Lab: JM
Email address: addschile <at> gmail <dot> com

Date of debate: 7/20

Debating on: T - increase = pre-existing - neg
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments: You had great depth on 2 important points - the bad cases their interpretation allows and reasonability. However, the caselist didn't exactly align with your articulation of the violation. The aff was untopical because it created a new program, but a bunch of cases you listed were bad because they dealt with new, unpredictable technology. Otherwise, good job!

Date of debate: 7/22

Debating on: impact calculus drill
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Great arguments about why secessionism turns prolif, and good incorporation of impact defense (MAD) into your answers of the other impact.

Date of debate: 7/22

Debating on: impact calculus - secessionism vs. India-Pakistan
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments: Again, nice job with internal impact defense (MAD solves India-Pakistan conflict). Arguing that secessionism worsened the conditions that could lead to war was also good. You could have argued about how secessionism makes India-Pakistan war more likely.

Date of debate: 7/27

Debating on: practice debate
Instructor/commentator: marissa
1AC- try to be more clear on the tags, at the beginning I had a hard time flowing your 1AC.
the 1AR was good- if you are going to put your eggs in the "we solve enough" basket (we only need to make the military more flexible), then you should answer their arguments about how SPS affects the military, like it bogs it down

Date of debate: 7/29

Debating on: practice debate vs Daniel/Haley
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: CX of the 1NC – your questions (especially the first line of questioning) are mildly confusing and a little bit unfocused. Spend time during the 1AC thinking about the questions that you want to ask and what you will get out of them.
2NC – good speech. It’s not always clear when you’re moving from one 2AC argument to another; make your signposting a little bit sharper.
This K seems to lack focus a little bit. It seems to boil down to threat construction. I’m not sure what the impact is or why the alternative resolves the impacts. It doesn’t seem like a very complex argument as it stands. You need more sophisticated arguments about why the affirmative’s methodology is flawed.
Your “turns case” arguments on the DA could be more complex – beyond just “we can’t focus on things like warming or other states’ rise in a world of US-Russia war.” Your timeframe argument also needs more of a warrant than “it’s immediate.”
2NR – excellent speech overall. I still think the above issues are important, but your level of explanation and argumentation are very good and I think you made the right strategic choice.
On solvency, you should explain why if you win that SPS fails it takes out the affirmative’s ability to access their impacts.
On heg, I don’t think you should go for the turn argument – you don’t have time to extend both that and your defensive argument(s) effectively. In this kind of 2NR, you need to pick one argument and really win it rather than trying to go for several. You are better about this on the warming flow.

Date of debate: 8/1

Debating on: practice debate - aff vs. Ivan / Rolando
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Good job reading the 1AC. 2 strategic questions: 1) why have the cards about replacing electricity and that being key to emissions when you also claim to replace oil (which is arguably another giant contributor to warming); 2) why read the card about NASA and the DOE? How does the plan mechanism relate to that? Good job in the 1AC CX. In the 1NC CX, it seemed like you got bogged down in the inevitability question. That’s a good point to make in CX, but once you’ve made it, go on! Nice job pointing out the lack of internal link for KORUS.

Your 1AR was a little too focused on the block arguments. There was a ton of ‘they said…’ stuff. In the case of so many DAs and stuff in the block, you need to hone in on a few of your positions and really blow them up by reading a few more cards. That puts the 2NR in a really bad position. As far as specific recommendations for doing this, I’d recommend a) spending less time indicting their communications turn on hegemony, b) spending less time on the CP (conditionality was good, but you don’t need to answer each solvency argument independently – answer their demonstration effect take-outs and say that OTG doesn’t solve either hegemony internal link), c) being more selective on the K (it was ironic that you said we should win a war against China and immediately said cede the political after that – I could tell you noticed the tension). The 2AC conceded the emissions take-out on case to take out the ozone DA – cross-apply that. Good job picking on argument on debris, but I think you picked the wrong one (no Russian hardening in the world of the plan, right?). Good job pressing the internal link on politics – I think that was the right choice.

