Lin,+Joann


 * __ Practice Debate #4 __**
 * __Research Feedback - 1st set of cards from Wave #1 - 07/13/2012 - Comments by Tate__ **

Overall, I thought this was a very good effort for your first set of research. You had some good quality evidence.  A few broader comments:  1 - Be a bit wary of cards from the FAA. I am not telling you to avoid them all together, but just be aware that there may be some bias in regards to the FAA promoting the Next Gen project.  2 - This was only true for a couple of cards - cards that focus on one or two specific warrants in detail are much more useful than a paragraph that gives a laundry list of arguments without much warrant behind them. This was only true of your first couple of cards but it is worth stating.  Overall, very nice. I made very few tweaks to these cards before putting them in the master file. Keep up the good work! 

--I thought we had a rockin' CX of the 1AC. You had good questions, good follow-up questions based on Avi's answers, and you had a strong presence. --I am glad we have an overview on the CP and one that focuses on the dropped net-benefit. --We need to try to be a bit clearer when we are reading the text of the card. --Is there a card that says the permutation can't capture federalism? That is a pretty indepth debate in the literature. If the file has a card about why perm does not capture federalism, I would read it. --Good to group the args from the 2AC that are repetitive (States fail) - I would also focus on the fact that these cards are generic. I don't think they are specific to HSR. The cards you read in the 1NC are. You need to make that evidence comparison. Also, doesn't CP fiat solve the state bickering since the states adopt the same plan? --You did a great job building a wall of arguments in the 2NC on the CP. --I would like to see you utilize the 1NC cards a bit more on the line-by-line. --Impact the "states solve PPPs" - why is that card important? --I am not sure I understand your explanation of why the "housing market growing" card is important for you to gain traction. --The Petro/liberty impact on the case deserves more attention - this was a DRule that was dropped by the Affirmative. I would have liked for you to have done more with this - read an additional card and explain why it is a net-benefit to the CP (link card is about *federal* spending). --I missed where you said that the 1NR was going to handle Federalism. You definitely need to announce this. It kind of came out of the blue when the 1NR went for it - the only reason I knew it was not a mistake is that you and I had discussed it earlier. --I like our overview for the most part in the 2NR - all of this stuff needs to be kept. I think it is just a second step down from the initial framing. The initial framing of the debate is that you have a CP that solves for most/all of case and three net-benefits (Politics, Liberty, Federalism). I would like to see this 2NR with the CP on top with that overview starting the speech. Keep the overview on the DA and give it when you extend the DA. --I felt another sentence or two was necessary on the uniqueness extension on Politics. Go back to your uniqueness cards (both from the 1N and 1NR) and see if there are warrants you can flush out. One thing that probably should be spun is that their cards may just say that lawmakers want the Act to pass...the cards may not conclude that it will pass. The cards certainly are not taking into account Obama's ability to politically block it if he has pc. That needs to be drawn out more. --We need to isolate a few things to help protect you as a 2NR - you need to state that the permutation was not extended, you need to state that most of the 1AR was new (you did just do this with the states CP solvency), your states CP solvency cards are more specific than their generic states fail. --Redo: (1) Reorder with CP on top and put that initial framing mentioned above; (2) Some more rhetoric to protect 2NR as stated above; (3) more indepth on the uniqueness debate; (4) extend the dropped liberty DRule.
 * __Practice Debate #2 - Neg vs. Avi/Isabella - 07/13/2012 - Comments by Tate__ **

---Students were asked to create a five minute Negative block speech to extend an Obama Good Elections DA. Students were given the 1NC shell and a file of potential cards they could use for their extensions. They used their own 2ACs from the night before as the 2AC to answer when they gave the extension speech. YAY OVERVIEW!!! --pretty good job explaining why the disad solves warming better than the aff does, but explain why warming outweighs the economy -- be very careful about reading new impacts to a disad in the block – especially something as easily impact turned as proliferation. --Number or letter your arguments – just add a little more structure to how you answer it argument instead of a barrage of cards. Also makes it easier to differentiate between the args that you’re making --Oooo, evidence comparison—very good --Sound great—fast and clear
 * __Elections DA Negative Block Speech - 07/10/2012 - Comments by Robel__ **