Stockbridge,+Sam

Round 1--Samone (aff) v. Jarandrew (neg)--Judge: Baxter

2A: Sam—make sure you are fully ready when you stand up to give your speech, I would also consider putting your case above the disad and the k, since if you don’t win some component of your case, you prolly ain’t gonna win, no matter how well you do in the rest of the debate, pretty good in time allocation, but consider doing more than impact turning the disad, try to make use of your 1AC evidence when dealing with the case debate, don’t forget, it’s the biggest advantage you have over the neg, no need to keep reading other advantages, essentially—make sure you are paying attention to the 2nr, the only argument they are really going for Is cap, its ok to use these “dropped turns” as an aff advantage, but don’t extend it without making it clear what you are doing it for and why it’s a net benefit for the aff over the alternative, don’t lose track of the arguments you have been making in the debate thus far, you want to focus on the continuity of your arugments from the constructives thru the 2ar, good job on the timeframe argument, these sort of impact comparisons are what the final rebuttals are all about

6.27 - Round 2 - SOX - Puffles and Thor vs. (2NC) Sam, the main thing that you should work on is your impact comparison and prefacing your offense. You can do this by reading less cards in your 2NC. So much of the strategic value of this speech is that you can make complex analyticals with the time trade off. You need evidence, but less reliance on upon would help you significantly. In your 2NR, you need an overview with the words timeframe, magnitude and probability in it. Also, part of being a 2NR is to try hard! Close those doors, look like you're winning and play some sneaky angles. Do NOT give up! These are practice rounds, just barrel forward. Flow more. Use your flows as placeholders for your speech. Organize your cards based upon your flows. Finally, don't steal prep. Tell the judge when you need prep, tell the judge when you're done. Don't continue to prep if you tell the judge you are done with prep. It looks bad and could effect your speaker points. Also sam - PREP STEALERS! where's the overview, the impact comparison, too many cards don't give up analyticals! files or flows - speaking from

Round 3 6/28/12 1ac: more volume, give clear transitions between observations and cards, great clarity, make sure you can finish the advantage Cx: 2a needs to prep, use up all the time, don’t be embarrassed to reference your cards to make your best answer 2ac: stop saying “like”, good extension of evidence, read your evidence to make sure you read it on the appropriate flows in the round, finishing the advantage is fine – but you need to make sure you also answer the Das, perm the CP Cx: 2a – be specific to which cards you are referencing, keep your questions more concise so you can ask more 2a – let your 1ar prepare and set up her own speech. She is more than capable of doing this without your help 1ar: reference where you are cross-applying from, summarize the evidence you extend, very clear transition from flows, time allocation needs work 2ar: organize your thoughts and what you want to say before your speech, watch your “ums”, try to avoid the long pauses, argue more against the argument instead of describing the argument as “bad”, explain why your answers/args are more plausible instead of simply telling me they are, compare your impacts

7/2 rd 6 Edstrom 2a sam-don’t bend over when you read! prep time issues…I’m glad ur reading theory but it could be more thought out, fluid. you can always perm the cp as well! don’t forget that one! this speech is a good mix of analytics and evidence. you could probably read this econ advantage as an add-on on the DA instead of going to case. if someone gives you a question in your cx, just say it’s ur cx. this 2AR analysis is excellent. I wish it would have been a lot more earlier in the debate. you are the only person in this round who is going really in-depth on evidence. now what I need from you is more confidence- you have the skills, now realize it!

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

1NC: You might think about changing some tags on your 1NC Cap K impacts ev--they haven't run transition wars yet so don't set up your tags as answers ("all their ev says"); instead, set it up as preemption or consider saving it for the block (preempt: "transitions will be peaceful/net good/whatever"). You're very clear but keep working on your speaking drills--warming up before the round might also help with some of your hesitations between sentences and cards. Back to the K and your cross-aps to S: work on your explanation of co-option. You want to pull specific warrants across here to explain why aff solvency will mask cap harms and perpetuate an unjust system. Good "even-if" analysis--but you might want to be explicit in your explanation about why your solvency defense isn't a double turn with the K. Make sure to know where the warrants exist in your cards (or at least be able to articulate why it doesn't matter), Great job overall. CX of 2AC: Good questions but come up with a quick, polite way to cut your opponent off when they're rambling or start asking their own questions. As with Symone, practice asking closed-ended questions. They will help your control your time as well as their answers and will make getting the answers you want much easier. 1NR: As with Symone, spend a bit more time discussing and comparing specific warrants from your evidence during your underviews. How do we get to all of these terrible impacts through the plan (be as specific as possible). Otherwise, good job on your impact calculus at the bottom and great "even if" analysis.

Rd 8, AFF vs. Matsas, judge Thorn You’re putting too much time into finishing the 1AC in the 2AC. Be strategic about it. 2AR virilio answers should be in 2AC as a “no link” and “case outweighs” arg. Don’t do card underviews, explain the relevance of cards as part of their tag. It’s not advantageous to impact turn cap K without any other arguments. The neg has the block to read cards.CX explanation of the perm should be about how you can reflect while doing policy action, not speed up and slow down at the same time. Very smart 2AR. Too bad its all new. What’s good about these arguments is that they turn the debate back to the plan, and its specific impact scenarios which both contest the K’s link and its impact specificity. You should be making this analysis in the 2AC. It supports the necessity of the perm. Your Kellner evidence is basically making this claim, that Virilio’s kritik needs to be combined with an attention to social change.

Tournament Round 1 In cases like this where your partner doesn’t finish one of the advantages in the 1AC, it is a better move to focus on extending the parts of your case that you got out and MAYBE reading an impact to the advantage that was unfinished rather than going through the whole rest of the advantage – the 2AC is a lot more crunched for time since if it drops anything the neg can explode that mistake in the block. Also, when your opponent does go one-off, you need to address all aspects to have a chance – link, perm, alt, alt solvency, maybe even impact comparison – and your response could’ve used a lot more argument diversity. As a result, you ended up having to bring up new solvency deficit arguments in the 2AR, which is never going to work. When C/X’ing a cap k, remember that the negative doesn’t need to advocate a specific post-capitalistic society as long as they can prove cap causes extinction and your plan extends cap (either that, or you can indict non-capitalist societies in general rather than being limited to the indict of Marxism that the camp evidence provides).