McClellan,+James

Overall, I thought you had a very solid effort in this first set of cards. Some of the key things I wanted to point out from my side comments: 1 - It is hard to explain why some of these cards just weren't quite all-star. I think the primary problem is that many of your cards may be from relatively short PR bites from the FAA. The cards state a lot of reasons why NextGen is good but they do not really go in-depth on those reasons. My first suggestion is to try to find longer articles that devote entire paragraphs to different warrants about why NextGen works. 2 - Be wary of FAA cards. A lot of these cards almost just seemed to be cards of the FAA describing the Next Gen product. It is like someone working in the White House describing why Obama is a good president. Although that White House spokesperson probably has indepth knowledge of the Obama presidency, they are likely biased in that information. The FAA would never say that a technology that they are eventually rolling out is bad. 3 - Avoid the 1996 cards. :) Keep up the good work - I am glad to see that your tags all are attempting to include nice, specific warrants!  __**Practice Debate #2**__
 * __Research Feedback - 1st set of evidence from Wave #1 - Cards due on 07/10 and feedback given on 07/13 - Comments by Tara__**

--I did think that James had a good 1NR from yesterday, especially for the first practice debate. --I am glad that James took this exercise very seriously. He asked questions throughout the day about different ways to improve on some of the areas I isolated. --Remember to still focus on your clarity - the first few seconds need to be almost conversational speed. You need to build up into your speed. --I am glad that we had an overview on our politics DA tonight. It was a bit wordy but we will get there. There will be a lecture next week on how to write overviews. --I thought our case debate was a bit light. Although I asked for more on politics, I thought we lost too much ground on the economy flow. It is a difficult balance. :) One area that we could have gotten another card read on the case extension was just to clean up our word economy. --Overall, nice redo!
 * __Rebuttal Redo from Practice Debate #1 - 07/12 - comments by Tara__**

--It is always difficult to know all of the norms/expectations for "paperless" but give your speech immediately to your opponents once you call an end to prep time. We gave our roadmap, etc. all before we gave the flashdrive over. It is just common practice to try to cut down on the "down time" that happens in the debate. --You have great speed and volume. Good clarity. You are easy to flow. :) --Minor but take out the label of "turn" on the internal link on the Elections DA - I know the DA turns one of the Aff advantages but you can start that discussion in the block. That card by itself is not a turn so it is a bit odd to have it there. --I love that we were thinking in regards to the China alternate causality card (means you solve Warming since the DA sparks a global treaty on Warming - plan is only domestic) but I would not have that card in the 1NC shell. I would read that on case against the warming advantage so it is clearer what you are doing with that argument. --Good diversity of case defense on the advantages in the 1NC --I know this is the first round of the year on the topic AND you had to do a lot to help the 2NC during his speech but really try not to take prep time for the 1NR. :) --I am glad that our case extension in the 1NR was very evidence intensive! However, I would like more argumentation from you, not just card reading. See redo comments. --REBUTTAL REDO - Please pretend that Ari did not read any cards on this advantage. I think it will be easier for you to do this redo with a clean slate of just the 1NC args and the 2AC answers: (1) I would like for you to be a bit more clear in your line-by-line on the case arguments - for example, you had me group all of the cards that said "HSR is key to solving the economy" - the problem is that all of those arguments are distinct internal links - your 1NC did a really nice job answering many of these internal links - I would like for your 1NR to keep that specificity going; (2) I would like for you to extend by cite and explain with 1 or 2 sentences some of the key case cards that were read in the 1NC - we really just answered 2AC arguments, instead of trying to win the 1NC arguments; (3) I would like a small overview on the Elections DA - at least give me some impact calculus; (4) I thought we needed to do much more on Politics - we need to read more cards.
 * __Practice Round #1 - Negative vs. Jennifer/Kushal - Comments by Tara__**

---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. --Put impact calculus at the top (not sure if they were supposed to or not for the purposes of this speech) --Adjust your body so I can see your face when you speak – just try to move the computer a little off to the side if you have to use a stand that’s a little too tall --Good signposting --Don’t read an alt cause to warming – that’s also your disad impact. It MIGHT be ok in this instance – just take a second to explain why it takes out the aff’s internal link, but not the disad’s --Maybe a little nit-picky – try being a little more still when you spread. --In general, be very careful about reading new impacts to a disad in the block – especially something as easily impact turned as proliferation.
 * __Elections DA Negative Block Speech - 07/10/2012 - Comments by Robel__**