Singhe,+Nawang

6/26/12 - Make sure every disad and kritik in the 2NC starts off with an overview. Talk about your impacts - tf/prob/mag- Make sure to compare impacts between the aff and the neg in the 2NR

6/27 Edstrom rd2

nawang maverick- your reading is clear and well-paced. impressive. make sure you have enough time to finish each advantage that you read. it will not do you much good without an impact. good work reading specific carded answers to their case args. the next step is to impact that evidence and tell me why it matters in the debate. your 2AC is quite good. remember to make permutation arguments. also, I like your clever use of your cross-x questions to leverage defense against the DA, although I’m not sure that it’s true that Romney would be happy to sign ctbt. nice work in the 1AR of extending evidence and pointing out dropped arguments. don’t complain about abuse just because they read a lot of cards- small chance I’ll ever vote on this. don’t jump flows so much, and make sure you are impacting your case somewhere in the 1AR. solid analysis tho. excellent impact calculus in the 2AR. my biggest suggestion is organization and understanding how to answer some of these arguments more efficiently. you are a good speaker. 6/29/12 Nawang: Good job asking lead in questions; it was clear you were trying to set up your positions and get the aff to admit solvency deficits to the aff. Don't let the aff turn cross x into more speech time though; respectfully cut them off when you've got your answer; don't be afraid to be assertive! Your 2NC was very clear; good job. However, rather than reading more link and alt cards when there were no 2AC args here, you would be better served with a brief overview extending the 1NC warrants to these cards, and burying the aff on the perm debate. You did a good job explaining why the perm fails, but more time making disads to the perm gives you offense and leaves the aff with basically nothing. You need to embed clash into your 2NC--reading new cards is fine, but tailor them to the line by line to answer the 2AC arguments. In the 2NR, make sure to kick out of the DA's if you're not going for them, esp with a link turn on Politics floating around; you don't want to give the aff any ground to cheat more in the 2ar (because affs are ALWAYS going to cheat in the 2ar). Good job preempting this by pointing out 1AR drops on the K. Make sure your arguments against the perm in the 2NR are offensive; explaining why it might not make sense is good, but explain the warrants of your Zizek and Tumino cards and why vestiges of capitalism left over by the perm are dangerous. Good job explaining why the alt solves the equity advanage, but you should frame this more as a "root cause argument" i.e.--capitalism is the root cause of racism, inequality, etc. Good job making impact calculus claims in the 2NR, but make sure to always do this work in comparison to each aff advantage. Also, you need to (even if briefly) extend and explain the link in the 2nr. Good job on case explaining why your case cards are better in the 2nr (recency, etc.). However you didn't really have a plan of attack on case; pick your best (and/or dropped args) and use them to craft a story on case that is offense for you/ interacts with your kritik. 7/1/12 make sure you have everything figured out before your speech starts specify which perm you're responding to. don't just read me a generic perm fails card, they made multiple specific perms, tell me why they don't work. at the very least explain your cards you didn't answer any of their args on the kritik besides the perms you are seriously disorganized, work on it address their specific case arguments, don't just read cards. when you do, give me warrants. you have plenty of time. you ignored their answer to the "people tied to their cars" bit you didn't answer their card on security implications of global warming make sure you're actuall extending your previous arguments through. your alternative, for instance nawang, there is no way your alt solves all capitalism. please stop claiming that. never switch alts halfway through <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">be careful kicking the kritik <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">give me more impact weighing. i appreciate answering every argument, but at this point you should just be extend your preview arguments and applying them to the 1AR <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">make more than just postdating arguments on politics. they said more than that <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">it would have been better to kick the politics DA. the double turn mess doesnt get anyone anywhere <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">ANSWER PARADIGM SHIFT <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">i didn't see any impact weighing here. that's the entire point of the 2R. try giving an overview, itll make you more organized <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">no impact to doubleturn, drop it <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">7/3/12 <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">nawang, you let lillie take control of cross-x. don't be afraid to stop her from talking! <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">try to ask questions that lead into your arguments more, try to trap her! <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">if you are struggling to find questions to ask, at the very least ask her to clarify something to avoid the awkward pause <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">good speed, you could be a little clearer. make sure to differentiate between speed/tone for tags and evidence <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">make your signposting clearer <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">she's right, explaining things in your own words is the best. it shows you know your evidence. read your cards, not just the tags <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Block <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">clarity clarity clarity <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">you need to answer her arguments SPECIFICALLY <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">on politics, respond to her impact weighing with some of your own. why does case NOT outweigh? try an even if. if i dont buy your postdating argument, you better have a reason that her ctbt evidence still doesn't matter. you didn't asnwer her args about extinction mpacts <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">she kicked economy, doesn't matter <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">on solvency, you can't just say "well itll happen anyway", you need warrants and reasons why they are better. give me some clash! <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">on energy, you say oil independence impossible but you don't answer her "shift now" argument. dont just repeat arguments ou made before, make new arguments or tell me why hers don't work <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">"climate change won't make us extinct because it takes forever" is not a good argument against climate change. use your evidence, i know you have it. you didn't asnwer her arg about co2 and climate change being different <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">make sure you SIGNPOST <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">big issues on the equity flow <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">once again you have to answer her arguments, not just read cards at her <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">nice response to moral obligation <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">kritik kritik kritik...i like your theory here and i can tell you have good ideas. it's tough covering something with so much spread, try reading more of thekritikal literature before your next neg debate <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">conceding framework wasnt a great plan, i would have honestly kicked the kritik here <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">you dropped the counterplan :( i'm glad you got all the theory though! <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">unfortunately you don't have much offense here, you don't give me any reasons to vote neg. even if your defense stands up, there's no reason to prefer neg <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">thanks for impact weighing <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">for me to vote on theory you have give me a realllly good abuse story

