Saleh,+Dua

__ **Round 1-- Duaons (aff) v. Nafisa (neg)--Judge: Meghna** __

2A:
 * Dua Saleh **

Dua—You spent a lot of time on case reading many cards but didn’t answer Nafisa’s arguments. Make sure to refute each argument made on case and use analytics and the 1AC to answer these arguments. You did a good job putting case first and then the disad but didn’t allocate your time well enough and dropped the elections disad. Make sure to allocate time wisely so you get to each position with sufficient time. For the 2AR, put case first since that’s your only source of offense and then the da. Use your case more effectively to outweigh the dropped da. Also, pick and choose which advantage you want to go for to really develop your 2AR. For example, since the energy advantage wasn’t touched on by the neg, you could explain why warming outweighs prolif.

6/28/12

1nc - Decent delivery. A little problem moving from the CP to solvency. Make the transition to a new argument a bit clearer

cx of 1nc - Used at least a minute asking about a small solvency argument--americans like their cars. This probably won’t get you anywhere later in the round. You could probably spend your limited cx time better elsewhere.

2nc/1nr (bloc): 2nc gives me four new cards on the states cp and then re-reads all of 1nc. This is not necessary. In addition, the new cards are not applied to any arguments in round.

cx of 2nc - question of “how is states better” when asked of 2nc running a states cp is just an invitation for her to restate the solvency. you need to find a little problem with cp solvency or competetiveness and gnaw on it. essentially, you want to get one little thing that plan does better than cp so 1ar can use that.

1nr - on elections, you are trying to do an evidence comparison. to do this, you need to tell me _why_ the aff card is worse than yours and why yours is better. all you did here is tell me what your card said. Compare!

You have a speech tic--“this card is basically saying”. Break it

Too much time? Don’t just repeat 2nc federalism args. Go to solvency instead.

2nr - you get a bit confused on how the politics da works. i sort of tricked you into going for it in 2nr, so i can understand you not being as prepared as you would be, but you should have at least a basic understanding of all your arguments.

ROUND IV Doauns (Aff) v. Coleton (Neg) Judge: Weber (weberdebate@gmail.com with questions)

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Word Bank (look ‘em up) __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Precipice <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Subsidizes <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Institutional <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Anomalous <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Exorable <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Medvedev <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Volatility <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Metropolitan (not metropolan) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Demystification

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">2AC: What’s your intention in opening with inherency? They didn’t run it. Remember: always ask how your arguments **clash**. You could cross-apply their vehicle demand argument to your inherency and climate advantage, however, and answer both/get new offense without ever reading a card. Same goes for your new solvency evidence: instead of reading new evidence on fed K/T solvency, just cross-apply your 1AC fed K/T evidence to the States CP flow and you just added link defense without reading a card. Do these two things and you are 20 seconds into the speech and have offense & defense on three different arguments. Bang. I like your analysis on the cap alt, but now head off to lab and research some ev to support it. Great job overall.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">CX of 2NC: Be confident and don’t let Cole run away with your CX. It’s ok to stop him if he’s taking too long to answer your questions. Also, hold him to his explanations (like you did with “Is it in your evidence?”) so they’re accountable for their claims. Make sure your writing down answers to your informational questions, though.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">2AR: Great job with your analytic work and explaining to me what your impacts look like as compared to your opponents’. Like with Jevons, work on your flow and line-by-line analysis. You drop a lot of evidence here that would help tell your story and prove your conclusions. On Marx, do a little more work explaining how your “cap stable” argument is actually offense. It is, essentially, an impact turn but you need to show why stability **//necessarily//** leads to your advantages (which would be tough since you don’t have ev indicating this in the round).

Round 5—7/1/2012—Dua/Yassin Aff v. Soniya/Chetana Neg (Judge: Baxter)

Dua—don’t push yourself too fast, you are better off building into it, after u get going a little bit you are doing fine—doing a very good job on your confidence—don’t forget to utilize your 1ac evidence, it’s the biggest tool the affirmative has, against the case args and the das, etc.—you should also be making some of your own analytical arguments to really diversify the 2ac, especially when you have a limited amount of evidenced arguments available to you—good arguments on the cp, but you need to make them more efficiently—probably need more time dedicated to the off case arguments—on every counterplan at least 2 arguments (1 perm (you have this) 2 solvency deficit)—2AR—don’t mention the budget disad, doesn’t matter is the correct conclusion, so don’t bother with it—make your arguments strongly and forcefully, don’t look like you don’t know what you are doing, you know what you are saying in a lot of these instances—you get much better when you get to the counterplan, you are most of the way there when you are debating the equity flow, but explain why not only the equity/race impacts do matter, but why they matter MORE than the negative impacts—Arizona argument is a good example of that, explain the rationality behind it

7/2/12 2N: good questions in cross x, but make sure to take them somewhere (ask follow up questions) and respectfully cut off your opponent as to not allow them more speech time <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">1N: make sure to put case on the bottom--all of your offense is in the off case positions. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">good job in cross x staying calm and answering questions directly <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">2N: don't walk over your partner in cross x; "open cross x" allows you to help your partner when shes in a pinch; talking over her when she has answers isn't really necessary. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">2A: you obviously have a lot of common knowledge you want to weave into your cross x questions, but try not to be so abrasive. keep your questions and answers short, direct, and make sure they serve a purpose other than trying to make the other team look dumb. Good time allocation in your 2ac--make sure your transitions between arguments is clear so you're easier to flow. You need to make sure to perm the CP. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">2N/2A: very good extension of dropped args, 1NC evidence, but you need to start impact comparisons, solvency mechanism comparisons in the 2NC--it will make your 2NR easier. Also, there was no reason for you to take every flow in the 2NC--don't be afraid to split the block; it will allow you to make more args, read more cards, while also not spreading yourself out. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">2A: good 2ar analytics and empirical examples, but a lot of them were new or at least not tied to evidence/args from previous aff speeches.making sure to always flow and following a more line by line structure will help these examples become more useful in a debate sense to you in the future <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">1N: need more organization in the 1nr--was very unclear which args applied to which positions <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">2N: don't feed your partner their whole speech; a few prompts are totally cool, but it just hurts the overall flow of their speech, their organization and will probably lead to lower speaker points. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">1A: good analytics in a lot of places in your 1AR, but a lot of these arguments are new and not backed up by evidence or contextualized in terms of warrants from the 2AC <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">7/11--Sarah Aff v. Dua/Ayaan Neg--Baxter <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> Dua—its fine to go a bit quicker on the cards, but I think that you should differentiate the tags of the evidence a bit to bring out the power of the arguments, especially when you are intending to make arguments about style later in the debate—shoot for not using 1NR prep—explain more about the impact to what you are doing in the 1NR, that is to say, your arguments are about a reason why the neg’s advocacy is a prerequisite to address the questions of the aff and that the advantages are not reasons to prefer the plan over the neg advocacy—block should be extending stylization arguments as well as the interpretation of debate that they are not answering explicitly enough <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">