Joann

--I thought we had some good moments in CX, but our very first question was not awesome. Instead of asking "What does your alt do?"....start with asking "Does the alt result in the plan?" "Does the alt result in any mechanism that interacts with the aviation industry?" --I think it is fine to not go for Economy or Warming in the 1AR. What I would like for you to do is to give reasons why this jettisons some of their link arguments. Are there other arguments that you can extend that hurts the link or impact to the K? They are subtlely saying that cap is the root cause of global warming - if you extend that warming is not happening, they can't claim that is an impact they solve. Utilize your kick-out to give you a time advantage but give a few more sentences to allow that kick-out to take away part of the offense of the K. --Good to have a card on the framework - I thought we needed more there. The rationale for why you need the framework is to weigh the hegemony advantage vs. the K impact. This needs to be clearer. --I would like for a bit different focus - I think more focus needs to be on capitalism is inevitable and transition away from capitalism is worse/violent. --Good pick up on the "vague alternatives" voter drop.. --I would not go for "utopian fiat" if there is a dropped "vague alts" arg. You don't want to be appear to heavy on theory cheap-shots. --You are currently answering the warming impact on the K, which you would not have needed to with a better kick out of the warming advantage. --I would like a more indepth reason as to why cap solves war.
 * __Practice Debate #10 - Aff vs. Vivienne/Trisha - 07/27/2012 - Comments by Tate__ **

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Generally ok – more of a stylistic thing, but you need to slow down and have a more varied inflection when you’re making analytics rather than reading cards – it makes it easier to flow and to process the arguments. 2) Recommended Drills: 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Value to life makes more sense at the top of the K flow with the other impact work. You need some sort of indict of their knowledge production in response to their evidence – it’s problematic for you if the aff is ahead on this debate. Improve the Petro/coercion argument – you need some explanation of why this is a moral obligation in order for it to be a credible reason to vote negative. Note that this sort of contradicts with the cap K. On case, try to choose a limited number of your best arguments and develop/explain them more fully – you did this well with the “markets self-correct” argument, so use that model more broadly. 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good use of evidence developing the K and case args in the 2NC. 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: Put your offense 1st in the 2nr! It’s fine to give your partner a portion of the debate to prep, but it should be an isolated portion of the debate that you don’t need to get to super early in your speech. Impact calc on the DA is something you need to prep yourself. Kick the K – you need to always kick out of arguments you’re not going for to avoid the aff doing things like what they did here (going for the perm to get extra offense). “empirically proven” seems to be a crutch phrase for you – make sure you only use it when you’re actually citing empirics. Impact your solvency arguments – I think you win some of the args you make here but you never explain their implications for the advantages – make sure you do that to get full weight of the argument. I think the K was potentially a better option to go for than elections. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Implement the changes described above and/or go for the K instead.
 * __Practice Debate #6 - Neg vs Vivienne/Trisha__ **** __- 07/23/2012 - Comments by Connor__ **


 * __Practice Debate #4__ **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">Overall, I thought this was a very good effort for your first set of research. You had some good quality evidence. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">A few broader comments: <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">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. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">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. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">Overall, very nice. I made very few tweaks to these cards before putting them in the master file. Keep up the good work! <span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
 * __Research Feedback - 1st set of cards from Wave #1 - 07/13/2012 - Comments by Tate__ **

--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). <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">--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. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">--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. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">--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. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">--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. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">--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__ **