Johnson,+Ella

__ **Ella Johnson** __

__ **Round 1: Logauch (AFF) vs. Ellalen (NEG) – Judge Thorn Chen** __

__ **1NC** – (ELLA) If you’re running 1 off kritik, read more cards in the 1NC. Put your key 2NC cards (e.g. perm answers) early in the debate to force the 2AC to answer them. This also allows you to spend more time explaining the kritik in the block. __

__ **1NR** – (ELLA) Structure of case debate should be as follows. “Extend 1NC card – warrant,” “this means X to their case/advantage,” “they say Y, but Z.” __

General

__ This was a very good first debate. A lot of the problems that I cited above were stylistic, but argumentation was remarkably in-depth. NEG. there should be a better, more specific explanation of why the kritik a) comes prior to, and b) turns the case. Remember, you need to neutralize the AFF’s advantages so to better weigh the Kritik against it. Specific reasons may include that the way in which investments into transportation infrastructure tend to feed into structures of maldistribution, such that even good-hearted attempts to extend services to underprivileged areas will fail on the basis that they are part of a broader structure that reproduces inequity. What does the (first) light rail line in Minneapolis connect? The Mall of America with Downtown. There will always be problems with inequity, and there will always be economic crises, because they have a systemic cause. Your alternative explanation should also be far better developed. //Why// is it that Zizek says the system will collapse on its own? What does it mean to “let” it collapse? How does this generate “uniqueness” for your link? Etc. Etc. __

ROUND II (6/27) Ellalen (Aff) v. Antyle (Neg) Judge: Weber/Bratvold (weberdebate@gmail.com with questions)

2AC: Good extensions and cross-apps on drops; now impact this (how does this feed into your impact calculus?). Great underviews throughout but use the warrants from your extended and new evidence to explain why I should prefer your explanations. Excellent volume and pitch variation—you’re incredibly easy to listen to even with a bit of speed. Work on line-by-line and comparative response. What are each of your cards answering from their previous speech? Remember, debate is all about clash; the easier you crystallize that clash for the judge, the easier it is to win.

CX of 2NC: Very clear and direct questioning here. Good job using CX to define “crux” questions (e.g. “Are you still standing by the fact that…”); this is a great way to prime the judge for decision calculus during rebuttals.

2AR: I like how you frame mag/prob but don’t concede T/F so easily; you generate plenty of short-term offense off of conceded ptix—use this to hedge against their T/F argument and then use “even if” language to fall back to mag/prob calc. Good use of Gibson-Graham extension to impact your “monolith” framing from CX. OK—I don’t know that I agree with your strategic decision of Marx 2nd to last. This is there only offense and deserves more than ~1 minute of responses. Go into more depth on your warrants on Marx and less time analyzing drops. Assume we know they dropped your offense and skip to why it matters when you get to ptix, structural racism, etc. ORGANIZATION!

6/28/12 2AC: Offcase order should be in the order of the biggest threats to your case – here, the order should probably be the K, States CP, Budget, and then Elections (since they didn’t get to the impact). Disads are less of a threat to your aff because you can still win if you drop them (by outweighing the case) whereas it’s pretty hard to win if you drop a counterplan or a kritik that can potentially mitigate the entire case. I like your underground railroad example. Don’t bend over your computer so much – see Ellen’s comments above. Try to vary the tone of your voice more when reading. You do a good job of this when you’re making analytics, but your voice gets a bit monotone when reading cards. 2AC CX: Good answers in cross-x. 2NC CX: I think saying that capitalism is big and scary is too obvious. Only ask cross-x questions about things that are in the 2NC. Just because she misspoke and said that “capitalism solves for a bunch of impacts” isn’t a concession. 2AR: Very solid theory debating—make sure to answer the negative team’s arguments too. Answer “cap is the root cause of racism”. Explain Gibson-graham in the context of the racism advantage—you do something to stop racism now, the alt doesn’t solve anything, etc.

7/01


=7/2 =

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

I was impressed with your use of paperless debate. It is a far easier system and practice like this makes you prepared for the actual season. Just don’t give your analytics to your opponents: not everyone will be as nice as they are at camp. As for strategy, I understand you want to learn how to run a CP, but you need to read a disad alongside it. The net benefit is terrible for the CP and the states’ main solvency claim is that they avoid budget problems. The problem is going to be fitting it in, but you could try dropping some cards from the CP.

As for the CP in block, it almost feels like you wasted your time on it. The other team already knows you’ll kick it, so just do that. Read more capitalism: spend all your time on the alt, line by line case turns and links or even framework. The arguments you made on the CP were good, but they aren’t needed.

Spend more CX time on attacking problems in the aff case. The 2AC left plenty of holes open, so push on those weak spots. You read the same aff, so you know where they are. Practice flowing college speeches online so you can catch all the arguments (here a fun one to start with: []). You want to keep questions about the cards read to a minimum because it makes you appear as if you didn’t listen well and takes time away from more useful questions. It was an excellent round and I enjoyed watching, so good luck in debate!

7/5/12


 * **#1 thing to work on: Line-by-line **
 * Try not to bend over your computer so much. Remember the things we talked about today with speaking—variation in your voice and more enunciation.
 * Numbering should be different on case—if it’s all 1 advantage, you shouldn’t start over the numbering at each different section
 * Smart answers in cross-x
 * You should go about asking the question about the infrastructure bank differently—you should ask them if they’ve read evidence first, not explain how you think it works. For example: “We’ve read evidence that private actors would put in the money. Have you read any evidence to the contrary?”
 * You’re very polite throughout the debate J  I appreciate it
 * The block is too big
 * Put theory on the perm—it’s a timeframe perm, those are illegitimate
 * On topicality, I really liked your tanks example and I thought you did a good job debating the standards. However, you missed some things near the bottom of the flow, like “other words check” and “reasonability. Working on line-by-line skills will help