Klinkenborg,+Zach

6/26/12 - 2AR arguments are good, but they're new. Put them in the 2AC- 2AC arguments on case are hard to follow - tell me what you're answering

6/27/12 Excellent job with the organizing your first speech! Well signposted, following the order of the aff case and then still getting in two off. I would say that you could actually spend less time on case and try to fit in the DA. Speed drills will help with this. Your clarity is great, now just read faster. Highlight down your cards more so you can fit more in. It sounded as if you read some cards in their entirety. You only need one card on warming won’t kill us. The naysayers were Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation and the Marshall Institute which says nothing about us surviving that level of CO2. Stick with the very recent WSJ card, Happer 12. You could also cut out the high oil prices good card, Smith 8, unless you want to try and argue that high prices would force more transit and make the plan non-unique. Make sure you can explain your link and alt in CX. Never, never run something if you don’t know what it is saying, especially if it’s a kritik. Also never say that your partner understands something better. You both will need to understand an argument, as you both need to argue it. That K link, Callen 9, is an excellent card that was dropped the entire round. Who cares if they claim they aren’t capitalists? Our government is run by elites who want to control our existence with buses and light rails. I understand you can’t change CP plan texts, but find a way to answer the question of how states, which as you admitted have less money, can afford the CP. I don’t have an answer for that, other than your opponents probably won’t have a card at camp with impacts for state bankruptcy. You covered a lot of ground in the 1NR because of going eight minutes CP, so you will be pressed for time. If you need a card again, extend it. Don’t reread it. The nitpicky things can be skimmed over if worse comes to worse, but take time to explain in detail why the perms fail. Read cards is possible. This can win or lose you the debate like nothing else. Any time left over can be used to summarize the round and weigh impacts. It’s never too early to tell me to vote for you. Overall, it was a fun debate. Try to work on using more analytics. You worked in a fair amount in the 1NR, but you can use them as early as the 1NC. Change up tags to match the round. Just reading cards gives me nothing to vote for, explain why your card is better. Pick out warrants, prefer because of postdate, even author attacks if you need to. Make sure your CX questions relate to the rest of the debate. Lead your opponents into traps where they must agree with your case. The 2AC read a lot of cards on warming, so ask why have warming. Keep pushing until you get down to economic systems and of course the answer is then capitalism. Good luck with debate! Remind Tim that the intergalactic society mind control aliens want him to stop smoking so they can end the quarantine of Earth.

ROUND III (6/28) Drewck (Aff) v. Shreykyi (Neg) Judge: Weber (weberdebate@gmail.com with questions)

__Word Bank (look ‘em up) __: metropolitan majoritarian equity

__Three things to work on with your flow (these will save you a lot of time in rebuttals, especially as a trade of v. reading new evidence) __: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Grouping <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Cross-Applying <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Extending __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Zack __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">1AC: Good speed, clarity, and transitions for a second year debater. Keep it up. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">CX of 1NC: You can better control your CX by asking as few open ended questions as possible. Work on using yes/no language instead (e.g. Instead of “What is your name?” ask, “Your name is Shreyas, right?” And remember that the primary purpose of CX, even before clarifying information, is to force your opponents to make arguments for you. You know what you need to win, so try and lead them into admitting it. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">2AC: Good use of “they say” comparative language—this not only helps the judge’s flow but allows you to frame the clash how you’d like. If you’re unsure about neg coverage on-case, make sure you ask during CX, you don’t want to unintentionally drop it. Also, I’d like to see much more offense generated out of this speech. Instead of focusing just on why their arguments may not be true, cross-apply your 1AC and new evidence to show why your plan solves these harms. Along with your uniqueness arguments, these would make some sweet straight turns. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">CX of 2NC: Good use of closed questions. And I can tell that you’re really starting to think about what you’re trying to get out of CX—keep thinking about how to get people into your little traps and you’ll continue to improve. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">1AR: Again, your comparative analysis is improving (and great extensions of evidence) but this is where you can really tell that your flow isn’t quite where it needs to be. The 1AR needs to be tight since you only have five minutes, and going straight down your flow is the easiest way to do this. By shuffling through cards, you not only slow yourself down but also can’t tell what your opponents’ answers are. One more trick: start preempting your opponent’s potential answers during your underview by saying something like, “My opponents will say _ in the next speech but don’t let them get away with it, because…” <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">2AR: Good job pulling across analysis from earlier speeches but again, you want to work on doing this from your flow. It will improve your organization and help flow across the specific evidence and warrants needed to win good rounds. And while your analogies are interesting, I’d try and limit them in general. No analogy is perfect and they’re certainly less effective than discussing key warrants from your evidence. Good crystallization and impact calc.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">6.29 - SOX - Trace and Conor vs. (1N) Zach - I thought you did a great job structuring your 1NC, you had a good balance on evidence by reading impact defense and the gibson-graham impact diffuser card. I also appreciated your analysis on the question of, what would be the alternative to our current society if we de-developed. That's a question I want you to spent more time talking about on case with cards and analyticals. I think I would've split the block differently in your round. I think there were deeper arguments to be made in the 1NR instead of just speaking in a macro/overview type fashion. Make more impact comparison on the specific evidentiary level. Also, what was the role of the performative aspects of your debate? What did the guitar, umbrella and bare feet translate to in the end?

7/3/12 You begin 2ac with a tag for a new card—you haven’t extended any 1ac solvency evidence or isolated an argument the 1nc made—get in the habit of saying “1nc 1—fg fails—XYZ” “1nc 2—plan can’t solve—XYZ” etc. It makes you look like a better speaker, but also helps keep everyone’s flows much cleaner Because you have an econ advantage, and because the only off case argument was an econ da, you want to frame your answers as internal link arguments—claim that your aff solves a better IL to the economy—oil, competitiveness, jobs, etc and that those swamp just spending money (which is the only link arg in the debate) cx—use all cx time so that drew can prep 2ar Framing—because there is no CP, you should play up the “if we solve at all, vote aff—only a chance we are better than the status quo” Your triggers every impact argument is somewhat exaggerated—you claim plague and pestilence—the tag is referring to most debate impacts—think about how the economy interacts with other impact arguments in the neg arsenal right now—prolif, warming, etc Good examples, but don’t get too “ranty”—think about how each argument you are making wins you the debate

7/6 - Round 1 - Sadagopal
Voted AFF