Bates,+Thornton

Round 1 (Neg/2N) Judge: Mariah Donnelly:

- during the cross x of the 1AC use your time to get links out of your opponents - don’t fight over specific cards she read or not- you should already know this from flowing - don’t get in fights with silly things- like how you don’t like using public transportation because you can use both your parents’ cars… - don’t interrupt your partner in cross-x she knows what she is saying - good job giving a roadmap for the 2NC - you know your evidence is very well but you need to be faster when you are explaining your evidence - FLOW THE 1NR-you might go for her args- don’t just sit there - THEY DROPPED EVERYTHING THAT SHOULD BE AT THE TOP OF YOUR 2NC and explain to me why that matters and then you can rant about whatever you want - You need to work on your speed just in general - Stop calling the public buses nasty- you are just offending people - Good job answering the contradiction argument- that could have been a problem from you - WHY ARENT YOU GOING FOR THE CP- THEY COMPLTELY DROPPED IT AND YOU ARE GOING FOR THE NET BENEFIT ANYWAY

6.27 - Round 2 - Judge: SOX (1AR vs. Symone and Sam) When you are reading the 1AC is should be more cohesive. The fact that you stopped four minutes in to ask for me means you either need to include an extra advantage from the start or read at a consistent speed instead of fast and then slow to a stop. The 1AR was good but you spent too much time on a lot of stuff, for example, the analysis at the bottom of your case flow. As a 1AR it's important to heavily prioritize your offense while also effectively extending your offense. Also, don't talk over Puffles during cross-x. She can handle herself. Also, flowing will prvent you from spending too much time on unnecessary arguments because it helps you with time distribution knowing how much you have to get through.

Work on clarity. You can sacrifice speed for clarity.

6/28/12 - Need to work on word efficiency in the 1AR: "Investors are smart, well sort of smart, and stuff and will see that we've created a bleep-ton of jobs and want to invest" is not as useful as "Investors perceive positive gains - they're rational" - Extend warrants - why does job creation outweigh? - You need to make better judgments on when you've won an argument and should move on  =7/2 =

tourney rd 2 Edstrom

2n thor- way to get to the heart of the issues in CX thor. you might have too many condo answers. almost 1:30. also, you should be very careful about allocating a lot of time on this privitazation stuff- it seems if the aff knows their aff (they probably do) it will be tough to win the debate on this issue. I see what you mean by their definition- anything is topical. crazy analogy. time consuming, but highly entertaining. sometimes I think you get bogged down in parts of a debate that aren’t super important. answering other words checks does not require you to run down the list of words in the resolution. all right then…don’t read this whole list. waste of time. also don’t sit here talking about this who said breadth who said depth argument. it’s not productive because you’re not impacting those arguments in the end (condo’s not in the 1ar, limits debate is gone), and neither are they (although I do think you said breadth is better than depth and depth is better than breadth at one point). good 2NR choice.