Sophie+Bauerschmidt-Sweeney

toc = Date of debate: 6/23 =
 * Debating on: T Mini Debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * -I think you should still go for some competing interps arguments in the 2NR, though the "they just make debate worse" framing is good**
 * -Think forward more in the 2NR, to preempt 2AR spin**
 * -More emphasis on framing and boxing particularly**

= Date of debate: 6/23 = You should frame the 2NR - don't start off with "extend our interpretation" - instead you should contextualize the T debate before getting into the line-by-line. You should frame the limits debate in terms of "predictable limits" - it becomes a question of whether the inclusion of military affs are predictable subsets of the topic. I think your dual use technology cards strengthen this argument that military infrastructure is unpredictable.
 * Debating on: 2NR t mini debate redo**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

Redo #2: You do a much better job of framing the debate! You focus the debate on whether military infrastructure is a predictable limit to the topic - this specificity is good and I think this is a stronger argument than your initial generic "unlimiting bad" arguments.

= Date of debate: 6/25 = Really nice job. I think you have a very well developed and efficient set of arguments here. A few places that I thought were particularly good: - your argument about the aff responsibility to affirm vs. the neg responsibility. I think it makes a lot of sense to say that only the aff really can be accused of 'argument irresponsibility.' You might want to develop this a bit more. The one issue here is that it does seem to contradict your counter interpretation. That is: if it's really true that the neg is just supposed to negate, why should you be forced to collapse down to one advocacy in the 2NR? - your argument that the infinite regression stuff isn't realistic - that a series of blippy, contradictory arguments wouldn't actually help the neg that much. It's really nice to see people be realistic about how this stuff would actually play out. People don't do this often enough in debates - the discussion of the real world. I would be a bit worried about the John Kerry style example, where flip flopping itself basically becomes a VI. But for the most part, contradictions are punished only insofar as they actually damage the positions people ultimately affirm. And if that's the case, there should be something that the aff can concede to actually help them - not just a theory argument.
 * Debating on: theory re-do - performative contradiction**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/27 = 2nr - i thought it was generally good. You are a little repetative on the entitelement/perception link set of agments - make sur eyou extend cites when you make the argument the first time and avoid doing comparisons out of order in order to avoid repetition. You are less good about the comparison with the stimulus funds argument. Try to brush up that explanation
 * Debating on: DA redo**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments:**

2ar redo - it was great, although a bit too long for your typical 2ar. you need to think a bit more strategically about time and pick and choose a bit more.

= Date of debate: 6/28 = you do a good job iwth your link wall you are top heavy on the cp - you need better answer to the varience argument and to perm do the cp. you do a good job of discussing the aff advantages sometimes, but need a bit more interaction of that with the DA read more impact modulars and do some impact calc/util type stuff. preempt the "solving a little is sufficient" type arguments by talking about how the cp solves a little and that that is enough to spur the movements in the 1ac.
 * Debating on: states/federalism**
 * Instructor/commentator: nicole**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/30 = 2NC - General comment: this speech feels a little too defensive. I'd like to hear a more aggressive opening that details the extreme risks of capitalism. Other general comment: you could read several fewer cards. It's not BAD to read them, but if you're looking to cut time, you certainly could. - Your first link is a good argument, but would be a lot stronger if supplemented with some case specific evidence about how infrastructure works. You say roads are built to connect suburbs to each other, which has a lot of truth but could be made stronger. - Your second link in the overview is a bit wordy and not totally clear. You need to impact this more. What does it mean that their approach doesn't find value in those who are excluded? - Try to cite the 1NC evidence more. You make the argument about selective gains from investment but don't reference any evidence on this. - You make the right argument that the net-benefit to the perm disproves the perm, but it's pretty wordy and less aggressively articulated than it could be. - Good job on the welfare link - good use of the 'make people reliant on the system' argument.
 * Debating on: Cap K**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

2AR - I want to hear more here to deny the neg's claim that the supposedly specific scenario is endemic to capitalism, not actually a specific scenario. - You say that the perm solves because it includes the mindset change of the alt. I don't really think that accords with what the neg has said. - I think you're overstating the capacity for the perm to completely fix the action of the plan. - Say more about Gibson Graham/Zizek, those arguments are really helpful to bolster the perm in a world where it can't completely resolve the problems with the aff.

