Hannah+Stafford

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = - good evidence comparison - good variety of analytics and evidence - in the 2nc, do a better job of dispelling the myth that signals work - do a better job of impacting your arguments to the internal link it removes - a little bit clearer on cards - the Alt cause internal link debate is also a place to describe it as the SQ solves with other jobs programs - or signals would do it. It's also a place to make an econ resiliency argument - if you say private sector can solve, then explain why - give concrete answers/arguments to that - try to focus on the 2ac distinctions for your explanations
 * Debating on: case mini-debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: = 2AR -- when discussing reasonability, include arguments about side bias -- why is the topic/structure of debate (in an era of conditionality, PICs, condition CPs, etc.) already slanted in favor of the neg? -- and why does that mean the judge should err aff? Some repetition in the 2AR but otherwise good. Make your most important arguments at the top, then answer the 2NR line by line, cross-applying args to avoid redundancy.
 * Debating on: T- military ≠ public**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:** 1AR -- you should make the argument that 'substantially' checks most of the ludicrous affs cited by the negative.

= Date of debate: 6/27 = 2AC - Just a little unclear. There are a few places where I couldn't quite get the whole argument. - I like the arguments on the DA. Lots of offense and a diverse set of arguments to really push the neg. It's also nice that you can challenge the impact, but give yourself the potential to straight turn in the rebuttals.
 * Debating on: DA mini debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/28 = -Should put all the solvency deficits on the CP and give them clear labels to help with the judge's perception -Should organize the theory debate in the 2AR by terminal impact, Education --> a., b., c. etc - this will help you avoid repetition and make it easier to flow -I would probably try to make it to the DA with a little bit more time, given you already have an out on the CP = Date of debate:6/28 = -make sure not to string words together in tags or analytic arguments -good use of substructure and organization -don't forget to make turns case arguments when extending your disadvantage -extend previously made arguments before you refute your opponents arguments
 * Debating on: CP/DA Theory Debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on:CPs**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/2 =
 * Debating on: 2AR on Politics**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * Goals: -More efficient, -Less on the terminal impacts, more defense on the internal links and turns the case**


 * -I wanna hear the way you are gonna win the debate and do the checklist. What are you gonna do and then do it. Pick what one impact you are gonna grandstand on and then beat up the DA.**
 * -Need evidence comparison on the most important points, "Ext our evidence, its great beacause..., their evidence is bad because..." - a good example is on the PC Key/Not Key debate**
 * -You have a lot of defense ont he DA but not clear which you think is most imporant**
 * -Need even if and impact comparison**

= Date of debate:7/7 = -the 2N didn't give you enough for a 1NR - take some part of the K at least but maybe a T arg would be useful -good work interlacing the case and the k but label some of these arguments more clearly so the 2NR has an easier time making the cross-applications -don't forget the importance of impact calc - these case turns need to be phrased more offensively to make them a viable 2NR
 * Debating on:Practice Debate D**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/7 = 1NR redo: If you want to go all in on heg bad turns, you should do two things on the offensive portion of the debate. You do a nice job of distinguishing between defense and offense with a concise explanation of the "heg unsustainable" debate. You should have external reasons heg is bad in addition to the turns the case arguments. You do a nice job of explaining why heg bad turns different portions of the aff.
 * Debating on: redo 1NR**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

On the China debate, you should use your defense as reasons why the status quo relations with China are fine (not monitoring the US etc.) but that only the plan to shore up heg would send the wrong signal China - it's another link.

