Alex+Tsorvas

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = Great job! If anything, you were actually TOO wordy in your arguments, but that’s a great problem to have. For now, just continue to focus on responding to arguments and getting as much out there as possible. For the line-by-line, you should try to be a little more clear about when you’re referencing your opponent’s arguments. Be explicit: “they say X,” or something like that.
 * Debating on: case mini-debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/23 = -good overview and analysis of the other teams evidence -try to respond to each argument the other team makes individually
 * Debating on:** **Topicality**
 * Instructor/commentator: Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/29 = Your 1ar on the CP was great! You went line by line and did a great job of explaining the 2ac arguments. You are good about going " they said xxxx, but . . ." - however try to referene 2ac arguments in that signposting when you can. It's okay to pause if you cant read your handwriting on an argument - don't worry. it happens to all of us :) you recovered in under 10 seconds, so NBD. Obviously, try to write more clearly in the future though :) On 50 state fiat - you do a good job extending a few of the 2ac arguments - but you need to extend all of the reasons AND answer each of the 2nc arguments. It's hard, i know, to do both quickly, but the more you do the more viable this argument is later On politics - you do a great job extending the no impact argument and then talking about the non-uniqueness argument. try to also extend the no link argument about how political capital is not finite.
 * Debating on: states politics**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate:6/27 = -try to plan out exactly how you are going to start your speech to avoid the impulse to start again -when in doubt, default to extending arguments youve already made
 * Debating on:Disads**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate:6/30 = -try to keep a constant rythm or pace in your speeches to avoid starting and stopping -when explaining why your argument outweighs another, make sure to include a clear explanation of what your argument is before you start making comparisons -don't forget to make your arguments specific to the aff when explaining them
 * Debating on:K**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/2 = 1AC - Great job reading the 1AC. You had a fair amount of time left, so could add even more. - Really nice job in cross-ex. You seem to have a really good grasp on the aff and didn't wilt under the forceful questions. This sounded like the CX from the middle of the year - not from the first debate.
 * Debating on: practice debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

1AR - Don't spend so much time re-explaining their argument. It's good to signpost, but you don't need to elaborate their point too much. - Good job eventually answering the competitivness argument, but you need to reference 1AC evidence there, and talk about why competitiveness isn't exactly crucial to the aff anyways. - Work on time management. It took a couple prods from me. Try to give yourself more time at the end. In particular, you spent too long on the case. You switch to the CP at about 2:20. Try to cut that down to 1:30 on the case. - Nice job explaining the difference between FG and state action in terms of organization and uniformity. I really like your politics vs. rationality set of arguments. Just try to be a little more efficient. - I'd like to hear a bit more on the state budget problems. - I would strongly recommend ripping your pages out of the notebook. Flipping around the pages is going to be a lot more difficult than sorting loose sheets of paper. - Really great speech except for the spending DA. For your re-do, really focus on getting some more stuff there.

re-do - Good job making the stimulus argument, but it would be helpful to cross-apply this to the DA - You're framing things a little too defensively. You say that the emissions from building the rail would be counteracted by reducing car use. But you want to say this effect would be MUCH MUCH larger than the problem for building rails. - You got through the case in about 1:15 this time, which is much quicker than the last time. That's great. - You make most of the right arguments on the theory debate, but it's very unclear. You yourself seemed a bit confused about what part of the debate your were on. You want to frame theory arguments more offensively. - You still waste a bit of time talking about the group of states working together. It ends up being pretty repetitive. - You got to the spending DA with 1 minute left, which is a whole lot better than 0 seconds! - Major issue with the DA: you are confusing the aff advantage and the DA. The aff is about solving car use and congestion and things and the DA is about fiscal discipline. I think you do a good job of using the aff advantages AGAINST this argument, but could do more to answer the idea that fiscal discipline is the key to the economy.

second re-do - You're doing more to address the spending stuff, though it's still getting muddled with the case. A few of the key arguments are made on the case debate, for one thing. - You're improving on efficiency. You got through the same set of arguments on the case even quicker this time. On the CP, though, you could still condense things a fair amount. - I'm not feeling the 'if the economy were doing better then we'd hear about it on the news' argument very much. You have some evidence to cite here. Use it instead.

= Date of debate: 7/6 = 1NC - You don't need to tell the judge what the off-case positions are in your roadmap. Just say the number of pages they need. When you get to the argument during the speech, you can name it then. - Work on organization. You lost a few things in all the shuffling of papers. The 1NC should be easy to keep in order. It seemed like you were overly stressed about where things went, which actually increased the chaos a little. Get your 1NC set early and then check with Kathryn to make sure it's in a good order. - You want to read all your off-case positions first in the speech. If you don't, you get the problem you had here of not quite being able to finish one of them.
 * Debating on: Practice debate B**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

1NR - You do a pretty good job of responding to arguments, but you miss a couple on the Elections DA. They made some no link arguments and at least asserted a non-unique argument. You need to respond to those. - I think it makes a lot of sense for you to go for capitalism. For your re-do, why don't you just plan on spending all 5 minutes here? That will give you time to prepare for a really solid speech. - I think you're pretty good on the link - about how infrastructure affects capitalism. But you need to push on this a bit more. - You nicely explain the 'we need to be willing to try' argument about the alternative, but need to respond to their perm evidence more. - You should also respond to their impact claims. They say that economic decline is worse than capitalism. You want to compare these. First, say that economic decline is a FEATURE of capitalism. It's inevitable in a capitalist system. Second, you want to prove that the overall effects of capitalism outweigh.

