Goetz,+Saunder


 * Zaunderz Goetz **


 * Debate 1 vs Ruby and Xiaojing **
 * Judge: Mimi **

1ac: spend more time between each card. Good speed and clarity

1ar: please use all your time! It’s relatively unlikely that the racism add-on gets you much traction against the k since the cap k accesses it better as per Ruby’s smart 2nc arguments. You should then spend your time weighing it against the spending disad because it’s more offensive. Time allocation should be shifted to recognize the more likely threats – don’t stake your 1ar on them dropping an argument they didn’t actually drop I thought your 1ar on the cap k was really good! A lot of explanation and analysis that directly answers theirs back and you actually impact your args.

6/27/12

cx of 1ac - I'm not sure where you're going with your questions. You should be either making an advantage go away or getting disadvantage links.

1nc - delivery fine. you missed the energy advantage. this is where 2n needs to help out--if your partner misses something, make sure he or she gets to it. the link to the cap k is a little dicey.

2nc/1nr (block) - the cap response cards were pretty good. you had enough time to explain in depth how they take out the perms. iffy job covering the big fat drop of the energy advantage. if something like this happens, 2nc needs to be on it. an explanation that the solvency responses take out all the advantages or that the cp solves for all the advantages would have helped cover this problem.

2nr - 2nr strat was completely telegraphed in the road map to the 2nc. If you mix it up a bit and put some effort into going for the 1nr arguments, 2ar will suffer a bit more.

ROUND VII Handerz (Aff) v. Samone (Neg) Judge: Weber (weberdebate@gmail.com with questions)

1AC: Good speed and clarity but don't lose volume around when you're breathing. I'm not sure where your T/F card gets the now key warrant--you may want to emphasize this a bit more. Good work eating up their CX time looking for your cards, but careful that you don't look too lost--it may hurt you more than it helps to appear not to know your evidence.

CX of 1NC: Good job holding them to the warrants in their cards--yes, this is important--and asking for specific links to transportation. I'm not sure if your purposefully setting your set up for policy-level impact calculus in rebuttals, but if you aren't start thinking about how they connect. Good work.

1AR: Awesome, awesome comparative analysis on the by-line; keep this up (I may have spoken a bit too soon--you need to go line-by-line down the block). You're a little tripped up on the K perm response (until you address the drop at the end)--what I think you need to get to is why perpetuating cap results in the same scenario as rejection. Use T/F (and their lack of one) to show why even if you perpetuate cap, the difference in T/F is inconsequential. Good impact calc on the underview. Preemption.

7/5 edstrom rd 8

2N saunderz-you are doing well. don’t slow down or hesitate, just keep making your arguments. keep in mind the aff probably doesn’t care too much about drops- what you should be doing is framing this debate as a lack of offense. just saying “debate isn’t stylistic” doesn’t match up with the warrants in your evidence. this argument about how they are acting in round doesn’t really have a warrant- I can see how it might be true, but I don’t hear it in your speech. honestly this 2NR seems largely devoid of content. predictability should be discussed in terms of the debate community, not just what happened before a camp practice round. you need to use your evidence more and extend the warrants, same as if you were going for elections.