Thompson,+Trace

6/28
- you need to flow. If you did, you would have realized the 2AC dropped the Federalism NB - think about your block strategy. What are you going to extend, and in what world is it useful in the 2NR - you should start writing blocks - it will make your 2NCs way easier - you spend too much time thinking/going between arguments - make sure you're prepping during CX and prep time

6.29 - Round 4 - SOX - (1A vs. Drew and Zach)

Trace - I think you and Conor need to discuss what type of affirmative you want this to be. You need to decide that you are going to use D.dev as an in round impact or you must have an air tight way to answer back negative defense on your impact. I also don't think that your analysis of d.dev impacts (genocide of native americans, gay marriage, women's rights) are necessarily caused by development. I think that you need to make a better distinction between capitalism and d. dev. Also, literal rebuild is not that way you want to go on the fiat debate on the affirmative. I think that you do a good job with coverage and time distribution in your 1AR. Don't bully Conor. He's your partner and you need to work together. Also, be less agressive in cross-x.

7/1/12 Aff (maverick): good cross x answers and questions 2N: ask more directed questions that help set up your positions--letting him reexplain his internal links is only more speech time for him1N:in your 1NC, put the offcase positions first so you don't risk running out of time for your offenseAff: don't read the k unconditionally when you spent 4 min of the 1nc on budget and elections2N: utilize your flow in terms of matching your arguments up on the line by line1N: good theory block off the top of your headEveryone: Chill in cross x. neg block: i am confused as to why the 2nc was a cap overview and the 1nr was the entire rest of the debate, make sure to split up offense,Aff smart move going for cede the politicalAff: need more structure and organization to your thoughts2N; your 2nr was a 2nc overview--the same one you already gave: you did an excellent job with explanation during this debate and gave a thorough explanation of marxist ideology but now you need to go the extra step and contextualize your argumnets in terms of the aff'

Round 6 Nafaddy vs. Tranor (NEG) Judge: Thorn

Yes/no cornering on overtagging is not convincing. Ask them //what// in the card matches the warrant, rather than saying “it doesn’t right?”


 * Explain** the conceded solvency arguments. You can’t just extend the cards, you need to also get the args (it’s called **shadow extending** and its bad). 2NR, since you’re going for CP solve case and DA OW case, you need to explain the disad impacts far more in depth and hedge them against the case impacts, esp. the Barndt ev. on the equity flow. This would have made the debate far more clear.