Alicia+Ng

toc = Date of debate: 6/23 = 2AC - Awesome. Good, clean set of answers. Nice development of the arguments without wasting too much time. - It would be helpful to number your arguments a lot. You have a big chunk of 'limits' arguments at the end that all get jumbled together. It's much easier for the judge if they are clearly delineated. - Good speaking voice. You could be a little louder, but you're pretty much fine.
 * Debating on: T mini debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

1AR Your arguments here are short and succinct. You could probably develop your arguments a bit more, but in a real 1AR you probably wouldn't have the time, so this is good. I was a little unclear about your defense of the source for your definition. I'm not sure this is a fight that's worth having. Great job on the limits debate at the bottom.

= Date of debate: 6/27 = 2ac: - too much time on non-unqieuness, also explaining that after you read 3 cards is unnecessary. You want to make an argument only once if possible you read a lot of cards, but that may be unrealistic in other 2acs. You want to sub out some of these cards for analytics just in the interest of time allocation. one uniqueness card instead of 3 will help. some analytical internal link presses may also be helpful. Your analytical no link was just a summary of previous internal link carded arguments - try adding variety. Your impact calculus is good!
 * Debating on: DA**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments:**

1ar: Again some form and some content I want to see your signposting get a little tighter. In this mini debate it doesn't matter much, but I think it would in big substantive debates and so I want you to practice it correctly. Second, internal link comparison. It is SUPER important in this debate to focus in on that.

Please redo both of these speeches tonite!

= Date of debate: 6/25 = -try to compartmentalize your arguments so their explanations dont run into eachother -abbreviations of debate terms are not universal - avoiding using them in your speeches for the sake of clarity
 * Debating on:Theory**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/30 = 1AR - Overall comment: you've got too much stuff going on here. It comes out as a bit of a block of text rather than a series of arguments. Some things you can do to help that out: 1) try to group things together a bit, maybe in terms of education and fairness arguments. 2) differentiate your tone a bit more, so it sounds a bit less monotone. 3) don't go for quite as much. You went for about a minute, which is probably too long. - Other comment: try to make your arguments a bit more specific. You've got a general claim that fairness is good, but aren't really applying it to the resolution or to the states CP in particular.
 * Debating on: 50 state fiat**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

2NR - Again, you're a bit too monotone. Try to speak out at the judge. Show some passion and excitement. It will really help, particularly on theory debates which are kind of intrinsically dull. In a strange way, you're a bit too focused on responding to the pure content of the aff arguments without really getting at the essence of them. The content is the MOST important thing, but it's not the only thing. You want to think about how the judge will interpret things, too. - I think you're very much on the right track with some of these arguments, but I'd like to see a bit more development of how it would really ruin debate if the aff could just read anything. It would make for endless new affs, unprepared negatives, etc. You want to turn that good argument from the 1AR about preparation by demonstrating how limiting the aff to fewer options will actually make debate better.

= Date of debate: 6/30 =
 * Debating on: K Mini Debate 2NC/2NR**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * -Good job extending your best offense first and also good job extending and explaining your 1NC evidence but I want you to be more attentive to the line by line, use those cards against their arguments rather than only in the overview**
 * -Good comparison and thinking though of how the impacts are gonna happen and contextualizing within the Aff. Good job using your evidence**
 * -More passion and fire, don't just read, orate!**

= Date of debate: 72 = 1NC: For the 1NC, your road map only needs to include the number of off-case arguments and then the order of the advantages. You should do the off-case arguments first since they are your offense. You don't need to read that many cards for the states CP in the 1NC! I recommend reading the 1NC shells in the file. Good job being clear and understandable - I had no trouble flowing you! 1NR: You should re-do this speech. Good job helping your partner by handing her some cards that she needed! You shouldn't need prep time for the 1NR since you get to prep during the whole 2NC - make it your goal to not use any. I like that you were able to cover the rest of the arguments on spending when your partner didn't get to them all. You should keep each case and off-case argument separate. Even if they are both about the economy, they go on separate flows so everyone's flows stay organized. Work on responding to each 2AC argument. You did a good job answering the contradiction argument, but they said more than that! You can read new cards in the 1NR but not make brand-new arguments like CO2 good!
 * Debating on: Practice Debate A - HSR**
 * Instructor/commentator: Kernoff**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/6 = You should have an impact overview on politics that explains why it outweighs/turns the aff. You should make sure to do line-by-line on politics and invest time in the uniqueness, link and impact levels of the debate. If you are going to take the case flows, make sure you selectively pick which arguments to extend and explain them with analysis. Don't just extend tags from the 1NC.
 * Debating on: Practice Debate B**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

