Sonbarse,+Shreyas

__Round 2 Shreyki (AFF) vs. Sachael (NEG)__

You may want to read some of the cards AT: states counterplan in your file. Your analytical arguments are good though, but you should cite your cards as support. Flow each argument on a separate sheet of paper. Write out a brief 30-40 second explanation of your aff, and make sure to reference exactly //what// you solve for. Replace the word “won’t” or “can’t” in your speeches (i.e. the states **can’t** do mass transit, or the states **won’t** do mass transit) with the word **should not** or **ought not** (the states **shouldn’t** do mass transit). Fiat means that you are debating questions of “ought” (good/bad) rather than feasibility. Also, although you might have a lot to say, try to give your partner room to speak.

ROUND III (6/28) Drewck (Aff) v. Shreykyi (Neg) Judge: Weber (weberdebate@gmail.com with questions)

__Word Bank (look ‘em up) __: metropolitan majoritarian equity

__Three things to work on with your flow (these will save you a lot of time in rebuttals, especially as a trade of v. reading new evidence) __: Grouping Cross-Applying Extending

CX of 1AC: Excellent job forcing Zack to show you where in the cards his evidence says what he is claiming.

1NC: I can tell that you’re working on your speed but now practice clarity. Work on annunciation each word clearly by forming each word as you say it—the more you articulate, the faster you can go. Also, your transitions improve as the speech progressed; way to catch yourself. Work on internally signposting your arguments. When you move from states to politics, there was no indication that you were changing arguments. Tag it. Also, I know it’s early in the year, but be sure to know your arguments! Good speech all around.

CX of 2AC: During CX, be sure that you face the judge. You lose volume and your position of authority when you turn around to face your opponent. Good questions, but remember to focus on closed-ended questions that don’t ramble on for too long. Don’t let Zack turn your CX! You will ask the question!

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">1NR: Your analysis is excellent but you need to work on extending the evidence to accompany your analytics (e.g. “As my Breitbart ’12 evidence shows…”). It’s awesome that you’re already comfortable getting away from the evidence to analyze the arguments yourself, but a good mix of ev extensions and analytics is key.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">7/1/12

when extending cards on case, you want to extend the author/date like you do, but you want to do more than reread the tag from the 1ac—get in the habit of saying it the same each time “extend smith 12, it says x, that means y” otherwise you haven’t really applied your arguments to their arguments

Also, most of the 2ac is just reading new cards—but no analyticals or any questioning of the 1nc arguments—combining those will ensure you use all your speech time and that you pressure the block

Really good questions for cx—try not to let Daksh interrupt as much

2ar—econ adv solves

You want to crystallize the debate—follow the 2nr, and describe the two worlds—what does the aff solve, how, why, and why is that bigger than the neg’s impact?

You have over 3 minutes left—you want to use it all—ok, good to say “keep time running”—glad you stuck with it