Lab: CO
Email address: green.adam29 <at> gmail <dot> com

Date of debate: 7/19

Debating on: SSP Clash Drill
Instructor/commentator: Crowe
Comments:
Most of the time, you should put the case before the DA. If you drop the case, you're kinda toast. If you drop or undercover the DA, at least you have the case to levy against it.
Work on being more efficient. For example: you don't have to say "now onto the uniqueness" when giving a 2AC on the DA. Just make the uniqueness argument and we'll know what's up.
Definitely stand up for future speeches.
Start off a touch slower to establish clarity, then speed up.
Work on ratcheting up the speed of your analytic arguments (while ensuring you're clear). When you got to the case, you slowed down substantially, and that should be a similar speed.
Great job on the line-by-line aspect, just work on referencing the other team's argument more cleanly and efficiently.
2AR: The 2NR didn't really get to the case, so it should be quick and easy to extend that. Spent too much time here. One way to build that time back in is to entirely eliminate the overview you gave.
It'll come with more argument familiarity as the debates continue, but I'd like to see this 2AR be a bit faster!

Date of debate: 7/20

Debating on: Clash drill - SPS aff warming adv vs space mil d/a - 2AR
Instructor/commentator: Zack Elias
Comments:
-efficiency
-need to explain warrants behind args
-comparison of argument/evidence

Date of debate: 7/25

Debating on: Agent CPs Bad 2AR
Instructor/commentator: Rob
Comments: Nice job being sure to access both fairness and education - that's very important in any theory or topicality debate. It would help to pick which one of those you are most ahead on and compare the two (i.e. fairness outweighs education, education outweighs fairness, etc.). You probably want to talk about topic education as an impact to your argument that the Neg's interp makes the debate about implementation rather than effects/substance. Give an impact to this argument that is "reject the argument" since the voting issue is a tough sell. For the voting issue, try to think of a reason other than "sets a precedent;" maybe something along the lines of "the damage is done, they coopted the entire 1AC so we couldn't read our best substantive arguments."

Date of debate: 7/29

Debating on: SPS neg
Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:

1NC
- Don’t say ‘USFG’ in the CP text. Write it out.
- You have good volume and pace and intonation, but could be a little bit clearer. There’s a tiny bit of a hum in the background when you’re talking.

1NR
- Don’t take prep time for the 1NR. Understandable for the first debate, but try to avoid it for the future.
- Your extension on the case involves far too much simple repetition of the 1NC and not enough engagement with the 2AC. It would be better to pick a smaller number of arguments and actually go into depth. And similarly, you read too many cards that aren’t clearly applied to anything in particular. They may be useful, but the block needs to really clarify what’s going on.
- I don’t understand the utility of the cards you read on the heg advantage. Why does Japan developing now prove that the US shouldn’t take the lead?
- On the DA, you need to directly engage the 2AC arguments. You mostly just extend 1NC arguments. But you need to respond clearly to each 2AC response.
- General thing to work on for the 1NR: make sure every single thing you say is a direct response to a 2AC argument, or is an extension of a 1NC argument that doesn’t just tell me what was said, but goes beyond and DEVELOPS it.

Date of debate: practice debate

Debating on: aff
Instructor/commentator: Alex
Comments:
2AC - blow off that topicality argument. its not a viable 2NR and you definitely don't need to spend over 1:30 on it.
otherwise good coverage
line by line on case - reference the argument you are going to answer and not only will the judges flow be cleaner, but it will ensure you don't miss any.

2AR - impact solvency deficits in relation to the disad impact. without an impact external to the case, its less important to simply extend the impact and far more important to compare the magnitude, probability, and timeframe of the internal links to the impact and why you access the case and they don't/can't turn it.

Date of debate: August 3

Debating on: Neg -- Practice Debate 3
Instructor/commentator: Kaczmarek
Comments: Other than the kritik, your off case arguments were kind of underdeveloped in the 1NC. If I had been the aff I might have guessed from the coverage that the kritik is the argument your partner plans to go for in the 2NR. It is better if you don't make it quite that obvious. The 1AR undercovered a couple of your underdeveloped arguments, but to go for them then might have left a lot of gaps. It is better to set up a negative strategy so that there are two viable ways to win the debate going into the 2NR. I'm not sure there was really a second viable way to win coming out of the 1NC.

Date of debate: August 9

Debating on: Rd 2
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
1nr –
Your link explanation on the space mil DA is weak. I think that’s in part bc you’re so time pressured, but you need more of a warrant/story why only the us will cause it.
I also think you need to spin some story there why this links to plan and not CP, since I’m a little dubious.


RFD
No need to extend answers on Security or coercion – they kicked out of both of these in 2nr

Theory arg
The cp isn’t new, they just kicked a plank. The conditionality debate would resolve this. I think you might get the perm, but that still links to the arms race DA.

The neg wins that the PPWT part of the CP resolves much of the potential lash out that could occur in the SQ. I’m not sure if the neg would have won this debate otherwise (it’s a very yes/no debate with little argument resolution that would require me to read cards). As a result, the neg simply needs to win a risk of a link on the lash out arguments (and subsequently turning the case and denying solvency).
In order to decide the link, since it is also a yes/no question, I am forced to read a slew of cards.

Iran may not be able to proliferate
The aff evidence is incredibly short on Iran’s BMD intention. The neg ev is a bit better on the question of whether Iran could ever structurally pose a threat. As a result, I feel the potential Iran threat is minimal to none. I presume that the CP would also resolve some of this – although that is an assumption given the lack of specific discussion on that in the final rebuttals.

NK lash our or no
The best Il arg that the af has is based off of Nk’s irrationality ( or at least which is handed to me when I ask for the ev). I can’t wrap my mind around how this resolves the debate in the aff’s favor, given the neg args that Nk would proliferate for fear of losing its ability to attack.

THE DA doesn’t prove a source of offense for the aff. I believe that countries are more likely to lash out as a ruslt of BMD because they feel they need to use them or lose them. I may believe that in the squo they might have attacked regardless, but the CP resolves those concerns. I’m unconvinced, in this debate, that the aff can deter aggressors in a way that negotiations through a treaty would not resolve.

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: Rd 3
Instructor/commentator: Campbell
Comments:
Loved the debate/the block. 2NC on the case, especially, was really great and the 1NR's extension of the MIRV turn was ballsy but good in conjunction with the politics debate. Good 2NR choice not to go for politics and just go for the dropped case turns, which easily outweigh and turn the case on several levels. Not much of a risk of the case after the 2NR, either. Tough debate for the aff as the neg got really in depth on the case; 1AR time allocation was an issue that presented problems for the 2AR.


Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: Tournament Rd 4 1N
Instructor/commentator: Mulholand
Comments: In the 1NR, you should say that conditionality is good (in addition to making your "no link" argument that you haven't advanced multiple contradictory worlds, since the 1AR could say that 1 conditional option is bad). I think you want to spend a bit more time establishing the link to your spending disadvantage - try to find cards saying lunar colonization (and development of LSP, mining of helium 3, etc) would be really expensive. You also probably want to invest a little more time kicking the space mil DA to make sure they can't access any offense on "plan key to solve miscalc that will happen in the squo" - even if the plan makes it worse, you should also establish that there's no risk of miscalc now.
RFD:
This debate was very close. If either side is able to more effectively argue either timeframe outweighs or try or die, that could swing the debate. That said, I come down Neg in this one. The primary reasons for this are: the status quo can solve the threats the Aff references, the link happens faster than the link turn, and the disad turns the case. To solve the first problem, the 2AR should choose 1 impact (instead of extending a bunch) and explain why it’s really fast and can’t be solved by anything other than doing the plan now. To address the second problem, the 2AR needs to tie the jobs link turn to some sort of perception argument that stimulus would boost investor/consumer confidence in the short term, rather than quickly sparking another ratings downgrade. To address the third problem, the 2AR needs to explicitly answer the Neg’s claim that economic collapse causes us to cut off funding for colonization.

Date of debate: 8/10

Debating on: Debate 5
Instructor/commentator: Chander
Comments:
I vote aff.
Given the lack of warranting in the 2NR, the counter plan provides very little uniqueness. OST not solving is a consistent argument that goes unanswered.
Space weaponization is inevitable – their McDonnal evidence is quite good that PLA military journals reveal Chinease weaponization regardless of US action, and even the negative’s Zhang evidence demonstrates that militarization is inevitable (as per c-x.) Given the result of the inevitability debate, it becomes difficult for the negative to get offense.
The hegemony countermeasures turn ultimately is inevitable as well because, while the links are specific to BMD, 1) the Dolman evidence is good that hegemony will check any escalation – the 2NR doesn’t extend enough warrants to make the heg takeouts viable and 2) the Zhang evidence specifically says that China will seek BMD regardless of US actions, just that there is a potential tradeoff between the two nations’ capacities for space dominance.

Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:





EXAMPLE

Date of debate: June 23
Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!