Lab: RS
Email address: mcsweeneyadam <at> gmail <dot> com

Date of debate: 7-22

Debating on: Theory Mini-Debate
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
Adam – good 2AC – I like that you were clear and that you numbered your arguments, and had an interpretation for your Agent CPs bad argument. Good 2AR – you responded to the 2NR arguments well – but be sure to offensively frame your interpretation and explain what it is instead of defensively responding to their arguments. Make sure you use all your 2AR time! Take the time to explain what your interpretation is and why it’s better than their interpretation comparatively. You have the time in the 2AR (if you’re going for theory) to do impact calculus so make sure you take that further step.


Date of debate: July 27, 2011

Debating on: Tradeoff 2AC
Instructor/commentator: Varsha
Comments:
You did a good job attacking the various parts of the disad, but you can be a bit more targeted in your analysis. In particular, you should point out that the only part of the tradeoff disad that talks about space is the card saying it's expensive -- so if you win any other massive spending is coming in the status quo, that should trigger their link. You start to make this argument but remember, you're debating BMD, not shuttles, so make sure your arguments are all specific to that. Other than that -- you explain your heg arguments like a link turn but in reality, they are internal link comparisons. Clarify why you access heg more.

Date of debate: 7/29

Debating on: Practice Debate 7/29
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
Adam – I liked that you read case arguments in the 1NC in addition to the kritik – so that you can mitigate aff offense in a world where you go for the K. Be careful about not double-turning yourself – you say that the plan causes more prolif – and then say that prolif is bad because it destroys hegemony. Also, number the 1NC, or at least organize it better by flow (not just all on solvency) because as it is now – it doesn’t seem very organized or like part of a strategy. In the cross-ex of the 1NC you need to have a better answer to the question about topical cases – being able to create a vision of the topic for the judge is important, and 1NC cross-ex is a point when you can emphasize that. Try not to take prep for the 1NR – use all of that prep time efficiently so you don’t have to give the 1AR time to prepare. Great job using the 1NR case debate as a way to get links in-roads on the link debate on the kritik. Go a step further than just saying that their advantages are hype – be sure to impact those arguments. Also, good use of cross-ex answers as links to the kritiks too.

Date of debate: 8/1

Debating on: Aliens Practice Debate
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
Adam – I’m not entirely sure about the utility of the 4 new impact cards you read on the case – you should extend the 1AC impacts and use new cards to respond to 1NC arguments. You also need to be clearer on the Word PIC and a few other part where you’re making multiple analytics and be sure to separate your arguments. I especially was unsure about the permutations on the counterplan – you might just want to make a permutation do the counterplan and a permutation do both argument and move on, or at least slow down for the permutation texts in the 2AC. You need to be sure to explain the arguments you go for in the 2AR more. For example, the permutation and the textual competition arguments need to be fleshed out more and you need to impact them (explain why it is that if you win the textual competition argument, you win the round) because right now you’re just answering 2NR arguments.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Round B
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments:
Never start the 2ac on case by reading a card, especially a complicated, non-traditional case like yours. And that card was waaay too long. Highlighting that card down (maybe not reading it at all?) and doing more big-picture explanation instead of continually referring to non-responsive arguments would have freed up more time. You need some offense to defend your T interpretation and evidence to defend it. Use clearer tag lines – for instance, label the theory ‘international agent CPs bad’ – that clarifies things for everyone. When you realized you were in danger of dropping coercion, you should have cut off the last few arguments on politics. It’s much better to poorly answer 2 positions than to drop one entirely.

Nice job trying to pull out a debate that looked to be against you by bringing up an issue external to topicality. You need to make comparative impact arguments, however – why the intelligencism(sp?) turn outweighs topicality. I thought you were in a bit of a position to do that given the 1AR arguments: T trades off with substance, and there’s no impact to ground loss or unfairness in this debate because of disclosure. You should have explored the nexus of these 3 arguments in much more depth in the 2AR. As far as specific recommendations go, to win on T impact take-outs / impact turns, you need some sort of an impact framework. If I conclude that your aff is unfair, I’m not going to vote that T was a waste of time, so you need some sort of standard for determining whether what happened in the debate was fair or not – like reasonability. Also, I’m not sure the intelligencism stuff was explained well enough in the 1AR to justify that much 2AR extrapolation – make sure that you and your partner are on the same page.


Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Interlab Practice Debate D
Instructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
2AC: needs to get together a consistent narrative that acts to continue the 1AC narrative, an aff like this requires Should put up a fight on FW cause a simple defense of the plan does not make much sense given the advs. Cap good is inconsistent with the Aff, (the Zimmerman 1AC impact card is a cap bad card), should tailor the 2AC strat around a permutation and attacks on the alternative. Even if you're going to impact turn you need to diversify your responses. Need to actually respond to the Contact DA if you're going to defend the plan. Should try to exploit the Cap K v. Free Trade tension to your adv.

2AR: Need to go for more offense on T, such as the overlimits argument or at least go for a reasonability argument

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: neg vs ssp
Instructor/commentator: Ken Strange
Comments: 1. Ditch the CP - it gets yur spending link, doesn't solve most of the case, has no net benefit. Something unlikely to be turned that can take 2ACtime. 2. Spending A. You need to do more to make this a viable 2NR option -- alternative to going for the K, because it doesn't fit with the K. Some more time on the case besides solvency and folding case impacts into the DA would help -- e.g. DA takes out heg and econ so warming answers are important.
B. As explained after the round the perception, Fed over-react with interest rates, etc evidence in 1NR would make a much better story in 1NC.

Date of debate: 8/11

Debating on: Round 7
Instructor/commentator: Chander
Comments:
1nc you double turn – the Schmitt argument says we need to otherize and alienate them – then you read a sci fi bad arg that says you otherize
2ac should have extended logocentric though bad and that alien languages are critical - that language is inherently maleable those cards answer T brightline arguments and fuel reasonability - the third contention explicitly states language is inherently interpretive
always make a perm DO BOTH – you ONLY make intrinsicness arguments on BOTH flows
Case – you do a fairly decent job on case – better answer of Schmitt
2NC C-X – ROFLCOPTER you just stole the c-x 1:30 in
Block
DOUBLE TURNNNN – shmitt security good args and alien otherization bad args yo!!!
2nc on T
not a very clear division between the two flows – got messy
1ar
should have extended functional competition – the neg block doesn’t respond to this at all
should have gone for the double turn – impact that
okay, you have a conceded cap scenario on heg – impact that; also you need to provide uniqueness which isn’t there
on t, need to answer you don’t meet your own interpretation and that there’s a t version of your case
I think you have several good arguments on the education analysis on case, and they’re certainly true – however, you have to technically on the flow answer some of their arguments
NEGATIVE TEAM SHOULD NOT TALK LOUDLY DURING THE 2AR
RFD:
Neg wins.
1AR doesn’t extend an interpretation on topicality which is problematic because even if you’re right on the standards debate, it’s the only interpretation.

Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:


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!