Lab: KM
Email address: animalgirlster <at> gmail <dot> com

Date of debate: 7/20

Debating on: Helium 3 2AC
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn and Rob
Comments:
Good job with efficiency. You made up time that you could use in other places. Ideally you would add some comparison arguments. The "nasty gas" argument can probably go. Great "even if" argument about the need to pursue to keep up with China. You can group the last two arguments and just read the card you read against the number 4. Prioritize - for most of their arguments, it's good to dispose of them quickly, but the #1 could have used a bit more.

Date of debate: 7/22

Debating on: T Clash Drills
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
It was a pretty well developed t violation. I think you had a good diversity of reasons to prefer.
Instead of intent to define say precision. That way if they read a card with an intent to define, then you can say why your card is more precise.


Date of debate: 7/26

Debating on: Politics Clash Drills
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
-- You need to sit on your args a little bit more. You need to follow up what you said with answers to their args.
-- Refer back to the 1ar a litlle bit more.
--You need more than impx calc
-- devt ceilning needs to be that partisanship up now.
-- You need to explain that partisanship high now.

Date of debate: 8/1

Debating on: Politics 2ac
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
-- Good job answering all parts of the disad -- no one else answered the impact.
-- Just put econ in the tag of the no pc card. Healthcare was very long ago.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Practice Debate A
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
-Try to be a little bit more clear on the case debate in the 1NC – and flag when you switch flows so the judge can catch all of your arguments. You are very fast, but you also need to be sure to slow down a touch on analytics – because when you make 3 in a row, it’s difficult to flow.
- for the 1NR – if you are going to call their bluff of undercovering topicality, you might want to consider spending more time on it in the 1NR. Spend more time answering the two arguments that the 2AC actually does make (we meet/reasonability) – and I think you’ll force the 1AR to spend more time because topicality becomes a viable threat for the 2NR. On spending, I think your impact calculus was very good, but you can do a better job addressing the uniqueness question of NASA spending happening in the status quo. Also, when kicking out of disads, be careful that they don’t have offense. I think that the affirmative’s hardening of satellites probably resolves the debris arguments, even if debris is non-unique like you concede.

Date of debate: August 3, 2011

Debating on: Practice Tournament Round
Instructor/commentator: Varsha
Comments:
2ac – Good time allocation. I liked the no spillover argument on the Russia flow in combination with why oyu access global economic collapse. Point out the impact takeouts on case also take out their oil disad. Try to diversity a little bit on the K – you do a good job with warming but leveraging that other threats are real, that heg impact turns their K, etc. might be more strategic than playing the defensive line as much as you did.

Be able to cite authors not from the IPCC in X-X.

2ar – I think it’s good you went for the permutation with policy action as the NB. You should extend an impact to cede the political that’s external from your 1AC because if they win the link debate, it calls into question a lot of the validity of your 1ac impacts. Saying it would result in neocon takeover which turns the K is probably a good way of going about it. It was also strategic to extend warming like you did, judge choice.



Date of debate: 8/10

Debating on: Debate 5
Instructor/commentator: Chander
Comments:
1NC – very clear and persuasive; I like the way you read – lots of people don’t emphasize the warrants, so that was quite nice.

2AC – you were very fast and very clear – but towards the end you become too quiet during the cards – go a bit louder
You spend too little time on case in the 2AC – you have more than enough time and you’re plenty fast enough – you should read more case cards and read less args on politics and the ozone DA
Warming – you need to read a card on not past the tipping point; their evidence is quite good
Heg – you need a card to answer their Layne evidence as well as another good heg ! cuz in the 1AC you only read Kagan which their 1NC author directly indicts

2NC C-X
I think you spend too much time on this issue – this is more or less irrelevant for this debate – or at least it’s not as key

2NC
You should read more cards on the heg debate – get more extensions for the stuff
You should have extended the layne stuff – I don’t see a good response in the 2AC on off shore balancing

1NR
Need to read more cards. I think the 1NR going on the CP didn’t add anything – seemed very repetitive and wasn’t particularly productive.
You need to read more cards on the Aerospace.
Also 2AC didn’t read conditionality…
Kick out of politics better – conceding uniqueness alone doesn’t do anything because they can extend link turns (though I don’t think they read any this round) – you should extend impact defense or logical policy maker because that proves the DA should not even be considered.

1AR
Should make analytical arguments that answer the prolif stuff too – nonuniques, some impact defense
Hsu indict on heg flow against their transition now argument doesn’t make sense – Hsu says none of those can solve warming not that none can solve military readiness
You NEED to have a different card other than kagan – kagan indicts are pretty good

Warming – don’t answer the not anthropogenic/ time frame stuff – I’m assuming you gys aren’t going for warming



RFD:
Low point win for the aff.
The aff sort of triple turns themselves —arguing nuclear war turns ozone AND ozone destruction is good – to reverse warming; the permutation causes the MOST ozone destruction.
Warming is also the only existential risk – nuclear war wouldn’t actually cause extinction, so reversal of warming through ozone destruction is the only way for me to solve humanity.
2NR needs to answer ozone depletion is good – necessary to solve warming.


Date of debate: 8/11

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

2AC
Good speech overall, but a couple small things that could definitely be improved. First, there are way too many new cards on the case. You should use your 1AC more to deal with these arguments. As it is, you can’t really develop the arguments. Even when you do use the 1AC evidence it’s very quickly extended rather than discussed. Second, your answer to the space militarization DA seem a little puzzling. Your offense assumes actual space militarization, but there isn’t really a link to this. The neg’s argument is that the plan will be perceived as weaponization – not that it actually is.

2AR
- This speech is very much on the right track, but just doesn’t emphasize things in quite the right ways. First and most importantly, you need to win the global warming advantage far more conclusively. The entire strategy is to capitalize on the 2NR’s lack of ‘SQ sustainable’ arguments there. But in order to do that you have to crush the ‘warming not a threat’ claims, not just moderately defeat them.
- On the DA, the 2AR needs to take a step back from the strict line by line and re-assert the basic premise of the affirmative. There is too much extension of non-winning arguments on the DA and not enough time devoted to simply winning a couple modest takeouts. You spend a lot of time trying to win every 1AR argument, and you make a lot of clearly new arguments. I don’t think this is necessary. The uniqueness and no link arguments, if well developed, could probably put enough of a dent in the DA to get the case over the hump.

RFD:
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:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:

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!