1NR: Before jumping into the line-by-line, make sure you have an overview on politics. Why is having strong US-Russian relations more important than the plan's advantages? How does it outweigh and/or turn the case? You do a nice job of evidence comparison on the politics DA by explaining why your evidence is better than the aff's (authors more qualified, empirically disproven, etc.). = Date of debate: 7/6 = - In the 2AC on the case, you should try to explicitly reference each 1NC argument either by number or part of its tag - You should also try to minimize the amount of evidence you read on the case – your 1AC solvency/internal link evidence is probably sufficient to answer the arguments they’ve made. This also frees up more time for you to make more answers to the disad and the kritik, which are more offensive and threatening arguments. - Good use of qualifications and evidence comparison in the 2AC on the case debate and the fiscal discipline disad - I would put the disad on the bottom of your order – generally you should try to answer the case, then advocacies (counterplans and kritiks), and then disads, especially given that you have an economy advantage in the 1AC - Try to make more diverse arguments on the Security K, especially a permutation - Solid cross-x, especially pushing her on how the states can address international issues. - Your 2AR on the K should center around the truth value of your affirmative – explain your internal links for the advantages you want to go for and why the impacts are probable/not fabricated. You do a good job of this for the economy, but you might want to substantiate your truth claims some more for the Africa/Russia advantages. You should also try to apply your Guzzini evidence about realism and the 1AR evidence some more to respond to their arguments. - Give a more thorough explanation of the framework / permutation – saying they didn’t answer something isn’t persuasive in itself; you need to explain why it matters that they didn’t respond to one of these arguments. - It’s not worth your valuable 2AR time to go for the counterplan theory in this instance – they didn’t extend it in the 2NR.
 * Debating on: Practice Debate C**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nick**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/7 = 1NC: Just read the shells! You are reading extra cards you might not need - it's better to wait for the 2NC/1NR to read cards that respond to affirmative arguments as necessary. It's usually a good idea to pick one CP, especially if there's only one net benefit to both of them. I would recommend adding another DA instead. Be sure to read a text for your CP. Great job adding some analytical case arguments and using numbers to clearly distinguish arguments. 1NR: You should redo this speech. I really liked your argument that most of their cards are from the same article and that it is biased. I also really liked your explanation of how they can't solve warming because they only affect a small amount of emissions. You should work on extending specific arguments from the 1NC in a line-by-line manner.
 * Debating on: Practice Debate D**
 * Instructor/commentator: Kernoff**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/9 = - Really nice explanation on some of the case arguments. If anything, there's too much discussion here. You shouldn't need to read too many cards on the case in the 2AC. - Your roadmapping on the case is confusing. You seem to be answering things that they didn't read. You also have too many references to arguments which assume the judge has an intimate knowledge of all the evidence in the debate. You need to be more clear - Your speaking style needs more variation. It's very clear that you're reading your analytics, and many of them are written in a fashion that doesn't lend well to being spoken aloud. They're not really complete sentences. - WAY too much time on the case. You spent 5 minutes there - it should be closer to 3. That obviously caused a problem with getting enough answers on the CP and politics DA. - No country in Africa has the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. Not even close - since South Africa dismantled their program.
 * Debating on: Tournament rd. 4**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

2AR - You need to do a lot more on the advantages. The 2NR didn't say a whole lot, but made one strong argument against both Africa and Russia - which you claim they dropped. But since you don't respond, it actually means you can't win much of anything there. - You are right to note that both teams are fighting over the economy impact. But there are a couple problems here. First, you say a few times that it costs more to not do the aff than to do it, but you never explain WHY. That's hugely important. Second, you say that your economic solvency happens faster, but precisely the opposite is probably true. Third, even if the plan saves money eventually, it's not entirely clear why that answers the DA - which is mostly about the CURRENT economic situation. That timeframe problem is really a big deal given the nature of this debate.

= Date of debate: 7/10 = 2AR – Try to stay a bit more organized and be clear about which flow you are on. Good job focusing on the key questions of the debate! You coul probably spend some more time on the spending DA – there are several good arguments in the 1AR.
 * Debating on: Tournament round #6**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:** 2AC – Be careful about which arguments you answer on case in the 2AC. You’re answering some arguments, especially on the economy advantage, that were not made by the 1NC. You also don’t need to read so many cards; each card you read should have a specific purpose and be necessary to answer the 1NC.

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