Feleke,+Hanna

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 Your speed is good, but you need to work on clarity. Tags can be made to say anything, so I want to be able to hear the card text. If you need to go slower to be more clear, do so and keep doing pen drills to work on enunciation. I think the racism in transit is the strongest advantage you have, especially against States CP and a Cap K. I would suggest cutting an advantage to bulk up racism or at least reading it first. This will come with debating the topic more, but strive to understand your case and be confident in CX answers. Don’t get bogged down in little things like buses: focus on the bigger picture of what lack of equal access to transportation and thus jobs, success and full citizenship means. Keep up the wordy answers. Your job is to waste the negs time. The prewritten block in the 1AR is an excellent start, but I’d save those sorts of flowery speeches for the 2AR. You have a lot to cover after the neg block and time is too precious to spend on that. Cut it down and make sure it applies to only what the neg said. You said a lot of important things, but just saying warming is on the brink isn’t enough. Extend a card, add an analytic, anything. I liked the crossapplying, keep this up. It saves time and allows you to use useful cards multiple times. Bridge 7 is probably the best card you have, so bring it up lots. I saw a few hints of impact weighing on the K in your 1AR. That’s a step in the right direction, as you need as the 1st speaker to set up the 2AR. Again, expand on the blippy arguments you made. Saying “National implement is key to solving problem” is not enough to stop me from voting on a CP. Good job extending the voters on theory. Overall, it was fun debate to watch. Signposting was good, but try to say when you switch flows in your speech. 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. I love a theory debate, so I was impressed by your usage of theory. Just remember to include a definition, violation (for aff only), standard and voters. I can’t explain it all in here, so ask a lab leader or your coach. Camp will get to it, just give it time. Good luck in debate!

6/29/12

Hannah--You are very quick, but lowering your pitch a little bit might help the clarity on card text in the 1AC. Good job being clear on tags. Good job using examples in cross-x like the comparison of buses in North and South Minneapolis. Good job extending case in the 1AR; make sure to line up your explanations with neg arguments on the line by line though. You ended up making some redundant args, and being more organized can save you time. on Elections, I would go all in on the link turn since the 2NC mishandles it; read some more cards and bury them in it; it's better than tagline extending the 2ac because it generates the most offense for you. Good job explaining the perm on the K, but you need to get to the K with more than 30 seconds to read more cards/disads to the alt to be net benefits to the perm for you. Also, pointing out the contradiction between the budget DA and the cap K would be smart given you get to both with such little time left, it could scare the other team in backing off and just going for politics.

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

2AC: Interesting perm do plan argument--great cross-application of their Zizek to show this. Make sure you explain why this natural end of capitalism doesn't cause all their impacts. The plan and alt. generate different link stories, so explain why the plan's is good. I know you'll hate to hear this, but your speed on cards ventures into the unintelligible. This is bad. Make sure the judge AT LEAST gets the warrants down--slow down for those just as you would for tags/cites and key analysis. More variation of your voice might help as well.

CX of 2NC: Good CX overall but don't spend too much time browbeating a question that you're clearly not going to get a straight or satisfactory answer to. Sometimes it's best to move on...

2AR: You're out of the gate with impact calculus (which you do a great job of), but be sure to tie up the individual points of clash (on the flow) before trying to crystallize the round. Be sure you flow the block and 1AR to do a more thorough job here. This round tended to reduce down speech by speech--because everyone's flow needs to improve--until we're left with very little to compare at the end. Save 30-45 seconds at the end for impact calc. Good job.

7/5 edstrom rd 8

1N Hannah- it’s fine if you are running a states cp, but you need to read their advocacy statement, and reading these fism cards and solvency evidence doesn’t work at all. you already know they are going to ignore your DA links. it’s clear you haven’t thought about this debate at all. I really would like to see you actually having a discussion in this round, or at least having a strategy that is somewhat different than the one that you have been running every night at camp. in the 1NR it might be better to just extend cap, but I understand what you are doing with the CP. I just think you have a better chance maybe winning a link on cap (though it’s not great). “intertial.” not “internal.” this cap k may get you somewhere, but you need a link. also, you absolutely cannot just give your canned extensions in this debate. it doesn’t work.