Hites,+Sam

1AC: Harris card is too long; not enough time to get to the energy advantage.

CX of 1AC: What were you trying to get? Don’t be asking questions just to ask questions and fill time.

2NC: Habit of saying “basically” as a speech tic.

1NR: Falling back to the habit of addressing the other team, not the judge.

NOTES (after reviewing flow)

The round could use a T-Substantial argument to pin down the Aff. As the round presented, the Aff was able to get out of disads by emphasizing how small the plan was. A T-Substantial argument would set up an interesting dilemma that Neg could exploit in the block.

With only the econ advantage in play for the aff, and only the budget DA in play for the neg, both teams were going for the same middle and terminal impacts--economic collapse and subsequent war. Therefore, the focus of the arguments should have been on the mechanics of the link and the internal link to the disad impacts and plan impacts.

I told everyone to use plain paper rather than notebook paper for flowing.

Round 2 Shreyki (AFF) vs. Sachael (NEG) Sam Hites (2N) You’re the more experienced c/x debater in the round, and you do a good job coaching your partner. Spin your extensions of the 1NC into a story. Instead of saying “extend X, it says,” just tell the disad story and refer to your cards, i.e. “the the aff breaks the bank through deficit spending, that’s the X evidence.” Tell us what the net benefits to the CP are, emphasize the comparison of States vs the plan not only in terms of better solvency, but also in terms of the budget DA.

6/28/2012

Good stuff, you've got some skills. Make sure to go for the stronger analytical argument. For instance, when dealing with a fairness violation against your State CP, have something ready to go rather than "well, Baxter said it was predictable"...for instance, you could argue (in this case) that ANY devolution of governmental responsibility offers a net benefit (that would directly deal with the brightline argument) and then you could find other reasons why your CP is definitely predictable. When you run out of time in a speech, try to go back and answer something with more depth rather than making the same argument over and over for the last 1.5 minutes. Finally, try to more clearly tag the components of your argument. Both the spending and politics dissads got a bit messy; it'd help me out a lot if you could just do a one word tag so I could easily identify uniqueness, link, impact. Otherwise, good show.

6/29


7/5 edstrom rd 8

2A Sam-unless you make a perm then you aren’t proving the cp isn’t competitive just by griping. you need to be making comparative claims on fwk. there you go. talk about why their evidence doesn’t work, why it’s bad, why you meet it, or something. you have to talk about their evidence in some capacity, even if you are grouping all of their arguments. characterize them (spin) and then answer those args. the rosa extension is good, but I still feel like I’m missing something…I’m not sure if you should just be like “yeah we make up for slavery, we help all those black people.” if this is your aff, I think you’re doing it wrong. debates are not a place to question the other teams pre-round effort. NOT AN ARGUMENT. if you want to make an argument here, you should say something about how your arguments can generate a lot of clash and give some examples.