Date of debate: 8/1

Debating on: 1AR
Instructor/commentator: Mulholand
Comments: Nice speed and clarity. I liked your explanation of the link uniqueness argument as taking out the link (rather than the uniqueness). You did a good job of extending a broad diversity of arguments. Now, I would work on cutting that back and making sure you impact/explain every argument you extend. For example - you said their link is about exploration not development. Why does this matter? How are they different? You also said heg solves the impact on the warming disad. How is this true? You said their evidence assumes high frequency transmissions but the plan would involve low frequency transmissions. Do you have a card that says that? Also - this is very minor - you didn't give the other half of the perm double bind on the K. Bottom line - focus on fewer arguments and extend them robustly. It's risky to concede that war with China is inevitable. I'm not sure SPS would be all that helpful (at least in the short term) if that's true, so be careful about that.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: neg vs missile defense
Instructor/commentator: Ken Strange
Comments: 1. this round should make it clear that it is always better to explicitly kick out of conditional positions that you are not going for. 2.the soft power DA could meld well with the K as part of the alt -- negotiate solutions rather than confront militarily, but to do so you cannot make the soft power key to hard power argument. 3. The coopted by the military argument on the K is risky because it may mean the alt will inevitably fail. For example, the soft power key to hard power argument may mean that the alt is the ultimate way of building up hard power responses, that the military will use the alt to become even stronger and more aggressive. 4. You need to be clearer on the argument that "if threats are real, it's only as a response to US aggressive policy." Explain more, give some historicproof of this etc. 5. It would be good if you could respond specifically to the threats the aff isolates -- either as not real or as a result of our aggressive policies. 6. If you are going to emphasize the case turn aspect -- the plan just makes others more aggressive -- you need to explain how that could happen in the context of the plan and answer why they don't either deter or preclude all these threats (see suggestion to Melissa on shift to cruise missles etc)
Arms racing, depressed trajectories, etc are likely responses to missile defense that could prove this in more tangible terms rather than the abstract generalities that you are arguing.

Date of debate: 8/8

Debating on: practice 2ncs
Instructor/commentator: Eli
-Good explanation / cards balance
-Nice job reading new DAs in the 2nc, but be more subtle about it! 1ars are still listening in the first 30 seconds of your speech. And link card to nationalism K is probably unnecessary
-Do more on the terminal impact to the K. Compare this impact with 1ac harms, presuming that they’ll win their argument at least in part
-Nice job explaining the importance of the alternative (ideology determines policy); spend more time explaining the alternative’s mechanism for changing things

Space weapons DA
-Impact assessment – not just description of difference
-Localize issues that appear many times, read a bunch of cards, and cross-apply
-Take their ‘satellite hardening solves the impact’ argument more seriously

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: Tournament Rd 4
Instructor/commentator: Lorelei
RFD: Given the aff's weakness on solvency and answers to the "even if they win heg sustainable" section of the heg debate, I vote neg.

Date of debate: 8/11

Debating on: Tournament rd 8 - SPS
Instructor/commentator: Charles

- On the whole, a very good speech. You do a lot of very good work on each level of the DA. I particularly like that you draw the distinction between the aff’s weaponization good arguments and the link that the plan would merely be *perceived* as weaponization.
- I think you’re banking too much on this new NASA study. It doesn’t *actually* prove that warming is false, and that’s a big impact to have to deal with. It would be nice if you had a more diverse set of arguments.
- The extension of Brooks and Wohlforth could be stronger. You need to list off all the external reasons that heg is sustainable, even in a world where the aff harms are true.

- Really good job on the DA. The only real problem here is that you end up being pretty repetitive by the end. I think you could get through this DA in 45 less seconds easily. Maybe even faster. It would be really nice if you had more time to develop your case answers.
- On heg, you again need to do more with this ‘heg sustainable’ argument. You are right, and it’s a devastating takeout, but you’re not developing it at all.
- The biggest issue for the 2NR is a lack of coverage on warming. You got enough ink there to be fine, probably, but it would be really nice to get a little bit more done.

I vote neg.

The neg conclusively wins the space militarization DA, which results in the most likely scenario for massive war, and which causes space debris that prevents the aff satellites from working. While I am very concerned about the inevitability of the global warming impact, I am not persuaded that extinction is 100% likely. So I am more willing to take my chances with the status quo.


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