Lise+Ho

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = 2AC: You start off nicely with “the neg said this, but extend our X evidence” – keep up the good work and continue to develop better line-by-line. You also do a nice job of trying to indict their Miller evidence and comparing it to the evidence you read that supports your impact argument.
 * Debating on: Case Mini Debates**
 * Instructor/commentator: Katie Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

1AC: You start off reading really loud and fast, but you seem to “fade quickly.” Try starting off reading much slower and at a more level, consistent volume. You can always gradually speed up throughout the 1AC – it just sounds a bit off and choppy.

1NC: I think you have a good, consistent speed in this speech. Your analytical arguments are smart – you poke holes in the aff’s link chain that high speed rail is the only thing that’s key to the economy, but you need to be WAY MORE EFFICIENT with them. You give too wordy of an explanation of each argument. Number your arguments!

2NC: Good job of extending cards by author name and isolating some warrants in each. You also explain how some of your arguments “take out” or “minimize” arguments made by the 2AC.

= Date of debate: 6/23 = - Good job with your structure. Good job introducing a piece of evidence on the 'we meet' argument. - You're a bit too wordy. It takes you about 20-30 seconds to explain why the aff meets. You don't really have that kind of time. Your arguments sound like paragraphs, rather than distinct arguments. That's not a bad problem to have, but you'll want to condense down to the essential stuff. - Number your arguments for the 2AC. It will really help the judge. Try to frontload - Great job explaining the value of including the military in the topic. Really nice development of the argument there.
 * Debating on: T mini debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

2NC - I really like your arguments on the we meet debate. But I think you could do a bit more. It's not just that the public isn't LIKELY to use these resources. It's that it's not generally available to the public. You only get to use the infrastructure by joining the public sector. There is a meaningful distinction there that you could develop. - You can do more to debate the quality of the two sources. Why is dictionary.com bad? You just assert that it is. - You should do more to explain the WAY the aff explodes limits. It's not just about adding cases, it's about adding cases that break the thematic linkage of the topic and provide the backdrop for all the negative work. You're trying to persuade the judge that the topic is essentially about public investment for public goods. And the military falls completely outside that.

= Date of debate: 6/26 = Keep up the good work!
 * Debating on: conditionality good 2NC redo**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:** Great speech! A few suggestions: You could restructure your speech so that you're making offensive arguments for why conditionality is good first, and then responding to 2AC warrants for why it's bad. You could also make additional offensive arguments in addition to neg flex and logic (critical thinking, policymaking skills, etc.). Explain why one conditional CP sufficiently prevents/solves their reasons that conditionality would be bad -- you are already basically doing this, but explain why it solves each warrant in depth. Expand on your argument about reciprocity not being necessary; not all facets of debate are reciprocal. Talk about why this is justified and necessary (your side bias arguments help here).

= Date of debate: 6/27 = 2nc: - your overview should be redone to explain the WARRANT (Reasons) of your cards. you need a little more story for it - in impact calc - include that the DA turns the case. - you need to do more comparative arguments about the IL for your redo, I think we should work on word efficiency. writing out a lot of your analytics may help (and be reasonable since you'd ahve 2nc blocks).
 * Debating on: spending DA**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments:**

2nc REDO in the evening: - be careful that you are clear that you are moving to the line by line after your overview. still need more explanation in your overview, but you do a great job on comparing arguments on the line by line. you are still a bit word inefficient. some of this is stuttering as you're trying to figure out what argument to make - my guess is that some of this is as a result of reusing your flows for these debates, but if i'm wrong, you should work on pausing before making your argument so you can say it once and the way you want it.

= Date of debate: 6/28 = You spend a lot of time saying the other team's evidence is outdated, but you need to explain why that matters. You also maybe don't need to say this on every single issue; pick the arguments (like uniqueness) where the time lag really is significant. E.g., why does solvency takeout evidence from 1986 no longer apply? 2NR -- Spend more time on the perm, remember to extend your evidence that joint action fails in addition to the arg that the perm links to the DA. When you extend Calabresi, explain the impact to the DA and compare it to the case (impact assessment). The 2NR needs to be a bit more *offensive* -- you want to make it sound like the plan causes something really bad to happen.
 * Debating on: States CP + federalism DA**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:** 2NC -- Good! You could read some more cards on each 2AC argument.

= Date of debate: 6/28 = = Date of debate: 6/30 =
 * Debating on: 2NR Redo**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * -Slow down a notch so that you can speak at a steady speed and not speed up and slow down**
 * -Good impact comparison tearing down their impacts while building up yours**
 * Debating on: K Mini Debate 2NC/2NR**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * -Good job discussing your impacts first but I'd like you to attempt to explain and contextualize those impacts more to the specifics of the affirmative**
 * -Don't need to summarize your evidence after you read it in the 2NC**
 * -The number of different impacts you have is less relevant to comparing impacts than the size and importance of each of those impacts, I'd like to see you talk more about why each one of those things like extinction or suffering is more important or probable.**
 * -Good job contextualizing about the infrastructure at the end of the 2NR but I'd like to see more about that all over the speech**

= Date of debate: 7/7 = 2NC: You need to do more line-by-line and impact calculus. You just kind of "group" the spending DA but drop a bunch of arguments on the flow. You should give a concise overview at the top then answer each argument down the flow for the 2NC. Same thing is true for the CP.
 * Debating on: Practice Round D (neg)**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

2NR: You need to extend an impact to the Spending DA. Don't forget to extend the perms on the Security K and the States CP if you want to kick them. Explain why you control a better internal link to economic collapse than the aff's ability to solve HSR, which has and economy advantage. Absent a CP, you are defending the status quo so you need to make some turns the case arguments. You should also be explaining why economic collapse turns warming - you just assert this claim, but I'm not sure why it's true.

= Date of debate: 7/9 =
 * Debating on: Round 3**
 * Instructor/commentator: Yamamura**
 * Comments:**

1A 1AR was very good. I think all of the arguments you made were very good, but you should be sure to allocate your time based on what you think is most threatening. For example, the block didn't spend that much time on the states CP, but you spent the majority of your time there. I did like that you extended a lot of arguments though, which set up the 2AR with a lot of arguments to go for.

= 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**: