Peter+Lee

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = 2AC: Great job referencing the other team’s argument! I also really like how you made more than one argument and referenced cards from the 1AC when it was helpful. You could describe the other team’s argument in a little less detail to give yourself more time. You are at the point when you have so many great arguments that you have to start prioritizing and making sure you are not running out of time. 2NC: Wonderful job explaining the specific warrants (or reasons) in your evidence. I like how you compared affirmative and negative evidence by explaining how yours is more recent. To make this argument better, explain why the timing of the evidence matters.
 * Debating on: Case Mini Debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Kernoff**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/28 = 2AC - Good job on the first argument (deficit spending), but two things. 1. You have to cite the card. 2. You should reference the affirmative a bit more if possible. That's obviously tough to do when you don't even have the file. But you want to give it a shot. You really want to clearly distinguish what the plan actually does. - You do a really nice job of integrating the evidence into a broader argument. You're not just reading cards - you're making arguments.
 * Debating on: CP mini debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

2NC - Your opening statement is really good. Flexibility, local innovation, etc. I like that you give details. But it would be even better if you put this on the line by line directly. This is a clear response to the #2. Just say it there. - Your answer to the #1 is a bit of misdirection. They say that the states can't do this. Your response is to say that the FG is bad. That's a good mechanisms, but it would be ideal to just have more of a response - I like that you are specifically challenging the aff's evidence. Great job engaging the argument in detail, not just at the level of the tagline. That's fantastic. - It would be nice to say that the perm still links to the net benefit.

1AR the neg says fed funding will be bad. but both plans can be done. - You don't need to repeat the negative's argument in such detail. All you need is to make clear what argument you're talking about. In general, you need to be more efficient. The speech lasted quite a bit longer than one minute. - Generally, you don't want to read evidence in the 1AR. There are very rare exceptions, but this is probably not one of them. - Good job on the uniformity stuff. You explain that well and develop the problems with a lack of uniformity. - You jump to the permutation, rather than actually extending the #1, which is far more important.

= Date of debate: 6/28 = Your 2ac on great! You are clearly catching on quickly both to the high level of argumentation and to the form for policy debate. A few things to make your 2ac more perfect - add more diversity of arguments - you want to attack everything at multiple levels - add more "offense" arguments - more turns, etc. You are very word efficient and are excellent at making sure you answer all of their arguments.
 * Debating on: politics states**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments:**

2ar: your extension of 50 state fiat was good, but you need to talk more about voting issue you do a great job of extending hte permutation, but need to do it in order of the 2ac politics - good job with the no spill over/no link.

= Date of debate:6/27 = -make sure to read the tag before the cite -avoid over narrating your evidence for the sake of time and to avoid wordiness - your explanations are good, just needto be more efficient
 * Debating on:Disads**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate:7/2 = 1AC -Good job looking up when you speak, but make sure to read ahead a bit before you do so that you don’t loose your place -Maintained a good, constant pace
 * Debating on: Practice Debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Baker**
 * Comments:**

CX of the 1AC -make sure to give the 1ac a chance to answer questions otherwise they aren't worth being said at all -good job responding quickly but make sure to no interrupt when you can't get a word in otherwise

1NC -Make sure to start with the offcase arguments and then debate the case in case you run short on time -Don't over narrate your 1NC case arguments as it will mean you make fewer in the 1nc and its harder to follow the tags -Make sure to read the tag before you read the cite -Also, have a pre-written and clear counterplan text just like you would with an affirmative plan

CX of the 1NC -start with clarification questions if you are confused by something -everybody keep calm - keep in mind its a quesiton and anwer time for the judge

2AC -good use of 1nc concessions, don't forget to impact conceeded arguments though -try to maintain a common tone of voice throughout your speech. your voice seems to be going in and out as you understand more or less of what you are saying. -don't forget to include a theory argument or two in the 2AC

CX of the 2AC -every also needs to stay calm here too - banging on tables and pointless back and forths are offensive to the ears -avoid the FYI question i.e. "did you know that?" or "are you aware?"

