Aaron+Tam

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = - remove "and" if you are also numbering - better reference the 1ac - better description of the economic competitiveness when discussing hte 07 recession - explain why creating jobs not possible without growth
 * Debating on: case minidebate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/23 = -If you're going to explicitly structure the 2AC, use numbers not letters and dont use too much substructure. -Know exactly what your 1AR strategy is and make it clearly known to the judge. Need to go for less in the 1AR. -Good framing in the 2AR at first but you need to stay focused on the one way you're gonna win the debate. -Fairly good impact comparisons. = Date of debate: 6/26 = 1AR -- give a reason the judge should reject the team. I don't think your argument about overreliance hegemony advantages makes very much sense -- maybe scratch that one to save time. 2AR -- Good. When discussing utopian fiat, point out the vastly different standards held for the affirmative and negative, and why that is unfair for the affirmative. You can also impact your arguments by pointing out the poor quality of stale states debates. Remember to reference 2NR arguments specifically so the line-by-line stays clean.
 * Debating on: T Mini Debate (Aff)**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on: 50 state fiat**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:** Great work for your first time debating 50 state fiat! The 2AC should include warrants for each argument (e.g. why does the negative use of additional actors/agents make debate impossible?) You could add a logical policymaker argument -- there's no individual that could choose between the federal government and the 50 states so it's a bad model for debate and the judge shouldn't be forced into that position.

= Date of debate: 6/27 = - Focusing on answering all arguments - more time on link vs impact
 * Debating on: DA redo**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments:**

REDO Comments: words to eliminate "right now" "in this debate" work on enunciation some - you slur some of your words - hard consonants should be emphasized as much as possible

2ar redo: start slower and decrease yoru speed by about 10% to eliminate your stuttering. You'd be faster by doing that! you should work on prepping yoru 2ar like we discussed (argument labels - writing more widely, etc) to help avoid repetation. Your argument comaprisons are good, but you need to advance beyond "more qualified"and only discuss their academic achievements. You do lots of good comparisons of statisical models - make that hte thrust of your speech and save time by omitting the others. Also, remember to reorient your explanation by putting the thesis of the explanation first and then blur listing the specific historical examples (ww2, ww1, etc) at the end of that.

good job overall!

= Date of debate: 6/28 =
 * Debating on: 2AR Redo**
 * Instructor/commentator: QQQQQQQ**
 * Comments:**
 * -Give a clear summary of how you are going to win and then just check off those boxes**
 * -Avoid repeating yourself, use the flow and reference the overview**
 * -Slow down a notch**

= Date of debate:6/28 = -make sure to open your mouth wide when speaking for clarity -when going for multiple strategies, compartmentalize them so they work as independent parts -don't forget that permutations need theoretical responses more often than not to give the late rebuttals options -group large/generic solvency arguments into a singular place to make clear that they apply generically to all of the solvency deficits and so you dont repeat them multiple times
 * Debating on:CPs**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/30 = 2AR - First comment: this speech includes almost no reference to the details of the aff. It's pretty good at the general level, but not very specific. You want to give the judge something very detailed, not just a refutation of the cap K in general. It will be far easier for them to put it all together. - You use a lot of filler words. Examples: "first of all" and "right now" and "completely." Try to do some rebuttal re-does where you focus on this. - The short term/long term distinction is strange. I understand where you're going with it, but it's a new phrasing and I'm not sure a particularly useful one. At least, it seems strange to open with this. Maybe try to say 'systemic' vs. 'proximate.' That seems to fit into the structure of the debate a bit more. - The 2AR has some leeway to abandon the line by line, but you seem to dissolve it entirely. It would be much more helpful to maintain a fair amount of the structure and just cross-apply things in a few places where it is useful.
 * Debating on: Cap K**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

Re-do - I still think the opening line is a bit confusing. You're now saying the perm will solve the link level and the impact level. That's not particularly clear, either. - I would like to hear more about how the perm actually works. You're speaking a lot about what you WANT the perm to accomplish, but it would help to talk about how the action of the plan fits into the scope of reconceptualizing capitalism. - Your speech patterns are just a little bit frantic. I think you'd be well served by slowing down a bit. It would help the content come across a lot more clearly. - Nice job incorporating some more discussion of the details of the aff. That said, it's still kind of only a supplement rather than a frontpiece of the argument. And the last few minutes default back into the 'can we resist cap or not' conversation.

= Date of debate: =
 * Debating on: Round 2**
 * Instructor/commentator: Yamamura**
 * Comments:**
 * Good 2AC in terms of covering everything. A couple of things: try to articulate a little bit more - couldn't make out some of your arguments, between cards etc. I would also make sure to make a solvency deficit on the PIC; even if you don't think the counterplan is a threat, I would be sure to always make a permutation, solvency deficit etc. just in case the counterplan isn't what you initially think it is. ||

= Date of debate: 7/9 = 2AC: Good line-by-line on the case, but when you reference arguments it's far more important to reference the argument name than the argument number since many judges don't flow numbers and their numbers may be different than yours. You should group liberally, but you can't group non-consecutive arguments - there's just no way to do that on a flow. Good coverage and time allocation. Reading 50 perms on the cap K isn't helpful at all. It's much better to make one well-explained permutation. The others are either the exact same thing or clearly not theoretically legitimate (i.e. perm do the alt or perm do the plan then the alt). I like that you worked in a bunch of analytical arguments, but a lot of them were too short to flow or understand. 2AR: You have the right strategy to win the debate. The main problem is clashing with the 2NR. For instance, you need to answer the critical argument that you don't actually get people more access to food because capitalists will just raise prices once the poor can get there. Or if you extend warming, you need to answer their argument that this was new and sandbagging in the 1AR. It would be very easy to convince me that it wasn't, but you have to say something for me to do that. You are pretty persuasive about the need for specific, concrete solutions. You need to convince me that the plan is a solution that would actually work.
 * 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: =
 * Debating on:**
 * Instructor/commentator:**
 * Comments:**

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