Kyle+Schmaeling

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = 2AC: Great job using your flow to plan out arguments and refuting every argument. You have a very solid 2AC – to make it great, you could work on incorporating multiple responses to their arguments when appropriate and referring to 1AC evidence.
 * Debating on: Case Mini Debates**
 * Instructor/commentator: Kernoff**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/22 = You do a nice job of comparing your evidence with the aff's (ex: our evidence is written by a more qualified author). You also organize your speech well by referencing the 2AC arguments - this helps you directly respond to the aff's arguments.
 * Debating on:** topicality mini debates
 * Instructor/commentator: Katie Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/23 = 2ac on no neg fiat: your 2ac follows the right structure and has adequate explanation. Perhaps a little more on why it would be a good rule would be helpful. 1ar: Good job referencing your opponents arguments, but instead of "the opposition says" go with "they said" you need a little better explanation why it should be a voting issue instead of just letting the CP go away.
 * Debating on: Theory**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments:**

2nc: version 2 is better. remember to explain and number. also "reasonability" is not a reason conditionality is not a VI.

= Date of debate: 6/28 = 2AC - I like that you're not just reading evidence. You try to explain and situate the cards a little bit. A good debate speech will include evidence but won't be EXCLUSIVELY evidence - Great job on the first argument. You do a nice job of clarifying the 'deficit spending' argument in the context of the aff. Best explanation we've heard of that yet. - You forgot to cite the evidence on the #2. Not a big deal, but you want to include that so the judge will know it's a card 2NC - I would recommend getting rid of the gum before speaking. It makes things sound weird. - As with the others, I think you need a better explanation of how the states can effectively solve the infrastructure problem. You jump to 'federal action is bad' but that doesn't prove the states can work. - It seems like you got a little bit distracted by the people around you. Try to keep your focus as much as possible, even when they're being goofy. 1AR - You open by spending quite a bit of time explaining the neg's arguments. You don't really need to do this. Once you get into a discussion of your argument it's much better. It avoids wasting time - You're good on uniformity, too. It's a nice job explaining the confusion - I'd just like to hear slightly more about how this actually prevents infrastructure from being built. That it's confusing is one thing: why does this actually disrupt things?
 * Debating on: CP mini debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/29 =
 * Debating on: CP/theory/DA**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:** Good line-by-line! You've covered every 2AC argument, which is awesome. Work on reading more evidence/making more arguments in response to each 2AC argument. 3-4 cards per 2AC arg would be good. Also remember to extend relevant 1NC evidence.

= Date of debate:6/30 = -your individual arguments are well explained and applicable, but try to compartmentalize them into individual blocks of text on the flow rather than dispersing them between different responses to the 2ac -consider an overview that includes the arguments that you think are strategic and want to make but arent direct responses to the 2ac -when extending arguments supported by evidence, use them as the basis for your analytic arguments
 * Debating on:K**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/2 = - Good start of cross-x – pursue the distinction between up-front spending and later savings. Use all of your time to point out flaws in the 1AC – you might want to ask questions about their ability to address climate change. For example, what evidence is there that solving 40% U.S. transportation emissions is sufficient to stop warming given the scale of emissions in developing countries like China and India? - You and your partner should work on dividing the block more efficiently. Ideally, one of you should focus on the case debate, and the other should spend time extending the spending disadvantage. This way you maximize your block time and can make more arguments to put pressure on the 1AR. - You should explicitly extend arguments by their author name and give reasons to prefer your evidence. You do a very good job on this on the question of whether people would use it. - When extending case arguments, you might want to read some more evidence on these issues and spend some time indicting the specific pieces of evidence that the aff reads. Especially on the spending debate, source quality and biases can be very important. - I agree with Charles that you shouldn't speak with gum - it's a little distracting. - In the 2NR, you should start with your strongest arguments first and prioritize your best offensive arguments. In this case, you should start by extending your spending disad and explain why the disad outweighs and turns the affirmative’s economy and climate change advantages. - Once again, your case debating is very good in the 2NR, but would be even better if you referenced specific pieces of evidence and reasons why your evidence might be more reliable than the affirmative’s. This would also help fill up the minute you had left over. = Date of debate: 7/6 = Your 1nc was good, but you should change the order. Read the off case first and then the case arguments. Otherwise good! In cx, you want to ask questions and not just make statements. Also, when they just start talking about their arguments, you are mostly doing hte right thing by trying to interrupt to talk about yours - just remember, having evidence on something isn't enough. You need to explain why your argument is BETTER than theirs.
 * Debating on: High-Speed Rail (Practice Debate 1)**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nick**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on: pracitce debate B**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments:**

your 1nr you do a good job of answering each of their arguments. For your redo tonight, I want you to use all of your speech time and read additional evidence on why NIBs don't work. Make sure you read at least 5 pieces of evidence.

= Date of debate: 7/7 =
 * Debating on: Practice Debate D (1N)**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * -Need to do some speaking drills so that you can go faster and/or highlight down your evidence, the politics DA esp took way too long**
 * -On the case debate in the 1NR, you have so much prep time to read all their 1AC ev and attack it, be sure you do good evidence conparison**
 * -Start with picking the best 3 arguments you have on each adv, then focus on extending your evidence from the 1NC, picking apart their evidence and then read new evidence if necessary.**

= Date of Debate: 7/8 =
 * Debating on: Round 1**
 * Instructor/commentator: Kwaii Bell**
 * Comments**: You hold your ground in cross-ex, and you have a good presence and your super aggressive. However, coming out of the 1NC, there are numerous strategic problems... the way you constructed the shells to your arguments make it so that they clash with one another... so yeah. like, the counter plan linked to the DA, and there was no impact to your spending DA. It was just very messy and not a well thought out strategy. But, you did your best with what you had.

= Date of debate:7/9 = -always put the case first in the 2ac in case you run out of time -try to plan out more of your transitions between evidence and arguments so they are smoother -always use all of the time allotted for your speech -you need to flow the block; at least pay attention -use your prep time effectively. you clearly aren't even sort of trying
 * Debating on: Debate #3**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

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