James+Towne

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = 2AC: I like how you used “our opponent says” to refer to the other team’s arguments so the judge knows you are refuting each point. You can also use “they say,” which is a little shorter. Be sure to go in the same order as the 1NC so the judge can easily keep track of arguments 2NC: Great job responding to the 2AC argument against what you said in the 1NC. Start out with your argument – reiterate what your argument before responding to theirs. You did a great job doing this the second time you gave your speech. I really like how you read a card to refute the specific affirmative claim that World War Two proves economic decline causes war.
 * Debating on: Case Mini Debates**
 * Instructor/commentator: Kernoff**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/22 = 2NC: You do a great job of explaining why your Interpretation evidence is better than the aff's by citing your author's qualifications. You also articulate how the inclusion of military affs in the topic would "unlimit" the topic and would be unfair - this is a good use of debate jargon. = Date of debate: 6/29 = Remember always to start by extending your 1NC evidence on each 2AC point, before reading new evidence. When you make the argument that Russian relations are important to solve warming, that's a "turns case" argument.
 * Debating on: topicality mini debates**
 * Instructor/commentator: Katie Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on: CP/theory/DA**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:** Great line-by-line skills! Really good job answering each argument individually. You could probably read more cards on a couple of these issues (like the permutation on the CP), but you are limited by the evidence set.

= Date of debate:6/30 = -good use of evidence but make sure to also use analytic arguments where possible - some arguments don't require a bunch of evidence to be properly answered -try to make sure each argument has a clear purpose and explanation - avoid jargon and vague statements whenever possible -in the 1ar make sure to keep options around for you 2ar so the 2nr has more difficult choices to make
 * Debating on:k**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/2 = 2AC - This was a really fantastic speech. You covered the arguments really well! - Great job on the states CP. You have a nice diversity of arguments. Really fantastic. - You forgot to read a couple cites in the speech. Just make sure to remember to do that. - You say 'furthermore' a lot. Try to cut down on that. - You jump around a lot on the case. I know there were some flowing issues with getting stuff on the right flow, but for future debates you want to try and stay strictly the same as the 1NC order.
 * Debating on: practice debate A**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

2AR - Good job looking back to the aff evidence, but I think you need to do a bit more here. - You hit on all the essential arguments, but need to develop them more. You say that the plan WILL solve congestion by taking cars off the road. But how does it do that? The neg was very insistent that people wouldn't ride - you need to answer this. It calls into question the essence of the whole aff solvency claim - I really like your distinction that warming matters more than the potential short-term economic effects. I think you should do MORE with this. - Try to argue that the simple act of spending is actually positive. That was the turn card from the 2AC on the spending DA.

re-do - I like that you're doing more to develop the argument for HSR being able to solve congestion, but you're doing so by reading new evidence. You definitely don't want to do that in the 2AR. The 2AR is for summarizing the argument you've already made. It basically never is okay to read new evidence in the speech, since the negative isn't given a chance to respond. - That said, the arguments you're making are reasonable extrapolations from your original 1AC evidence, so you can just make them as analytics. You do this a few times very well. Just do more of that. - What this demonstrates is the value of getting more evidence out there in the 2AC. This speech would be easier if you had read a couple of these cards earlier.

= Date of debate:7/6 = A 4 minute 2ac is probably not a good idea. You should put more answers on the CP and the spending DA. You could explain and read additional cards about how the states can't do it and how the plan causes more stimulus. You do a good job answer case arguments quickly and by referencing 1ac evidence. Good job there!
 * Debating on: Practice Debate B**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments:**

cx of 2ac - you need to provide comparative arguments - why should we prefer your evidence? it's insufficient in these fights to just say you also have new ev.

Your 2ar us only 2.5 minutes long! You should spend that extra time to extend and explain arguments. It is important that for every argument you 1. explain the 2ac argument 2. answer their answers to it 3. reference any evidence or specific examples you have 4. explain why that ties to the larger issue of the debate.

= Date of debate: 7/7 = 2AC - You spend too much time on the K. You need to budget your time. - Your answers to the CP are confusing. I think there is a card or two there but you don't read any cites. Also, you're making generic answers to 'privatization' which isn't what the CP does. Just state clearly why it (obviously) doesn't solve the aff. - You need a few more answers on a lot of these DAs. The one answer on federalism is actually sufficient - but for a lot of these other ones you need to say a little more.
 * Debating on: practice debate D**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

2AR - Really nice speech! Well done. - Good job bringing back 2AC arguments and connecting them to the 1AR. Especially on explaining where all the cap good stuff came from. - Would like to see you use the case a bit more. Talk about economic collapse as provoking the worst forms of capitalism. That really solidifies the 'case outweighs' argument. - The perm argument about transition wars is really good. You just need to justify it as not being new. It's pretty clearly connected to what the 1AR said, though, so it's perfectly reasonable. Given the perception that the perms weren't extended, though, you should clearly explain where it comes from. - Don't think about the permutations as proving that you can eradicate the link. You certainly won't be allowed to extend them that way. But if you frame them as just demonstrations that the very worst effects of capitalism are somewhat distinct from your more mild variant, the judge will be very likely to listen. - On the impact level, you did a great job identifying the clear impact of the aff and comparing it to the vague impact of the neg. This is the way that you can win the debate given the 1AR.

Re-do - Try to open with something a bit more punchy. You start out answering the 'communism can work, maybe' stuff. But it would be helpful to try and lay out a general picture to the judge of why they'd want to vote aff. That is: 1) your aff solves a discrete and serious problem, which the neg has no capacity to fix, and which will pretty much kill us all and 2) even if capitalism has some serious problems, there is no way to get outside of it - This is a pretty good speech, but it hasn't changed all that much from the one this morning. It's a good sign that you are able to do this off the top of your head multiple times - it means you really do understand the arguments pretty well. But with some time to think about it, you ought to be able to tweak the explanation a little more. - Your buildup to the perm (we aren't responsible for the worst forms of capitalism) should be more closely connected to the perm itself. Remember: your biggest concern is that the 1AR didn't extend this argument, so you want to do anything you can to ground it in the 1AR. - Good job justifying the perm as not being new, but you have to be specific. What precisely in the 1AR logically implies the perm? See my previous comment for the answer :)

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