Yang,+Gaochy

Put your direct responses/analytics on top of your case answers, cards later, directly flag what card answers what (signposting the line by line); provide brief impact explanations on these case arguments. 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. The AFF should stick closer to the specific claims made by the 2AC evidence, which argues, essentially, for engaging in capitalist institutions to destroy the system from within. I think the neg ends up framing this debate (and the aff consents to it) as a question of “purity,” e.g. “aff engages in some capitalist mechanisms, is hence impure, and hence should be rejected.” If you take a look at the Grossman evidence, it specifically indicts this “purist” critique of capitalism. Gibson-Graham also argue that it is exactly this view of capitalism as an all consuming monster that actually disables resistance. See how this evidence directly clashes with how the neg frames the debate. This gives you a basis on which to say that the aff, even if “impure,” is necessary; and that, as Mao said, revolution is not a dinner party, which means that sometimes you have to get your hands dirty. Which is all support for the permutation.
 * Gaochy Yang **
 * Round 1: Logauch (AFF) vs. Ellalen (NEG) – Judge Thorn Chen **
 * 2AC – ** (GAOCHY) In answering kritiks write a permutation text that is specific to the case. It could be a simple as “The USFG should invest in mass transit AND We should allow capitalism to collapse.” You should make Case O/W arguments on the Kritik; place the arguments you ended up making in the 2AR in the 2AC. Think 2AC strategy as reclaiming the center of the debate for the aff; frame the debate around the plan, force the neg to prove why the destruction of capitalism implies the rejection of plan.
 * 2AR ** – (GAOCHY) This is a very good speech; it really does frame the issues in the debate in a convincing way. The problem is that most of the arguments this speech is based on are new in the 2AR, and hence doesn’t give the neg a chance to respond. One way you can sneak your new arguments by is to refer them to evidence read earlier in the debate, e.g. the stuff on the equity debate as well as Gibson-graham, the Monthly, and the Grossman evidence (see below for a discussion of this). You should also organize this speech, also, around 2AC structure. You should answer their error replication/case turn arguments, and make direct challenges on their alternative (this includes pointing out that the 2NR spent minimal time explaining the alt).

7/1/12 2AC: Gaochi -Needs to work a little on clarity -Speed is good, need to slow down during the tags -Making the right arguments (mindset shift argument on oil dependency) -Probably should've permed the CP, just to confuse neg. I don't expect that to work. 2NC c-x: Gaochi -Cannot really answer why Federalism is good. Joshenah also doesn't have a fundamental understanding of the literature. 2AR: Gaochi -Good impact calc on global warming impact, also good choice -Went for racism a little bit too, but that was good too. -I would be speaking a little bit faster.

7/2 rd 6 Edstrom 1n gaochy-good cx questions! you seem to be pretty fast, but I want you to focus on the tone you are using when you’re reading. there is a dramatic shift between tag and card, and I don’t know if increasing your pitch is making you more clear. more speed drills, put a pen in your mouth, start slower etc. if you would have gone a tick slower you would have been more clear and would not have had a minute left in the 1NC. good explanation of zizek. your personality in CX is great- so confident. good answers to 50 state fiat. be careful with grouping permutations- often times they have slight differences that could hurt you later in the debate. I’m glad you are extending your solvency arguments but you should spend more time on them.

TOurnament Rd 1 First of all, try to avoid asking vague questions during cross-ex like “why is heg good?” because it allows the other team to give the judge a nice flowery description of their side while wasting your c/x time. Also, keep on focusing on making your tags understandable, it’s important for faster paced debates that the judge is not having to struggle to make out the who and the when behind your arguments. Also, when using a video to try and develop your narrative about capitalism, you need to give an explanation of it so it’s connected to the rest of your arguments. Although you showed a good and relevant video, it runs somewhat tangent to the debate as a whole. Also, I noticed that you brought up new framework in the 2NC. Albeit you didn’t need it this time, but make sure to bring it up much sooner in the debate if you’re going to actually want to use it.

7/10

- Slow down!

- Why read cap and dedev? Most of their answer will respond to both. Especially the way you’re articulating the alternative (do nothing, collapse now better than collapse later).

- Use all your speech time. Bring more case cards than you need.

- Did they read a perm on cap? I didn’t flow it. Use that time for an overview.

- I like the cap doesn’t solve poverty narrative, just don’t spend too much time on it, especially when in the 1NR.

- Talk more about collapse inevitable. It gives you lots of leeway on your cap bad arguments. Cap good is their only response, which becomes a problem here.

- Read a no transition wars card.