Gabriel

Round 9 (Mara) - try taking a large breath and speaking continuously until you are about to run out of air, then breathe and repeat. This will help you cut down on the amount of "filler" breaths you're taking (i.e., right now you're replacing "uh/um/like" with breathing more often than you need to) and improve your fluency - your 2AC is full of strategic arguments, but you should try to be more efficient on case

Round 5 (Peyton) 2AC

2AR
 * Work on smoothness – you sound a little like you’re trying to speak faster than you can
 * Generally good arguments and diversity for each flow


 * Need to justify why reasonability is a better framework than competing interpretations – the “race to the bottom” argument needs to be explained and impacted – what is it? Why is it bad for debate? What does it mean if you win reasonability?
 * Want to try to tie your 2ar arguments to the 1ar to make it seem less new – also I’d start with an argument about why the extensive 2nr development justifies extreme leniency on affirmative explanation
 * On standards I think you’re playing good defense to theirs but not enough on offense—if you don’t win reasonability then you need an offensive argument for why your interpretation is better, whether that’s aff flex/innovation, or education etcetera.
 * Good pointing out that limits is largely debated on the impact level and not the link level

Round 3 (Tripp)
 * 2nc was really good - go faster and talk about more warrants, though ||
 * locality not really a good solvency argument for states - doesn’t answer coordination or conflict, just about whether states could actually build the HSR ||
 * cant just say "perm links because includes plan" - must explain the link to the plan ||
 * too many filler words - especially at beginning of the 2nr ||
 * great analysis of start impact in the 2n4 ||
 * go in as much depth on cp solvency as on the start impact - DESCRIBE what the states will do to cooredinate and stuff ||
 * no underviews ||
 * great analysis of start impact in the 2n4 ||
 * go in as much depth on cp solvency as on the start impact - DESCRIBE what the states will do to cooredinate and stuff ||
 * no underviews ||
 * go in as much depth on cp solvency as on the start impact - DESCRIBE what the states will do to cooredinate and stuff ||
 * no underviews ||
 * no underviews ||

Round 2: (Eli) 2AC: dont read cards on case if you can cite 1AC evidence effectively, it's repetitive Use your 1AC evidence more effectively throughout the 2AC More argument diversity in the 2AC - try not to repeat arguments or read mulitple cards saying the same thing