Ibramhim,+Nafisa

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

1N/2N:
 * Nafisa Ibrahim **

Nafisa—In cross-ex, avoid “how” questions. It allows the other team to rant about their aff so try to pinpoint specific questions you want to ask. Avoid taking prep for the 1NC since the aff and advantages were disclosed. Try to use all of your cross-ex time so your partner (if you had one) can use the time to prep for his/her speech. In the 1NC roadmap, make sure to put your off-case first and then case to ensure that you get to all your offense and have multiple options for the block/2NR. Work on having more clash with arguments and doing line by line. You extend your cards well but don’t answer the opponent’s arguments. You should employ more of a strategy for the 1NC rather than one disad and case. Good job going maverick!

6/27/12

You are pretty quick and clear, which is your strength; the 1AC was very flowable. However, in the 1AR you had some time allocation issues. You should have spent much more time on the two DAs--it would be hard for any 2N to win a CP in the 2NR if you just wrecked their net benefits, since that is really their only offense. Also, start the impact comparison in your speech on case, especially in a world where both you and the neg have econ impacts, you need to tell the judge who solves the econ better, how your scenarios differ, etc.

6/28/12 Cx: good clarification questions, 1nc: great speaking skills, make sure to label your flows in the 1nc, make sure to distinguish between analytics and cards by changing the pitch of your voice Cx: good questions, press him harder on questions he struggles with answering, 2a needs to understand the turns better 2nc: sign-post more, keep track of what you’ve already read, make sure you answer all the 2ac args on the cp 1nr: no prep!!!! Give an overview on the dropped DA, clarify why your impacts are more correct than their turns 2nr: good overview, extend evidence by author name

6/29/12 1AC- great speed/clarity! good job signposting CX- good job knowing your evidence nafisa! CX- nafisa, good job questioning their shady impact (global war? hah) 1AR- thank you for extending your arguments throughout the debate :) make sure you are answering their analytics as well you have good analytics on the counterplan, good job articulating your points about racism thank you for giving warrants/evidence comparison! we love evidence comparison!! don't say that your evidence doesn't make sense during your speech though, just a tip ;) please try to answer their oil dependency good argument. it's not very good, would be very easy to answer

7/1


Round 6, 7/2 Nafaddy (AFF) vs. Tranor Judge: Thorn – 1AC CX: Limit your use of Increase/decrease when talking about the racism impact. Also, cite the impacts inside the Harris evidence. The terror internals mean you don’t have to defend 1AR: Focus on the solvency deficits on the States C/P. The permutation isn’t much of a big deal since it links to the net benefits. You want to get as much leverage on your conceded advantages as possible. As far as solvency goes, point out their shadow extensions of their 1NC cards (hedges against their accusation that you concede solvency). (Explain Barndt as a “decision rule” that constrains my choices in weighing impacts. This supercharges the devolution link to the States CP. Explain devolution in the context of mass transit)

**7/3**
Round 7, Milky Luke

Your speed is good, but try to highlight down your cards more or just read less. You had too little time left when you got to your advantages. I like how you read equity first, as that is the strongest argument. Because many teams are going to read cap against you, consider reading the environment advantage, maybe without the oil independence heg bits to make the links much harder to find. When being CX, be more assertive and sound confident in your answers. If you don’t have an answer, make it up. The burden of proof lies on the negative until they prove otherwise. As for your CX, don’t let the neg keep talking. Once she said what you need her to say, cut her off. You’ll get more questions in and limit her ability to think up better answers. In the 1AR, be more clear about your perm extensions and why they solve best. Use specific warrants from Gibson Graham to prove institutions are the only way. Just saying every author is biased is not enough here: their evidence claims your authors will ignore dangers to get rich. It probably doesn’t actually say that, so make them explain the warrants. After all, the government in theory should be looking out for the oppressed already. The moral obligation needs to be expanded on to be voted on. This is your best argument, so make it scary. Accuse the neg of ignoring racism in favor philosophical bickering if you have to! You already knew the neg was going with the K, so spend less time on the CP. They had no impact, so just say that, extend the perms and move on. They can’t win with it. The timeframe argument is the best response to this K. Regardless of inevitability of their capitalism impacts, we’ll be dead long before that. I would also consider running some theory and framework. A lack of framework response in the 1AR is a killer, so bug your lab leaders to teach you about it. It was an excellent round and I enjoyed watching, so good luck in debate!

7/06
Round 2 Camp Tournament