2NC/1NR -good job referencing the arguments you made in the cross-x -focus more on making your own arguments stronger and less on responding to their arguments -pick and choose your case arguments based upon whether or not they can get you closer to winning the debate, not whether or not they are true

CX of the 2NC -no more yelling please -keep in mind that you aren't trying to persuade the opposing team, but the judge

1AR -when possible in the 1AR, avoid reading new evidence and rely upon extending and applying previously read evidence -youre doing a good job referring to your flow during the speech for guidance but it looks like you should spend more prep time writing things down on your flow -try to fill all of the allotted time; there are always more arguments for you to make

2NR -don't repeat concessions that othe other side makes more than you need to as it eats up your time -keep things organized & start with your offense: the order should be fiscal discipline, states CP, and then the case without jumping between them

2AR -good job making connections but make sure to maintain order and organization in your 2AR while doing so by breaking the debate into peices -dont forget about the impacts of your 1AC, if you are winning some of an advantage then explain why it matters = =

= Date of debate:7/2 = -try to keep the debate focused on a few issues in the final rebuttal - you're doing a good job explaining arguments but you can't fit them all in -you do a good job of using the evidence you have read previously, but don't forget the big picture -extend evidence in a standard way throughout your speech -remember that the constructives are less about summary and more about advancing and shaping your arguments - there isnt a need to over narrate the debate at that point
 * Debating on:2NC/2NR Redo**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/6 = 1NC: Great job being persuasive and emphasizing key words! I had no trouble flowing you. When you give your road map for the 1NC, you don't need to say the order of the off-case because we don't have our flows labeled yet. Just say the number of off-case arguments (DAs, CPs, kritiks, and Topicality) and then the order of the case flows. Why not read the 1NC shells? Your CP needs a text. Great job making a variety of case arguments, including both cards and analyticals! You have about 1:30 left and could add more case arguments or another off-case argument. 1NR: You should try to avoid using prep time since you have the whole 2NC to prep. Great job explaining your arguments and making smart additional ones. I especially like the argument that jobs from the plan are only short run. Try to keep the case separate from spending. Work on going line-by-line - extending your arguments in the order they were in the 1NC, referencing the 1NC order, explaining your argument, and then responding to what the 2AC said.
 * Debating on: Practice Debate B**
 * Instructor/commentator: Kernoff**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/7 = - Awesome 1NC; very clear and pleasant to listen to - maybe try to emphasize some more important words / parts of your speech - In terms of strategy, you should be careful about reading impact defense to the economy advantage; if the 2AC concedes this evidence it would take out the only impact to your only disad and put you in a difficult position - Try to be more familiar with the authors and arguments you have or haven't made in your 1AC - perceptually it's very important to be able to answer questions without having to find your evidence after each question is asked - In cross-x you should be framing your questions more offensively and asking about specific pieces of evidence / arguments so Charles can't simply reiterate his taglines and grandstand - Great job using "they say" to flag what argument(s) you're responding to, but you could easily shorten a lot of these references; i.e. "they say entitlement spending" instead of repeating the tag of their evidence for that argument - You should argue that the aff would be a political battle and cause a downgrade rather than just playing defense on that argument - Use all of your time on the disad - you missed a couple of arguments and had no reason to end your speech early = Date of debate: 7/7 = 2AR: You do a pretty good job in the 2AR of explaining why the Spending DA doesn't outweigh the aff. I thought it was really smart of you to point out that the neg doesn't have a way to solve for the economy, and if HSR solves the economy, it means the DA doesn't' outweigh. Brilliant! You should spend some more time weighing the warming advantage vs. the Spending DA - there's not a clearly articulated reason why economic collapse turns warming in the 2NR, so you can really capitalize on this in the 2AR as an external impact in the round that is a tiebreaker to the economic collapse impacts.
 * Debating on: Practice Debate D**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nick**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on: Practice Debate D**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

REDO: You do a GREAT job of EXPLAINING your evidence - for example, you articulate why emissions are man-made and how HSR can solve warming by citing your authors' credentials and evidence warrants. You should spend more time explaining why your plan makes the status quo better, and since the neg doesn't extend a CP or kritik in the 2NR, they are stuck defending the world of the status quo. If you can prove why the plan makes the status quo even a little bit better (perhaps with your warming advantage), it's a reason the judge should vote aff.

= Date of debate: 7/9 = - Don't do the CX after the 2NC! - Too much time extending the 1NC evidence on the DA. You need to answer the aff arguments, not just re-explain what you already said, or just reading new cards. You need to explicitly answer the aff claims. Flowing! - You spent a lot of time on the Russia advantage. You should pick and choose more. No need to extend every argument in such detail, especially since they're fairly repetitive.
 * Debating on: Tournament rd. 4**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * 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 = Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!
 * Date of debate: June 23**
 * Debating on: Constellation aff**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments**: