Eric+Liu

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = - good evidence comparisons - don't just say "prefer and reason" - but more comparative and what does it mean in terms of the argument decision - don't worry as much about new warrants - just disprove it - more impacting of arguments -
 * Debating on: case minidebate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/23 = -Should use over-enunciation drill - Need to highlight the impact to limits on the top and use that as you go down the flow. Should make limits in roads into everything as, win it as the fundamental impact framing issue -should focus on the distinction of the possibility of physical access as the litmus of the public good -Very good organization in the 2NR -Need to work on contextualizing the generic defenses of limits etc within the particular debate and resolution
 * Debating on: T Mini Debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/25 = 2AC Good set of arguments. Very clear and to the point. I do wish you developed the premise that case research is intrinsically good. I mean, it obviously is, but the neg is going to argue that the states CP is necessary to minimize the explosion of tiny cases, so you're going to need to defend that whole BATCH of research, not just the good parts.
 * Debating on: 50 state fiat**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

1AR Great job. I really like that you emphasize a couple important 2AC distinctions. Particularly the single-actor vs. multi-actor element. That will be crucial in a lot of these debates. One thing that could be better is your explanation of what other options can check small affs. You are banking on those affs being important for creativity (and I think you should ALSO emphasize the importance of those to aff flexibility and strategy), but that does conflict a bit with your 'there are ways to counteract those' claim. This 1AR is fine on that, but you need to be careful about how you set up the 2AR.

= Date of debate:6/27 = redo your 2nr again retell the story of the impact of spending da at the top - the gross description of the impact story will better serve you. then add the specifics for the "intervening actor" part of the warming defense Remove the empty debate jargon on the econ link explanation for the adaptation and china case args - talk about how much bigger china is and how much of the case that takes out.
 * Debating on: spending 2nr redo**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/27 = 2NC - Some general inefficiency. A fair amount of repetition, particularly on the DA. Overall, I think you could be more picky about where to invest time. You do a lot of stuff pretty well, but it might be better to crush a few arguments and then extend a fair number of other things somewhat well. That will set up the 2NR better. - On the DA, the most important thing to win is the unique nature of the link. Otherwise, you've got a pretty non unique DA
 * Debating on: DA mini debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

2NR - Efficiency! Way too much time on repetitive impact stuff. - You have the tendency to make distinctions without real significance. It's a good general habit to try to distinguish things, but there needs to be an actual reason why there is a difference. You say, for example, 'short term emissions are more important because those are the ones that go into the air first.' But that doesn't really mean anything. - SQ sustainable. You are mostly going for the DA outweighing, but you don't really have a reason to think that the SQ is sustainable.

= Date of debate:6/28 = your 2nc was aight. please add in the variety of arguments we talked about in terms of specific impact calculus comparisons to the advantages. we also talked about a bunch about how to word and explain the cp text. if you redo this speech add an overview to the cp, remove some reference to impact calculus on the DA, and apply your general federalism arguments to the aff specifically. 2nr: redo this speech by 1. talking about aff advantages and how impacts impact it 2. by adapting your generic states solvency jargon, etc so you can talk about the aff advantages 3. better answers to the permutation and talk about signal confusion, etc.
 * Debating on: Cp/federalism mini debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/30 = 1AR - I was a bit confused about your discussion of consequences on the #1. Frame this more directly as 'root cause doesn't actually provoke a specific war. Proximate cause matters more' type of argument. - You need to say more about the inf. bank as providing public goods rather than private ones. - Need to be more efficient on the perm. Most of the arguments here are great, but you're spending a lot of time making them. I particularly like the appropriation of the 'moral community' stuff as the mechanism to ensure self-reflexivity in the perm. - The place I was the most confused was on the Gibson Graham extension. I think you want to treat this as a bridge that connects the perm to the 'alt fails' arguments. It's the way to let all the aff arguments meld together. - I'm confused by your extension of the #8. I think you need to more explicitly frame this as rejecting the form of capitalism that would ignore the value of those traditionally excluded. Link it up with the perm.
 * Debating on: Cap K**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

2AR - You have a weird opening phrasing. "they don't have a mutual exclusivity claim.' Try to open with a more positive claim. - I like a lot of what you're doing on the link defense at the top. It's a really nice reading of the neg evidence in the context of the aff. One problem is that you're giving a speech almost entirely focused on link turning the cap K when your advantage is the economy. - Basically: you need to start from the premise of winning your aff impact and only use this stuff as the supplement. - You're debating the impact a bit too much like the neg is trying to weigh something vague against your specific stuff. But really they're trying to prove that your specific stuff is provoked by the larger context of the aff.

= Date of debate: 7/2 = 1AR: Econ flow: Good job collapsing down here. Smart to extend the non-unique & alt cause args as takeouts to the competitiveness theory bad args. You should extend your own impact to why competitiveness is good – particularly your heg impact because of how it interacts with the security kritik.
 * Debating on: Practice Debate A**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

Climate flow: Make sure to extend your own impacts for why warming is bad. Good catch on the dropped link-turn on ice age. I think you can spend less time on this part of the debate and instead reallocate it to do some quick warming bad analysis. Since you are ahead on the environment link debate on security, warming bad would be especially useful – it’s a reason why your “perm: do the plan while questioning its assumptions” is net-beneficial.

