Emma

Round 1
Judge: Jesse Speaker Position: 2A Comments:

__2AC__ Diversify your arguments on off case positions so you have more flexibility in your rebuttals i.e. only one DA means you can make more than 3 answers on it. This also means avoiding repetition like on the CP where you made the federal investment solvency deficit three times

Have the 2AR already in mind--you know their strategy hinges on winning utilitarianism for impact framing--so your answers on the DA should supplement a 2AR around the harms of utilitarianism--i.e. your 2AR explanation of dehumanization through an economic rationale seems contingent on beating the DA which means maybe more defense.

Make your case extension more offensive--not just answering their case D but articulating your impacts in a way that can be efficiently cross-applied into impact calculus on the DA

Make a perm on the CP

__2AR__ Imagine the first few sentences of your speech as what you would want the judge to write on the ballot if he or she voted for you--this means more comparative work rather than a re-articulation of your link

Even if the 1AR concedes some case arguments, don't ignore them--be resourceful and use other parts of the flow or give reasons why you still access the case

Articulate your impact as something systemic and ongoing rather than something that could happen in the future to better answer their probability claims

Round 8
Andrea judging aff v. JP and Josh

2ac- Add impact extensions on the case flows More on the heg impact defense- you cannot really say bipolarity is good, that is not the claim of the 1ac (in fact, it was the opposite)- just says heg IS sustainable and that there is no overstretch Go slower on 50 state fiat- esp if its right at the top of the CP- need pen time for your judge Make sure your transition between arguments is very clear- I missed the transition to the privatization CP Dedev is not a net benefit to the privatization CP Be louder in CX with your answers

2ar Presence before give speech- give your 2ar order with authority Your 2ar impact discussion needs to be comparison of terminal impact- not the IL story since they didn’t extend any case arguments If you have all that time- it should be going back to do more impact calculus on the DA--- really don’t need to go talk about solvency more- unless its more on why there is a solvency deficit to the CP Telling the "story" of the aff doesn’t get you further on the debate scoreboard--- if you have extra time, go back to one of the "nexus" questions in the debate

Round 9---July 26th---Linda

 * __2A Comments __**
 * 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: **Work on volume and emphasis.


 * 2) Recommended Drills: ** See above.


 * 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: **
 * Case debate
 * Don’t forget to extend your impacts!
 * Embedded clash – don’t say “they say.” Just reference their argument implicitly, and make your argument.
 * Ethanol DA
 * Redundancy – your analytical arguments, particularly about the “no link” debate, get repetitive – make your argument, and move on.
 * Non-unique
 * Transportation bill – you should read the “transportation bill non-unique” card, which should take out the disadvantage – it’s not a question of whether or not infrastructure investment is made, it’s a question of what kind of investment.
 * “Status quo solves” argument on the ports advantage – this also non-uniques the Ethanol DA.
 * States CP
 * Diversity of arguments – you spend way too long on the states counterplan, and this can be attributed to a lot of redundant cards – you can take out several of these cards.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Links to disadvantages – you need to make arguments that the counterplan links to both disadvantages – the politics DA and the Ethanol DA


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">You should read less cards on the States CP – they are pretty repetitive and redundant.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">More organization
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Put your offense (your case, specifically the advantage you want to go for) on top
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Uniqueness debate – make sure to spend more time on the “global warming is inevitable” debate – this is sort of the thesis of the 1AC, and the framing issue. It non-uniques their turns and proves it is try or die for the affirmative. I gave the same advice to the 1AR, but you really need to emphasize this in the 2AR.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Terrorism advantage
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Good strategy to go for this advantage, but make sure to extend your internal links as well.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">6) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Give your re-do with the above suggestions.

Judge: Arnett neg v Kenny and Sarah
 * Round 11**

1NC

Highlight case evidence a little more to increase the diversity of arguments Need more even coverage

1NR

TF-AFF-2100, etc. Good place to read it U-extend 1NC evidence before reading new evidence. More U evidence. Lots of time left vs Link turns-challenge U etc. need to protect self against offense. Do impact work together in the overview