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">TOURNEY ROUND I <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Breacheal (Aff) v. Xiaowang (Neg) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Judge: Weber (weberdebate@gmail.com for questions)

__Word Bank (look 'em up)__: Freudian

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">1NC: You want to be careful about putting down too many conditional advocacies in the 1NC (you have three). While most judges don't have a problem with conditionality at this point, forcing the aff to counter three independent positions could be used as an abuse story for an aff "condo bad" args. Also, think about how you're spinning the impact scenario on Virilio--if the impacts are inevitable, why should I vote for any alternative? Make sure you tie in your logic about why the alt, specifically, solves.

CX of 2AC: Careful asking warrant questions without knowing the answer (i.e. if you asks for warrants, make sure they can't respond with "several cards say this..."). Good question about the economy author, but again, be sure you know how they'll answer before asking--you need to anticipate that they won't talk about why the card discusses the economics of global warming.

1NR: Great, great overview on Cap K, but keep that line-by-line analysis going all the way through your speech (you lose the rigor of your comparative analysis as you progress through the speech. Keep comparing your arguments with theirs to show WHY I should prefer your interpretation of capitalism). You shouldn't need your partner to pull up and feed you evidence though, Make sure you're fully organized on your own computer during prep time--you have lots of it. Also, don't go overboard on your impact calc (Really, I solve capitalism IMMEDIATELY after signing the ballot? Amazing!).

tourney rd 2 Edstrom

2a nawang-I see where all your 2AC case arguments lineup but you should still signpost, it helps keep the flow cleaner. thank you. is this a double turn? yes. don’t double turn. not good args. I can see that you are hiding behind your computer. I know this is a tough speech, but you have to find a way out. most likely you should extend reasonability and argue how most airport affs aren’t practical or as steeped in the literature. generally, if you want a counter interpretation, you definitely need to read some evidence. without evidence it is going to be very tough to win. good argumentation, on t, and remember you can use theory to outweigh topicality.