= Date of debate: 7/9 = 1NR was good on politics - I think you read a few too many uniqueness cards when you could have answered their specific warrants instead, but it ended well by turning the 1AR off from going for uniqueness. I think you could use more disad outweighs/impact analysis at the top of the case, especially when Imanol doesn't get to China with enough time to have sufficient case defense on their advantages. Timeframe stuff is good, but more focus on how the impacts interact would be good. Not sure if the Iran/China draw-in argument is carded, but it seems pretty weak if you're just asserting it - needs more warrants or reference to a card. Not sure if you should read a new Russia impact in the block, especially when they don't impact defense to Iran in the first place. It opens the 1AR to impact turn (although I guess that is kind of conflicting with their link turn...) You're a little too mean/rude in CX - aggressive is fine, but you end up cutting Raghav off a ton of times when he's actually just trying to answer your question. Even if you don't think he's headed in the right direction that you want him to go in, you should at least give him 2 seconds to try formulating a response.
 * Debating on: DDW SA RR R1**
 * Instructor/commentator: Jackie**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/9 = 2AC - You need to enunciate more. It's not that you're going too fast - it's just that the arguments blur together. It's very difficult to get all of what you're saying on the analytic arguments. Particularly on the case. And really particularly on T. Big chunks of the 2AC on T got lost. - In particular, I would not talk trash about the negative's flowing for that argument on T because I literally have no idea what the argument IS. Not just that you didn't read a card. I didn't even know the argument existed. - You talk a lot about the value of access on the case, to respond to a lot of the negative pressing. I think you need a slower and more clearly articulated explanation of the value of access. This is especially the case given the neg's capitalism argument. - I think you are right to focus on the aff as attempting to reduce structural harms, rather than trying to solve them. The problem is that all of the 'impact' work of the aff does NOT speak in this fashion. The 'root cause of war' card implies actual solvency. If you can't fix things, then it makes that stuff inevitable. I think the aff would be a lot stronger if you ratcheted down the Big Kritiky Impact stuff and just made it a more reasonable case for the value of equality in movement.
 * Debating on: Tournament rd. 2**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

2AR - You do a good job of demonstrating how your aff (if it solves) provides significant advantages and challenges the K. The biggest problem is that you assert a lot of this as if it's obvious, when the crux of the neg argument is a series of internal link takeouts to precisely this aff solvency. - In particular, you have a lot of claims about how integration is good, but this all assumes that the mechanism of integration is a positive one. That is: that people encountering each other in this way will encourage them to rethink capitalism. - Another problem is the basic aff claim to simply 'give people more choices' or to 'give people more freedom.' This is precisely the link to the negative's argument that the aff isn't transformative but in fact incorporates people back into the essence of the capitalist structure.

= Date of debate: 7/9 = 1NR: Don't bank too much on the DA turning the case. Those arguments beg the question of a lot of the impact calculus since Jackson-Vanik is pretty clearly less of an immediate concern to the poor than lack of transit. You also should engage in some of the debate about how we should calculate impacts and play the game on magnitude outweighs. You should be more dismissive of "fiat solves the link." It's just a dumber version of intrinsicness. I'm fairly sure you answered a bunch of arguments that weren't in the 2AC, starting with vote no. You could use that time to extend the CP, some case arguments, or impact calculus. Good coverage of the arguments that were made and good evidence comparison.
 * Debating on: Round 3**
 * Instructor/commentator: Kernoff**
 * Comments:**

RFD: I voted negative. The affirmative banked the 2AR on the argument that we need specific, concrete strategies to resist capitalism rather than theoretical absolutism that doesn't go anywhere. While this is a good argument, the 2AR failed to defend that the plan was a workable solution. For instance, the 2AR spent a lot of time talking about why the plan is necessary to get people access to food. But there was no answer to the 2NC/2NR argument that capitalists will maximize profit by raising prices as soon as people will get there. The 2AR also extended climate change but didn't answer the argument that it was new or that they didn't solve most emissions. While I am pretty skeptical of the alternative and some of the neg's examples seem pretty silly, they do defend it more specifically than the affirmative defends their plan.

Date of debate: 7/10 Round 6 Commentator: Yamamura

-2AC was really good. try to delineate a little bit more between arguments, especially when they are analytics back-to-back so that the judge can get down all of the points you're making. -you should make sure that you have better in-roads on the extinction debate. Especially when you agree that you function within a utilitarian framework, you should make sure you extend your defense against their impact = EXAMPLE = Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!
 * Date of debate: June 23**
 * Debating on: Constellation aff**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments**: