Jones+McDonell,+Semaj

6/26/12 Cx of the 1ac – be more authoritative, don’t be afraid to point out that the aff can’t defend solvency 1nc – open your mouth more and watch your clarity when you are reading Cx – very strong for all debaters. Watch the volume. 2nc – coverage on the disad outweighs the case needs to be more, read more cards

6/27/12 You covered a lot in the 2AC. 11 cards is a good start, but work on coverage. You read 8 cards on case, 3 on the K and then none on the CP. What you said on the DA about no link or impact is good, so drop the theory sounding stuff. Unless they say more, this flow is done. The case was well covered, but if they don’t respond to something just extend it. There is no reason to read three cards all saying the same thing. The CP is what could’ve lost you the round. Make multiple perms, read a solvency attack, anything to have varied responses. Even if it’s nothing more than analytics, you need to say more on this. The theory is another good option. I was thrilled to see you guys try it! I think 50 states fiat (that’s what you were arguing about, if all the states would even do the plan) or conditionality (contradictions between various neg cases) may be stronger options. The K was well covered. Gibson-Graham is a fine response, but be prepared to explain how capitalism will end capitalism when we capitalism today and yet it still exists. I think the Bridge 7 is an amazing response—bring it up more! Make sure you always respond to anything on solvency. Even if it’s just extensions, if the neg proves you can’t solve anything, you lose. The 2AR was a good speech. That’s one of the harder speeches to given (I was an 1st speaker, so I’m biased toward the 1AR) and you got nearly everything in. I would say without a clear abuse story, definition or clear standards, I can’t really vote on theory. The contradictions between the K and the CP need to come up much earlier, but that is an excellent can of worms to open. Don’t get bogged down in the little things on case in this speech: focus on the larger picture of how you solve the environment, econ and racism and how all of these can kill us. You’re not going to win the link debate that you’re not capitalist with that econ advantage, so focus on impact weighing. The perm extension on the K was spot on, but use warrants from the actual Gibson-Graham and Monthly Review cards to prove that we can end capitalism with the current system. The arguments against alt solvency should be brought up earlier. The role of the rebuttal is to tell me why you win. The impact weighing is a good start, but actually come out and say that you win. Judges want to hear that. Don’t get bogged down in the little details in this speech. It’s the final speech of the round and what you say is what the round ends with. I thought this debate was impressive for this early in camp. Signposting, flowing, spreading, coverage, all went well. Just remember to signpost during the speech as well as at the start. A working timer is a must. Analytics are your friend, especially if you don’t have a card with the answer. Last resort, attack the author. Just reading more cards is not the solution. Your team often would read three cards to say what could be just extended. If it wasn’t responded to, just extend it. Work on leading into your arguments with your CX questions. Don’t just ask randomly, attack weak spots or places you can build off of with your case. Use the CX answers in speeches. One final thing would use multiple perms. I touched on this earlier, but perms are only limited by your imagination and theory. Perm do both, perm do the plan than the K, perm do the CP, perm do all non-conflicting parts of the plan and K, perm do the plan within the mindset of the K, perm do the plan and part of the CP all make things interesting. It takes seconds to make one, minutes to answer and any dropped one means you won that argument. Good luck in debate!

6/29/12

Semja': You don't need to read all those extra solvency cards in the 2AC; save a lot of time by just explaining the warrants of your 1ac cards in comparison to the negs two solvency cards. Good job quickly extending the dropped advantages; you should point out to the judge that the neg hasn't put defense on them, it will discourage the neg from reading a bunch of new defense in the block (which they did in this debate in the 1NR). Very good time allocation in the 2AC overall. In cross x, make sure to make your questions more specific/targeted/serve a purpose. Explanation for explanation's sake only risks allowing the neg more time to explain their arguments. You should point out the contradiction between the cap K and the econ impact on the budget disad in the 2ac; it will probably force the block to kick one of them in the block. In the 2AR, good job explaining your equity and energy advantages, but you need to explain the way these impacts interact with the impact to the criticism a little bit more. You made a smart argument that capitalism is sustainable in the 2ar; making this argument earlier in the debate would really help you. Good job with the time frame comparison, but on the permutation you need to explain how it functions in relation to the alternative and why it's a better strategy for challenging racism, capitalism, etc. Saying "the perm outweighs the case" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The alt defense analysis you start in the 2ar is good, but it is far too new. Start this in the 2AC, read a card on it, and the perm becomes a much more attractive option. Go for the link turn on politics; the 2nr drops it, and it can only help you by serving as a tie breaker in terms of impact (the disad becomes an advantage for you).

7/1/12 1AC: Semaj Jones -Slow down for tags -General clarity -Speed is good, but clarity is key, especially later in the speech 1NC c-x: Semaj Jones -Asks the right questions -Sharisha doesn't hold up well when asked quesions, Joshenah answered virtually everything -Neg doesn't really seem to have a fundamental grasp of the literature

7/2 rd 6 Edstrom

2n semaj-you are reading the right cards here but I really need you to signpost more! it is the 2NC, but the sooner you start comparing, the better. you want to be formulating your 2NR strategy in the part of the debate, and starting to put together the bigger picture. don’t put your papers in front of your face. pls pls pls enunciate more. I am really having trouble flowing you. I could also use some more of your analysis. good kick out. you are making good arguments in this debate, but the analysis is shallow. it’s not just “this card” it should also be “this card says.” this level of debating will increase your speaker points and your overall credibility. excellent work on budget. you should be pointing out more how behind they are in this round- tell me why the 2AR can’t win, and protect your 2NR. this round has good strategy on your part, but I would like to hear you formulating your arguments more individually.

Tournament Round 1 If you’re going to use a video for evidence try and tie it in, because right now it feels like an untagged card just being shoved in there out of nowhere (although I do feel it was a decent choice of a video). Also, as a general speaking tip, slowing down on tags is good, but right now you’re speeding up during the tags and that it makes it really hard for the judge to hear. Either try to have a consistent pace throughout so the judge can hear a rhythm or slow down for both the tag and the cites so it’s really easy for the judge to hear how you’re labeling your arguments. Also, you made good analytics during the 1AR, but you didn’t really connect them to the cards you had already read. If you have spare time again, try and use it to tie your arguments together rather than just sitting down. Gaochy is a strong debater and good at cross examination, but try and ask more of the questions during your cross-ex for the practice, it’ll be how you get better.