear at the end of the debate. Nice job extending the counterplan and disadvantage in the 2NR. Your analysis on the permutation on the counterplan was particularly strong.

RFD: Neg wins that counterplan solves most if not all of the case. Also, the case is largely dropped in the 1AR. Debate comes down to the spending disad -- internal link to economic collapse versus internal link turns. As the debaters agree that the amount spent by the plan is relatively small in absolute terms ($100M to $1B), and as there is no "open the floodgates" type argument on the link the short-term stimulus impact outweighed the long-term ballooning debt impact.

Date of debate: 7/11

Debating on: DDW Tournament Round 2
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro

Good questions about political capital in the cross examination of the 1NC - it's definitely important to take apart some of the less tenable portions of the politics disadvantage.
1AR - Great job, making sure you cover every flow, and responding to the new economy impact! Be sure to do further explanation of the 2AC cards instead of just extending the tag. Also, on the kritik the 2NC read a lot of cards so make sure you are responsive to the claims that he makes.


EXAMPLE

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