Re-do - You're doing a nice job explaining the link - though it's a little too specific to the details of how funding would be allocated. You want to expand things a little bit. Talk about the general GOAL, and how it's committed to continuing the general capitalist system - You say that it's not the negative's duty to propose a CP with the K. This is on the right track, but you need to be a little more clear here. You're right to say that it's sufficient to challenge the ideology, but I wouldn't say so explicitly 'we're not proposing anything else.' You should reference your evidence that says challenging this IS an alternative strategy. - You end up answering most of the neg arguments, but not super-specifically. There is no clear moment where you answer the perm or the Gibson-Graham argument, for example, or the vague alternatives.

= Date of debate: 7/6 =
 * Debating on: Practice Debate 2**
 * Instructor/commentator: Kwaii Bell**
 * Comments:**


 * 2AC/2AR - you took almost 5 minutes for the 2AC... thats super problematic. I feel that if you had been more organized this wouldn't have been an issue. Like, after the 5minutes of prep and borrowing cards from your opponents you spoke for i think 6:50 and read only 1 card... thats a major issue. You made brilliant analytics, but there wasn't anything to support a THING you said.**
 * By the time we got to the end of the debate it seemed as if you had given up... there was a lot of pausing, and stumbling. You did well though. I feel like you and your partner way more in prep time than you guys actually prepare... I think if that changed, you wouldn't be so pressed for time at the end of the round.**


 * CX - was a screaming match about how you feel about the environment... no bueno.**

=**Date of debate:7/7**=
 * Debating on:Practice Debate D**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

1AC -don't speak into your laptop - it blocks your voice -try to maintain a constant tempo no matter the rate of speech; good job varrying your voice for tags though -try to fill all of the time allotted

CX of the 1AC -ask fewer general clarification questions, focus on specific arguments to design questions around -try to plan out your questions to prevent having to pause between questions

1NC -more often then not, you shouldnt have to take prep before your 1NC -try to face the person judging the debate when you speak -make sure to label your various off case arguments before you read any of them -when you stumble in your speech, try to maintain your rate of speech rather than pausing and resetting

CX of the 1NC -try avoid beiung lead on a hunt for evidence around the room during the cross-x

2AC -include a theory argument about the status of the cp and the k -open your mouth wider to gain clarity; youre mumbling a bit while reading cards -don't forget to perm the k

CX of the 2AC -try to keep your cross-x focused on arguments in the debate rather than concepts that just relate to it -ask fewer open ended questions that allow the other team to just talk

2NC -take fewer arguments in the 2NC -always try to have a timer with you during your speech -you've got a case of the "uhs" and "ums" - try to eliminate it from your speeches -try to avoid conversing with the other team during your speech

CX of the 2NC -even if it takes some spin, always try to have an answer to cross-x questions

1NR -don't forget to give an order for your speech -try to pick an argument to focus on in your speech and then follow the line by line to make arguments that clash with the other teams arguments -remember, you arent talking to the other team, but the judge

1AR -when debates get muddled like this, part of the 1AR's job is to clean things up -good use of strategic concessions of the other sides arguments in order to support your arguments -include more impact calclulus relating the aff advantages to the neg impacts

2NR -don't forget to discuss the alternative in the 2NR - why it solves your link arguments and why it solves or resolves the affs advantages -good use of the link arguments but make sure that the impact to each of them is clearly weighed against hte aff -if you're going for the criticism alone, you need to kick out of the states CP and the elections DA

2AR -use more of your prep time either before the 2AC and always max it out before the 2AR -focus more on the cap k that the 2NR spends the most time on -if you truly believe you have extra time, spend it on weighing the case = = = Date of debate: 7/9 = - Good questions in general for cx, but you should try to pursue a line of questioning that establishes links to your arguments or helps make your case debating in the block easier. - You should also try to plan a series of questions in advance so there aren't pauses - this should be your speech primarily, not your partner's - Good job debating the case in the 2NC - you combined good extensions of 1NC warrants with well-placed additional evidence in your speech. - On elections you need to answer Justin's evidence that Iran and Israel won't go to war - this impact defense mitigates your impact hugely - Need to read more evidence on the Cap K to answer the 2AC impact turns; you're making good defensive arguments and a nice job discussing flaws in competitiveness theory, but you need some offense to hedge against this. - The 2NR should make a choice to only go for a couple of your arguments - extending everything from the block doesn't give you enough time to decisively win any of these arguments. You should also put your best offensive arguments at the top of your speech.
 * Debating on: Practice Round 1**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nick**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/9 =
 * Debating on: Tournament Round 3**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * I voted Affirmative because the negative did not sufficiently develop any of their positions. On capitalism, I think the Aff wins a combination of the permutation and some of their capitalism good evidence. On elections, the 2NR did not respond to several of the 1AR's specific arguments which would have made it hard to vote on that an the CP. It is also just hard to conceptualize how to make my decision when there a multiple worlds in the 2NR.**


 * Too ambitious of a 2NC to try to do so much in that speech. You have to split the block. So pick a few arguments probably just the Cap K so it an self contained and maybe some case args. Always be flowing the 1AR! You gotta know whats going on. Should narrow it down in the 2NR, don't go for all of your arguments. This is especially true when you are extending both a CP and a Cap K in the 2NR.**

= 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**: