Coutinho,+Soniya

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 __ 2A- Soniya Cuotinho In the 2AC you spent a lot of time on case, especially reading new cards that said the same thing. Try to limit the amount of cards you read and instead extend cards from the 1AC and make more analytics to make the case debate go faster. Diversify your blocks a little more so they aren’t completely defensive. Your budget block was a non-unique card and impact d card. Put some offense in there and analytics. In cross ex, when you ask “what does your X evidence say”, doesn’t get you very far strategically. Try asking varied questions. Notice that in the 1NC, they read contradictory arguments. Concede one to force them to go for the other. In the 2AR give a quick impact overview and consider kicking out of advantages to develop your 2AR and to explain the interactions between your advantage and cap.

6/29/12 - Focus on developing stamina in speaking drills; you lose clarity and speed after the 2nd minute of your speeches - Overviews will help your disad debate - "DA o/w and turns the case" - Engage in more comaprative evidence analysis in the line-by-line Round 5—7/1/2012—Dua/Yassin Aff v. Soniya/Chetana Neg (Judge: Baxter) Soniya—assume the best version of their argument, that they meant to say Romney would be elected now, and answer it as such—really good use of your evidence, distributed, introduced, organized, etc.—overall the 1nr was very good, you can do some work in terms of setting your 2nr up easier with impact analysis and if/then statements (even if they win X we still win because…) and talking about how the disads are net benefits to the counterplan, but overall very good

ROUND VI Sontana (A) v. Gracetta (N) Judge: Weber (weberdebate@gmail.com for questions) 2AC: Good job on extending your drops but don't just say, "weigh these;" explain how I should weigh them and cross-apply the impact calculus to other flows. On your multiple perms, you need explanations about how the perm functions ("perm do both" explains nothing about how the two plans function in concert). "Job creation outweighs" is really just a turn--make sure you run this as case offense and not just defense on the DA. Elections is similar--move beyond defense and think about offense--even if you win a defensive argument, there's still reason for me to vote against you (turns are key here). CX of 2NC: Good line of questioning on how fed checks more than just civil war, but don't be afraid to push harder to get your opponent to expose the missing links to all war. Good work keeping control of your time. 2AR: Great work extending specific warrants to answer their arguments from the 2NR. And excellent extending your offense from ptix after their drop. <--Always do this. Not sure how persuasive your "states racist" conclusion is, isn't this more about differences between states on civil and human rights? It doesn't mean they're all racist, just that there's no means of checking this if federal governments have no power (this turns states cp impacts, too). Great impact calc.