Everett,+Michael

Round 2 Shreyki (AFF) vs. Sachael (NEG) (1N) FIAT: Whether the plan //would// be passed (by house republicans etc.) doesn’t matter w/r/t whether it //should// be passed. You’re debating the consequences of the plan,//assuming// it is passed (that’s fiat). You’re using the States not just because they’re more feasible, but also because they don’t spend the federal budget. One exercise is to replace the word “won’t” or “can’t” in your speeches (i.e. the federal government **can’t** do mass transit, or the federal government **won’t** do mass transit) with the word **should not** or **ought not** (the federal government **shouldn’t** do mass transit). Fiat means that you are debating questions of “ought” (good/bad) rather than feasibility. Your 1NR was remarkably good for your second policy round. Good job. One tip for shifting to a policy mode is to **always think about every argument in terms of the plan action**, how can I, on the neg, say what I’m saying as a reason why the plan **ought not** happen.

6/28/2012

You're very clear, but you sound really bored and not into it. Try to give me SOME sense that you're head is completely in the game and excited to be here. You're reading lots of pretty good, responsive evidence that directly combats the aff responses to the different components of the 1NC. As you are debating, you are mumblig through many of the tag lines, so much so that I'm not getting an idea of what you're argument is until you're halfway through a card...try to slow down and emphasize tag lines so that I have a clearer picture of the round. Finally, work on order of operations. What argument should I, as a judge, look to FIRST to make a decision? What should I look to second? With so much on the flow, it's nice to have a good idea of how I should evaluate the round.

6/29


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 1N: make sure to put case on the bottom--all of your offense is in the off case positions. good job in cross x staying calm and answering questions directly2N: 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.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.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.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 future1N: need more organization in the 1nr--was very unclear which args applied to which positions2N: 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.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

TOURNEY ROUND I Breacheal (Aff) v. Xiaowang (Neg) Judge: Weber (weberdebate@gmail.com for questions)

2AC: Work on contextualizing and comparing your evidence against your opponents' by using "they say" comparisons to explain why your evidence is superior and/or what questions from their evidence that you're addressing. As is, you're just reading cards--tell me where to flow them and where they fit into the debate. Otherwise, good work.

CX of 2NC: Great indict of their "people unwilling to give up cars" argument. If you need to cut off your opponent and they keep talking like happened here, just start asking your question instead of arguing with them over whose CX it is. They'll get the point and will stop talking.

2AR: Before jumping right into your individual arguments, give us a brief overview of the key arguments in this round (overviews = good). Also, careful not to overstate your impacts (paramecium?). Use your evidence to warrant specific impacts--this is a much more effective way to persuade me to your position. Good round overall.