Schroeder,+Maren

6/26/12 1ac: stand up straight, check the “uh”s, too little time for the econ advantage – be aware of your time and your speed, Cx – be more authoritative but also remember that silence in cx can be deafening 2ac – stand up straight, check your order before you start, really good sign-posting Cx – focus on keeping statements in question form instead of just exchanging statements 1ar – watch time allocation, open your mouth more

6/27/12 I was very impressed with your cross x questions. However, when it comes to the 1NR, you were a little disorganized. I think communicating a different block strategy during 2NC prep together as a team could fix this. You investing all of your time in one of the DAs (perhaps budget) and switching the 2NC to include the CP could have allowed you to make more args and cut out redundancy. Make sure on the States CP to answer all the solvency indicts; you sort of got bogged down on the racism arguments and the 1AR could have really been devastating by exploiting the rest of the 2AC deficits.

6/28 rd 3 Edstrom

1n maren- you sound clear and quick. you could work on enunciating more though. good cross x questions- press them on their analytical link turn more though, and bring up how good your evidence is. this is a thorough politics extension. good job on impact calculus. I think that you could talk about their arguments more though, and focus on comparison. on the cap k, don’t just say that “they dropped our links.” explain them. this is the kind of thing that will make a judge want to high point you and make you balloon animals. the more in-depth you are on the link debate, the harder it will be for them to get back on the permutation.

6/30 Rd 4

- Don’t read more cards on inherency when they don’t read anything on it - Don’t just read more cards on your advantages you need to be engaging your opponents arguments - You need to still respond to your opponents arguments by saying 1NC 1—they say and not going out of order because we might not have flowed the tag the same way - And use your 1AC to help you answer args not just reading more cards- for example you don’t need to read more we solve for oil when you already have - Good job indicting their authors and cards - You need more analytics on the budget DA other than indicts - You need to extend your impacts and why they out weigh the DA- you need to start this earlier on - Don’t read more case cards just because you have more time what is their use in the round - You need to be explaining your evidence more in the 2AR and tell me how the link turn works and how you access it - I would do the overview at the op of the flow - ALSO DON’T YOU SOLVE FOR THE ECONOMY???- it might be far off but you can at least try and say it - I think you need to work on framing how the racism card works in the round a lot earlier- the no value to life stuff didn’t come out until the 2AR- I neded to hear it earlier

7/01


=7/2 =

**7/3**
Round 7, Milky Luke I thought your CX was well done, especially with the efforts to get them to say capitalism caused their impacts. I worry that slavery is both a step too far and also difficult to get to link to capitalism (maybe imperialism?) so stick to the economic discrimination the aff uses as examples of the necessity of equitable transit. Your 2NC was spot on. I don’t know who your judge was in the fifth round, but looking over her comments I disagree strongly. Going all K in the 2NC is an excellent strategy, especially as you seem to understand the argument very well. The sheer number of impacts, links and the variety makes responding difficult and time consuming. Keep this up. Most teams will be unable to respond to something like this and any drop you can easily claim as a win. The 1AR will be overwhelmed and of course, it would be unfair to allow any new response in the 2AR that was dropped earlier. The analytics were excellent, even if you didn’t write all of them. You knew what they were talking about and the speed of delivery was impressive. I think adding framework works very well, but try experimenting. Argue critical debate should come first, because we must first question our very motive for action or that capitalism must be rejected by the judge for in round impacts. Argue that the round should be judged from a Marxism viewpoint and whoever best solves capitalism wins. If you do it well, you’ll win. I would also suggest you explain your alt more. In the 2NR, use specific warrants to explain why you will solve and why you should win. This will make it very clear what the judge is voting. Zizek is confusing and judges need to be pulled along by their nose. It was an excellent round and I enjoyed watching, so good luck in debate!

7/10

- Follow up cross-x questions. Think about what the questions are trying to get you, and work on the wording of your questions from there.

- Slow waaaay down. You’re trying to go way too fast, especially in overviews and analytics. You give this example of how the speed mindset hurts ecological systems, but I have no idea what you’re saying; this should be the easiest part of the overview (maybe the whole speech) to understand.

- Articulate the root cause arguments better. You just say that we transport oil quickly. Okay? How does that mean their shocks impact will inevitably happen? I could say that speed makes it easier to recover from sharp declines in supply, the alt would only make the problem more acute. Along those lines, how does this speed mindset lead to policy failure? I honestly don’t get the argument at this point.

- Why not spend more time on DeDev? That turns their only advantage, and they dropped it. Answers on cap may apply, but think of a reason why it doesn’t. Also didn’t answer McKenzie collapse inevitable, which probably takes out the advantage and provides uniqueness for your “now better” claims.

- Spend more time on the line by line on the K, less on the overview. Overall structure of the speech was fine, just allocate time better.

- You can’t have a method first claim on 2 kritiks. If your two different methods are acceptable, why can’t the plan’s method be acceptable?

- Why did you go for value to life impact? It wasn’t in the block, and you have a conceded collapse inevitable argument.

- Repeat advice from Goachy’s 1NR: Talk more about collapse inevitable. It gives you lots of leeway on your cap bad arguments. Cap good is their only response, which becomes a problem here.