Konieczny,+Anton

1a kyle-right away- you are reading into your paper. you seem like you are fairly quick and capable when it comes to spreading, but you need to be louder and project towards the judge. don’t read block headers. this is a decent answer to funding questions, but you should have a more solid and prepared answer. people will ask this a lot. the start of the 1AR is excellent. I’m glad you took some of your prep time to work on delivering some persuasive indicts of the alternative.

2a anton- I think if you slow down a bit, you will sound more persuasive. also, you could likely highlight more and be able to read more cards. you have selected good evidence for this 2AC, with appropriate answers and non contradicting strategies- you even scratched the impact turn to avoid a dreaded double turn! I would like to hear more analytics in your 2AC to hear how you are processing these arguments. put your own spin on debate! I gotta say, you did an excellent job of bringing together the issues of the debate in your 2AR. talking about your case, discussing key defensive arguments etc. Make sure that you are connecting your 2AR to the 1AR.

1n eli- the 1N strategy is fine, but make sure that you have a good amount of time to read your case arguments. they will help you win whether you go for DA or the K. good knowledge of the politics DA. you made me so happy when you had a 1NR full of analytic arguments- way to think through the debate. in the future, more cards should be incorporated, but I can tell you are thinking about the arguments.

2n matt- if the person you are cross examining starts asking questions of you, you should definitely say “I’ll ask the questions, thanks.” you have a well-scripted speech, but I feel as though I have not one word that is your own on my flow. I encourage you to think about some of these arguments and how they are being presented instead of merely reading another stack of cards in the 2NC. excellent answers in cross x- it’s best not to give them any chance to win a permutation.

ROUND II (6/27) Ellalen (Aff) v. Antyle (Neg) Judge: Weber/Bratvold (weberdebate@gmail.com with questions)

CX of 1AC: Move to the podium and face the judge so you aren’t facing the back of the room when you speak. Good job trying to upstage your opponent by asking questions from the front of the room, though.

2NC: Like with Ella, work on comparative analysis. What arguments are you addressing/answering with the cards you’re reading? Remember, by the time you get to the block, all the new arguments are out and you now have to focus on how they clash. Maybe I’m repeating myself, but work on transitions; your judge should have some indication you’re reading a new card other than listening for citations (you start saying “and” later in the speech; also, good signpost when you moved to the perm on K).

2NR: Good “they said” language—your comparative analysis has improved 100% since the last speech. The next thing I’d like you to work on is extending specific evidence from earlier speeches. Make sure your flowing across your warrants and data so I have reasons to believe that your claims are true.

Round III (6/28) Neg 2N

- Please don’t be rude while we are waiting for another person to come- you should not be watching South Park and playing games – you should be prepping for your round - You ask OK cross-x questions but you should try to get links your off case positions from the 1AC - You shouldn’t take both your off case positions- save one for your partner - Put an overview on top of your offcase- you should also point out that the 2A didn’t read any evidence - You need to do line by line - You need to explain your evidence rather than just reading more and you need to explain to me why that means you win - EXTEND IMPACTS - Good job pointing out that they didn’t read any evidence in your 2NR and that they really didn’t answer any of your offcase - Fill your speech time

6/29/12

Don’t have to answer the ptx da—there was no impact—you spent almost 2 minutes answering it

On case you want to be sure to go “line by line”—so reference their argument and then respond “they say warming not human caused, but …….”—this helps you line up your arguments and theirs, and make sure you are answering them all

Good job knowing when you don’t have a ton of time left, and moving to other positions

cx—good questions about the alternative

2ar

Good recap of what the debate is about, especially when the 2nr does not answer the 1ar strategy. You want to try and use all time, even if not always possible.

Think about the interactions with other advantages if you concede the economy stuff

Make sure to have a timer


 * 7/5/12**

In the 2AC, you’ve got lots of pretty good analysis, but I want to see some type of order of operations/prioritization of arguments on the flow. As a judge, what do I need to be considering first/remembering as we approach the rebuttals? I think you would have an easier time making some ground if you established for me how I need to be adjudicating the round with everything that’s on the flow up to this point. The 2AR seems really fast…I’d like to see you spending much more time on some of the bigger framework arguments that you are really undercovering (T and the theory voter). Further, work to make more solid extensions. It’s not enough to give me a tag and tell me a blippy impact; I need to hear a substantive warrant that illustrates for me the huge harm of not establishing the HSR plan.