= Date of debate: 7/7 = - 1AC is clear and loud - you might want to try emphasizing some more important words / parts of the speech - I'm not sure what you're going for with your questions about utilitarianism during 1NC cross-x - I don't think you're going to get the neg to say something besides "most lives saved" and even if they said something else, I don't think it's really a game-changer. Your time would be better served asking about the kritik and poking holes in the internal link chain of the disad. - Need to have more ink on some of these case arguments, especially their biopower argument - you need to say you access / solve the impact, not just quickly contest the link to the argument - 2AC should have a well-developed conditionality argument given the inherent tensions between the CP/DA and the Cap K - Be careful about some of the fed key arguments you're making - I think the neg could conceivably use some of these cards as links to their biopower turn or to help spin links for the Cap K - You have some good defensive arguments on the disad, but you should address the impact itself - at the minimum, this means applying your Cuomo ev, but I would recommend also trying to read a card or two of impact defense and indicting Khalilzad - Your 1AR is a little top-heavy and repetitive, especially starting with the overview which could have just been explained on the K itself. - If you're going to go for the permutation on the K, you need to answer the cooption/masking/single-issue focus bad arguments - You need to pick and choose the arguments you extend on spending - you kind of go for two pieces of link defense, but don't spend enough time on either one to be able to win the debate. Once again, you need to answer the Khalilzad impact itself. - I'm not sure framing the top of the debate around the question of education is the best strategy in this circumstance. The neg is functionally link-turning the aff and arguing that your mechanism makes it impossible to engage in politics. Even if the judge agrees that the alternative isn't real world, they could still vote neg because they think the plan promotes the American way of life. - Accordingly, you need to be spending more time answering the 2NR on the links/permutation answers. - The jobs and education arguments need to be made in the 1AR and fleshed out more later - evidence on this issue would be beneficial. - Work on word economy: the phrases "real world," "education," and "resistance" pop up too much without any specific application to 2NR arguments. = Date of debate:7/9 =
 * Debating on: Practice Round E**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nick**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on: Round 2**
 * Instructor/commentator: Yamamura**
 * Comments:**
 * I think some of the 1AC cards are a little bit long. You could probably highlight down a little bit more and still get all of the same warrants. Might help in terms of reading a few more cards in the 1AC. I think you were making the right arguments at the right places in the 1AR, but could have shaved off a bit more time in a couple places to allow you to get to T etc. For example, on the case debate, you might want to group parts of the debate such as "extinction first" or "utililitarianism" and extend 2AC arguments and use embedded clash to quickly answer their arguments. For the 1AR, I think it's more important to have the key arguments on every flow, and the 2AR can do the super in-depth comparison on the case debate, that I think you were trying to do a little bit too much of. I thought the explanation of the urban sprawl link turn was very good in the 1AR, though. I also thought your impact framing of why the aff outweighs war was pretty good. ||

= Date of debate: 7/9 = CX of 1NC: Good instinct attacking the alternative, but asking whether it does something in the real world, etc. isn't as productive as asking what it would do if it were successful and how it would go about doing it. 1AR: The argument quality was excellent, but it was much more like a 2AR instead of a 1AR. For instance, the argument that people need access to food and other basic necessities before they can worry about capitalism is very strong but you made it several times. You don't want to stop explaining arguments, but you want to make each argument once with as efficient an explanation as possible and move on. That sets the arguments up for the 2AR. I think you should extend your Gibson-Graham card - it goes very well with the strategy you are pursuing against the kritik. It was a good idea to say you solve warming on politics - I would have read one card instead of two. Also say the US and Russia won't cooperate to solve warming - this is definitely not on either country's agenda - even if they could in theory. Good choice of arguments to extend, but each could use some more refutation of what the block said.
 * 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**: