Guthikonda,+Chetana

6/27/12 1ac - nicely delivered. all args are on the flow. cx of 1nc - ask about the k link. it's super weak. 2ac - you had enough time to do a little more explaining on your perms. you just blew through them when you should have spent a few seconds on each telling me what the perms are and how they work. good pick up on the dropped energy advantage. if this happens in the real world (not a limited ev practice round), you could go nuts with this advantage. 1ar - a little more specificity on what you were covering would go a long way. 2 ar - Pretty decent. things would have been clearer if you specifically weighed the dropped prevent extinction advantage against the k. you could have said "the alt is extinction" and it would have wrapped up the whole round.

**__Round 3-- __** **SonTana **__ (aff) v __**__. __****PaySoph **__ (neg)--Judge: Meghna __

1A- Chetana Guthikonda

Your 1AC was fast, clear, confident, and you emphasized key points well. In the 1AR, try not to do tag line extensions but rather explain the warrants within the cards and how they interact with the opponent’s arguments. You did a good job on case but spent a little too much time on it. Consider kicking out of one of the advantages that you think you are losing to save time elsewhere. Also try to generate more offense, your speech was a little defensive which doesn’t give the 2AR many options.

6/29/12

- No reason to read the title of the block at the top - signposting is more effective - 2NC overviews are your friend - What is the impact to "better job?" Create an impact no just to beat the solvency deficit, but to create one for the aff.

 Round 5—7/1/2012—Dua/Yassin Aff v. Soniya/Chetana Neg (Judge: Baxter)

 Chetana—try to be more efficient when extending dropped arguments, quick statement that they are dropped, warrant, impact, move on, it takes you almost a minute and a half, should probably be more like 20 seconds—start your meta-level argumetns on the counterplan in a tagline (on the top, we win the debate on timeframe…) rather than the less flowable arguments—you need a bit more on the lack of delineation between state and federal governments on the race issue—some answers you always need to the perm (still links, not net beneficial, illegitmate)—you are doing the right thing but can be a lot more efficient in kicking the disad—you are doing a very very good job of using your evidence, now make sure to go beyond your evidence true, what allows us to know that the things in the evidence are true—make sure to impact this in the overall context of the debate, particularly solvency, that is to say, it takes out the impact of the solvency deficit—be obstinate when they say something that is not true (didn’t answer the perm)—remember, answer the best version of their impact argument when you are doing the impact comparison—why does it matter that they are agreeing with you on the ux debatehttp://mdaw-2012.wikispaces.com/Guthikonda%2C+Chetana

ROUND VI Sontana (A) v. Gracetta (N) Judge: Weber (weberdebate@gmail.com for questions)

__Word Bank (look 'em up)__: Paradigm

1AC: Good speed and clarity. Get to know your case warrants backward and forward (Fed K/T, States Fail, etc.). It's early in the year so you still have plenty of time, but keep working on this. Good work stealing some CX time with your long answers.

CX of 1NC: Great job working on your closed-ended questions (notice how much control this gives you?). "Isn't it true that..." is another great way to keep CX in your hands. Once it's obvious they're unable to answer your uniqueness question on CTBT, move on; you got what you need and get a better time tradeoff from moving on. Great work.

1AR: Good work covering the flow but don't spend too much time covering drops at the top, you can weigh and impact calc at the bottom during crystallization. Great job extending across your evidence and grouping your opponents', but careful not to over-group, your answers are ignoring some of their specific warrants on CTBT. Good on CP--the perms mean the judge won't weigh these impacts, but frame your answers on the NB flow as "even if" arguments--also, make sure these are all offensive; since the judge won't weigh the CP, you just need to keep the advantages you pick up from turns on the NB. Give yourself a bit more time on the crystallization and impact calc at the end, too. 30-45 seconds is enough but you need to have time to articulate everything that flows as a voter. Great 1AR.