Security flow: You should invest a little more time in the discourse first debate. I don’t think it’s necessary to read a reps first à inaction card, but some analytical arguments about why discourse shouldn’t be prioritized/shape reality would suffice and be more valuable. I think your extension of the perm is smart, and the articulation of how “rejection of heg à imperialism and is a turn to the alt external from the case debate” is a good argument. *This could be an argument that is cross-applied on the competitiveness debate in the 2AR to generate some more offense (ex: only the plan shores up heg, rejection of competitiveness would do the opposite). = Date of debate: 7/2 = Econ flow: Much better extension of your own econ impact that wasn't there in your original 1AR. You also extend heg and explain how it interacts with the trade DA - good improvement. This gives the 2AR a lot more to work with in terms of impacts to weigh. You are a lot more efficient on the trade debate - you are much more effective at embedded clash, enabling you to make more and better arguments.
 * Debating on: REDO 1AR**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

Climate flow: Ag debate - good analysis on the biodiversity link. ice age debate - Good extension of why you control the internal link to ice age. Puts more pressure on the 2NR here, especially since the 1NR barely extended the argument.

Security K: You get to the kritik with 2:15 left. Since you know the 2NR isn't going for the K in this debate, I suppose that's OK, but you should allocate a little more time here since the 2NC was 7:45 on the K :) You're more efficient answering Tyler's overview and you focus on the environment link debate (good - I think warming can be a disad to the alt in the way things played out in the neg block).

= Date of debate: 7/6 =
 * Debating on: 2nc/2nr Redo from Practice Debate B**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * 2NC:**
 * -On the PIC should extend the NB args as a DA to the Aff even if you dont go for the CP. Esp true if they make we meet args on the T debate.**
 * -Good job on the T overview with the lists and explanation. Might say that you can build track but not the trains themselves. Explain the limits explosion more and make the impact more relevant.**
 * -Institutions aren't racist, people are racist. Eisenhower had to unilaterally take most of the action etc, they have to explain how the plan would be messed up by the states if they did the exact same thing.**
 * -Should read the Katsavivs (or something) ev on the Urban Sprawl DA cause its explicitly about this the US. Need to make fun of the "rights" impact and explain how it turns the case**
 * -Need more time on the case impact debate**

2NR: -Might grandstand about the impacts first esp since it was first in the 1NR and your probably ahead on it, then highlights concessions and deal with their defense. "There will be a great amount of everyday violence in a world where relations collapse" -Their own rejection of quantitative calculus should hurt them here. Frame in term of sufficiency, take a step back and just be like "we will build a ton of infrastructure all over the country"

= Date of debate: 7/9 = Great speaking, you're lots better than during the year :P Less prep, too which is good 1AC - I thought the speaking was good and pretty clear, you should be more distinct when you're reading author qualifications and names though - you go through the extra effort of reading their qualifications, but it won't really amount to much if the judge can't really tell what you're saying. 1AR - pretty good coverage in general, Kritik - you point out alt is intrinsic, but not a reason it's a voting issue/reason to reject the alt; can't really cross-apply their reasons because their theory argument for timeframe perms bad was also pretty crappy. Politics - should spend more time on the uniqueness debate if you want to be able to win your link turn; unless you're trying to bait them into going for the K which I guess you did fine. The timeframe arguments about China big power v small power was good, made sense and quickly answered. Case was pretty decent too, but you might have been able to cut some time on it because it doesn't seem like a very viable strategy for them. I would talk more about the dropped China advantage - they have no defense apart from their K arguments and it's a good thing to weigh.
 * Debating on: DDW SA RR R1**
 * Instructor/commentator: Jackie**
 * Comments:**

Why are so many things "bankrupt" in your speech, you're not even reading a spending DA! lame puns ftw

= Date of debate: 7/9 =
 * Debating on:Round 2**
 * Instructor/commentator:Yamamura**
 * Comments:**
 * Really good speech. I thought the 2NC part on T was particularly good on explaining the limits DA. I think you can do a little bit better job on the PIC in the 2NC explaining what the distinctions are (maybe at the top briefly) and how it doesn't link to the net benefits. Might help with clarification for that portion of the debate as a whole. Also thought the explanation of your impact framing arguments on the case (util, extinction first etc.) was pretty good. But I think it'd help you to specifically address the 2AC responses to thes 1NC arguments. the 2AC does make some good arguments that I think you're not responding to, other than by extending your own arguments. I think you're fine with the arguments you have made, but answering their specific cards etc. might help later on. ||
 * Thought the 2NR was pretty good as well. Your articulation of the lmiits DA is very good, especially in the context of their overlimiting claims. However, I think there are a few places where you're not impacting certain claims as well as you could be. For example, the "key distinction" you point out that the aff trades off with existing cars, I'm not entirely sure if this is just a reason why they don't meet your interpretation, or a reason why it destroys limits etc. Be sure to tie back all of these independent disad to their interpretation back into your overall violation. I think you could have also impacted some of the topic specific education claims a bit more in the context of their claims about overlimiting as well. Why it is that it's better to have specific topic education over more discussion about vehicles. Why is it that depth does outweigh breadth in this instance? I think it'd be helpful to have more resolution of the issue of why that education is better than education about vehicles, which other than limits bad, there doesn't seem to be an explanation of. ||

= 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**: