Jack+Lassiter

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = - best job so far answering the governor argument on solvency - work on some breathingissues - a little more explanation on growth capacity - infrastructure investment, etc -
 * Debating on: case minidebate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: = 2AR -- It's unclear to me why your aff/interpretation is important to "decisionmaking skills." I'm also not sure about the choice of decisionmaking skills as a framing impact, but I understand where you're going. You should make the argument that "there's a T version of the aff" proves the research burden is inevitable. Again, I think you could do more work on reasonability. Great job!
 * Debating on: T - military ≠ public**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:** 1AR -- Need more of an impact to fairness. Respond to the arg that there's a topical version of the aff (point out that that makes the 'research burden' inevitable.) Make a few more args on reasonability.

= Date of debate: 6/29 = -Explain what the impact to the solvency deficit is, that is if you win some risk of a solvency deficit how do you still win the debate and why do you only need to won a little bit of it v. the DA -Impact comparison on the theory debate -Talk to me, not the other team = Date of debate:6/28 = -decide a strategy to focus on and make viable in your speech and then decide upon the arguments you want to extend based on priority -don't forget about answering turns case arguments - the aff is your house; protect it at all costs -try to think of the 2nr as a summary statement of the world being better without the aff - speak holistically regarding the world of the cp and the net benefit vs the world of the aff -use the flow not only to document the events of the debate, but also as a guide for your speech
 * Debating on: DA/CP Mini Debate 2AR**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on:CPs**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/2 = 1NC – organize case arguments better – your last two arguments on solvency are about alt causes to warming, which should be on the warming flow.
 * Debating on: Practice Debate A**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

1NR: Climate flow: Good job collapsing down here. You should make sure to extend an impact to the ag turn (I agree it’s mishandled in the 2AC) and if you want to make the ice age turn more viable for the 2NR, you should budget more time to ensure you answer all 2AC args. Consider extending the functionally dropped alt cause args (natural gas and construction à warming) at the bottom of the solvency flow. It’s terminal internal link defense that with the right analysis is enough to take out the advantage.

Econ flow: Efficient overview at the top of the flow. Do a bit more impact calc here. It was smart to point out that the aff has to solve overall competitiveness in order to access their terminal impacts, linking them to your trade bad args. = Date of debate: 7/2 = Much better job explaining at the top of the econ advantage why the DA turns heg. I'm not sure if it's because you had more time to prepare, but you sound like you're flying through analytical arguments and it's a bit unclear at times. Slow down and don't double breathe!
 * Debating on: REDO 1NR**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

It is great that you slow down and make eye contact with the judge on a select few, key parts of the debate. It adds emphasis and flags to the judge that this is an important argument. It is appropriate to do this on the uniqueness double-bind argument - nice job!

On the climate flow, you do a nice job of impacting the ag turn much better than before! You explain the terminal impact of food shortages and how it interacts with the warming advantage. You also extended the ice age turn, which you didn't do before. This means 2 things 1) you put more pressure on the 1AR by adding another offensive argument on case for him to deal with 2) you were more efficient on the economy advantage because you had enough time :)

= Date of debate: 7/6 =
 * Debating on: Practice Round A**
 * Instructor/commentator: Sterman**
 * Comments: Don't use an overview if you're going to explain it again later. Explain more on why your internal links are better and isolated from theirs. Deal with timeframe in your impact calc.**

= Date of debate: 7/6 = Your 2AC is well-structured and balanced given the 1-off kritik strategy the 1NC employed. You should set up some more impact calculus in the 2AC on the kritik debate, and pre-empt a lot of the methodology framework arguments the block is inevitably going to go for. Consider adding some theory to your 2AC on the kritik (floating PIKs bad, conditionality bad) just in case so you have an "out" in the 2AR if you need it.
 * Debating on: Practice Debate B**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

2AR - GO FOR THE PERM. The 2NR's only answer is "it's intrinsic, reject it" but this is not actually responsible. You have net-benefits to the perm (your whole aff) and the neg has not effectively responded to the argument that you can still do the plan, and question the methodology of the plan at the same time (the perm). Don't get bogged down on the case debate - the 2NR doesn't spend enough time on any of them to make them too threatening to the 2AR. Concisely answer them, and move on. Good job pointing out that the 2NR didn't extend an alternative or an impact to the K. = Date of debate: 7/7 = - In terms of 1NC construction, you might want to read an impact to the disad besides the Khalilzad competitiveness impact (turns case might be sufficient against this aff and doesn't have the same baggage) - Need more diverse 1NC case arguments - you could read fewer util cards and save them from the block. Make some alternate causality arguments to disposability and ableism. - Good cross-x on the aff's own ableism evidence - you should use her answers in your speech and be pointing out parts of their evidence they don't solve or address when debating the case - Good job on extending T overall. Work on more tangible examples of the unreasonable limit that the aff interpretation establishes - what does a strategy against a conventional infrastructure aff look like versus a vehicle modification aff? What disads did you lose, etc. - Parts of T were a bit too wordy and repetitive - you have a lot of prep and should try to type out things like caselists, topical version of the aff so you can explain them quickly and efficiently and get to the case with more time. - I think you're fine on the util debate itself - you might want to spend more time answering the Cuomo evidence specifically. = Date of debate: 7/7 = - Don't speak to the other team. "You don't have any evidence that..." Talk to the judge - It's hard for me to say, given that I didn't hear the 2NR, but you seem to be a bit too wordy on the economy advantage. Might be able to get through that faster. - Good distinctions on the CP. I'd still like to hear you develop slightly more what is SO different about aerospace compared to other possible stimulus. I don't think you NEED that, but it could help. - You're doing a bit too much explanation of things in multiple places. You half-explain the South Asia stuff on the CP and then promise to talk about it again later. The result is that there are two distinct places where this is getting debated. I think that's a drag on time. - I didn't understand the double bind on the CP. Might just be from lack of context. - You get to the substance of the elections DA with only 90 seconds. That means there was 2 1/2 minutes of this speech devoted to things that are supplemental to the debate. - Try to give the judge slightly more of a hook about how to analyze your defense on the DA vs. any defense they might win against the case. Why is the character of your defense more damning? Do they have any SQ sustainable argument? Things like that would really help.
 * Debating on: Practice Round E**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nick**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on: rebuttal re-do**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/9 = - I agree that there is synergy between the capitalism and biopower arguments, but I don't think it makes sense to suggest that the alt is a productive response to biopower. The exclusive focus on capital seems very much at odds with the more complex Foucauldian critique - which is anti-structural.
 * Debating on: Tournament rd. 2**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

1NR - The overview on T is way too long. It's almost two full minutes. The opening little bit makes sense as an overview. But in a debate like this that will almost entirely be about whether the aff actually IS what you say it is, winning that limits is important is of very marginal significance. Just do the link work in the overview. Or, even better, on the #1. - You need to be more clear about what their 'we meet' argument is. I get that you don't want to explain their argument for them, but in T debates judges are going to get very little of the 2AC and will make accommodations for aff argument development in the rebuttals. In order for your answers to make sense, you need to more cleanly articulate precisely HOW they respond. - I don't really understand how the existence of the DOT matters. That seems like a shiny object. The only real argument here is that the plan could trade-off because it's vague. Most of the rest of this seems like fluff. - I just flat-out don't understand what's going on with the baseline argument. On either side.

= Date of debate: =
 * Debating on:**
 * Instructor/commentator:**
 * 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:**

= Date of debate: =
 * Debating on:**
 * Instructor/commentator:**
 * 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**: