Melissa+Wong

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = - on analytic needs to have some tag at the beginning - so we can flow the first 3-5 words - good job at compartmentalizing parts of the debate, but perhaps a bit too much - there isn't enough coherence
 * Debating on: case mini debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/23 = 2NR -- start with an offensive claim (e.g., the aff makes the topic 3x larger) rather than an explanation of the violation. Talk about why depth is better than breadth. You could afford to slow down/be more clear on T in the 2NR, since it's hard to flow (and you had extra time anyway).
 * Debating on: T- military ≠ public**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:** Great 2NC!

= Date of debate: 6/27 = 2AC - You're probably spending too long on the case. It would be nice if you could be a little more efficient there. That said, the 1AC you're using is clearly very sparse so you're missing evidence you might normally reference. - On the DA, frontload the essence of the argument. You start out saying 'their ev is bad' but that doesn't communicate very much to the judge. - Don't subpoint on the case. It isn't really flowable and will only distract. Just distinguish arguments as you make them. - Enunciation. Everything is pretty clear but some of the words get dropped a little bit. Try to be just a little more clear.
 * Debating on: DA mini-debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

1AR - Efficiency! On the case, you are fairly repetitive and you develop the argument. That would be great for a 2AR but you just don't have the time to do it here. Just make the point and then move on. - On the DA, the choice about where to invest your time could be a bit better. The weakest part of the DA is the uniqueness of the link. While it's true that you're best card is the economy impact stuff, that's not necessarily a reason to focus on it in the speech.

2AR - Good job on the case. You do a really nice job clarifying the quality of the neg evidence and putting it into context of the aff claims. I still think this could be a bit more efficient. You definitely want to win the case, but you want to save yourself some time for the DA, too. - On the DA, your explanation of the cuts not happening is much better here than from the 1AR. I still don't really understand the paygo component of the argument. The main problem is that you just kind of toss this out - but don't really do any work to clarify how minimizing the DA will play out in the debate. - Great job on getting a tiny bit of snark in there on the economy impact stuff.

= Date of debate:6/28 = use arguments in your labels make sur eyou extend by arg and not cite your overview is a bit too long ont he cp, but its ok you're historical examples are helpful - but you should talk more about the aff.
 * Debating on: states/federalism**
 * Instructor/commentator: nicole**
 * Comments:**

redo this 2nc sometime by 1. adding a link wall and an impact wall to federalism 2. describing the solvency defici in context of the aff 3. fixing the smaller cosmetic issues with the speech.

2nr: I still am concerned about your answers to the states don't have the money. also you need to have more of a preempt to its about who solves for racism more. you also need a story on the DA - you probably should pull out a discussion of the links. what is the framing issue that will decide that the DA has enough link to get to the impact. Your modeling explanation is good, but a little word inefficient. You still don't tie the impacts to the aff advantages - which is super necessary.

= Date of debate:7/2 = -scenario listing vs impact calc - narrating vs arguing -don't forget about framing for uniqueness debates that start from the perspective about what their evidence doesn't get them;generally more analysis of evidence would be helpful -your theory arguments are running together; try to include more substructure or tagging. either way you cant get bogged down with the theory debate -try to avoid pauses and stump words between arguments - tone and speed changes should be sufficient
 * Debating on: 1NR Redo**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/2 =
 * Debating on: Practice A**
 * Instructor/commentator: Sterman**
 * Comments: Be clearer and louder. Deal with relative weight of internal links. When its a case/DA debate on one impact and you have another impact emphasize that one.**

= Date of debate: 7/6 = - Good explanation of the CP. I'd like to hear a little more about HOW the private cooperation works at the top. The congestion and jobs ILs obviously are solved if you do the same result as the aff. But I'm skeptical that 'spending good' is totally resolved by accessing innovation. - I think you're really solid on the difference between full privatization and what the CP does. - The 'CP links to politics' argument is definitely scary. I think you're good at proving there is a significant difference. But you might want to do some work on 'the link is not a yes/no question. It is a matter of degree.' Otherwise you might link a lot LESS but still link ENOUGH. - You had about 3 minutes on the CP. Not knowing what the time allocation of the 1AR was, I don't know if that's reasonable. But that *seems* like a long time to spend there. - The uniqueness debate rushed by a bit quickly. Was this a meaningful component of the 1AR? - The cards on JV key to relations are really good. You briefly mention 'canary in coal mine' but don't go after this firmly enough. - You use the future tense a lot in strange ways. Try to get rid of that, but don't stress about it too much. = Date of debate:7/7 = Melissa Wong -good job drawing distinctions to save time -you need to prepare more of the k debate, it's okay to split the debate but your partner is taking too much of it for you to know how to prioritize your speech -make sure to focus in on a specific strategy against the k rather than just individual arguments - pick a section of the argument and target it
 * Debating on: re-do for practice debates**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on:Practice Debate D**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * 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**: