Lab: QQ
Email address: ael2012 <at> gmail <dot> com

Date of debate: July 20

Debating on: Warming impacts - speech redos
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
start impact calculus by describing your impact first.
good embeded comparison - better with structure.
access TF by saying the try or die is more important

take 2 - better and quite good - try to include cites in real life and ideally a bit more evidence comparison.

Date of debate: 7/26

Debating on: Conditionality 2AR
Instructor/commentator: Charles
I think that conditionality is acceptable enough that you want to leverage more substantive arguments first, rather than emotive appeals.

Try to be a little bit louder. I can definitely hear you, but I think you'd have a little bit more ethos and persuasive appeal if you spoke more forcefully.

Meta-issue: try to integrate the counter interpretation into the debate more. Don't just go for it at the end, use it throughout. Identify how it mostly avoids your offense and mostly solves their offense.

I would be a little more generous. It's not true that conditionality = simply spreading people out. I think you'll be more persuasive if you admit that there are SOME reasonable elements of conditionality.

You're a bit repetitive on making the 'research before the round is key' stuff. It would be better to extrapolate off that argument, rather than just repeat it.

You could do more to explain why having conditional CPs in the debate is worse for aff ability to debate than other things they'd talk about.

The 'decision making' argument would be a perfect place to integrate your c/i. It clearly solves the 'SQ is always a logical option' argument.

Finally, don't say their interpretation is arbitrary. While BOTH your interp and their's is arbitrary, your's is probably more. You need to justify why it's okay to be a little arbitrary in this case.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Practice Debate B
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn
2AC – Good line-by-line on warming, although you stopped signposting on the other case flows. Don’t drop the abiotic oil argument – it’s not the same as backstopping. Good analytical arguments and argument diversity, although your arguments are a bit brief. You would actually be better off making fewer arguments and developing them a little more. There’s no point to making 6 different perms. Good job starting slow and speeding up. Hard numbering your arguments would help a lot.
Before the 1NR – Never ask about a DA that’s not in the order!
2AR – There’s no need to go to case flows that the 2NR did not get to. Put the CP before the DA because you need a solvency deficit and you need to argue that the perm solves.

Date of debate:

Debating on: Practice Debate Round 4
Instructor/commentator: Miranda
2AC – Wow, that was a very good 2AC. You covered all of the off case positions well and used analytics to your advantage. Be careful on case, because I think some of your groupings, especially on the energy advantage, make your coverage a bit spare. Additionally, some of the arguments on the stem counterplan don’t appear to have warrants; make sure you always explain your arguments fully. This could just be a function of my flowing, though. It’s occasionally tough to flow your analytics, so make sure you pause between different points or do something else to indicate that you’re moving on. I noticed you were out of breath at the end of your speech – always drink water before you give the speech, and that will probably help. I used to have the same problem and it worked for me.
2AR – The 2AR was excellent, especially on the case debate. You were correct to kick out of the warming advantage in the 2AR, and allocated your time on the other advantage appropriately in order to sufficiently win it. The 2AR could have been improved with a little more defense on the politics DA – while your impact calc strategy is good, you didn’t answer the WTO impact very well and the negative is winning a significant risk of the DA. Invest some more time into the “no political capital now” argument and you will be in a very good position.

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: tournament rd #3 property rights neg
Instructor/commentator: Charles

- Very good job on the DA and case. You were quick, efficient, and did a good job developing the arguments.
- In a few places you say things like “there’s no warrant to their evidence, prefer the specificity of our evidence.” This doesn’t advance the argument; it’s just the pot calling the kettle black.
- The stuff on the K was not super helpful. I know that’s just your partner giving you stuff to do, but that time could have been better spent.


I think the aff just gives up too much on this counterplan. Given the relative paucity of 2AC responses, the rebuttals would need to do a lot to convince me there is a significant solvency deficit. The only aff argument extended in the 2AR is the claim that we’re going to run out of fossil fuels, but this doesn’t really make sense. We’ll run out of fossil fuels several decades from now – but the counterplan uses them to create a new energy source. Which means we won’t run out of fossil fuels. The most useful entry point for aff offense would be the general ‘property rights good’ arguments, but those are not cleanly distinguished in any aff speech.

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: round 4
Instructor/commentator: Chander
voted Aff
CP solves warming – the 2nr is framed around warming as the central issue – you double cover warming on the CP and go for it on case defense. This is problematic because with so little ink on the heg advantage, the aff is going to kick warming and go for the heg advantage instead.

The disad link is severely mitigated by the 2nr’s concession that the aff only pays for 1 demonstration, and private companies take care of it from there on out. You do get a small risk of a perception link argument.

Resolving the econ turns heg/ heg turns econ debate is a little tough because neither rebuttal answers the I/L of the other, no rebuttal does I/L comparison or timeframe comparison as to which is triggered first.

To resolve this, I go to the solvency debate to determine if the aff really does only happen by 2030 – that card only says however by then to solve warming, SPS will have to be scaled up significantly. Instead, their NSSO evidence is quite good that they can solve by 2012. Thus, I think hegemony prevents massive escalation of nuclear war and sovles the disad given the severely mitigated link.

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: Round 1
Instructor/commentator: Sears
Comments: I vote aff on perm do the CP. I don't think it is written competitively against this plan text. The neg needs to explain why the aff's plan text forces them to defend satellite based solar power systems, as opposed to one on the Moon. I think the aff could do a better job spinning the neg's solvency evidence as support for the permutation. I thought the neg should have gone for the case links to the OST DA that the 2AC read.

Date of debate: 8/10

Debating on: Round 5
Instructor/commentator: Campbell
Block organization was a little bit funky and probably could have been more focused. Think you spread yourself out a little much on the K. 1AR was pretty good but probably too involved on case with some more time necessary on some arguments on the K like the role of the ballot stuff, especially. This debate was tough to decide because their was much description of each team's evidence and little comparison between rebuttals. Ultimately, while the neg is winning some compelling link arguments, especially on environment, I think that the aff impacts have been justified empirically, especially the resource wars scenario and some hegemony stuff. This becomes somewhat of a tie break in the permutation debate, since I'm insure what is better - complete rejection and a more epistemological focus or use of the state to achieve a practical solution. Ultimately, I vote aff on the permutation because I don't think the negative has a very persuasive answer to the Guzzini evidence - rejecting security might be good, but if that rejection ignores realism altogether the alternative might be even worse then the status quo. The Bilgin evidence was also persusasive - neg, you should be attacking these pieces of evidence more and explaining why your links/alt disprove them. This combines persuasively with their resource wars scenario and some heg claims to form a NB to the perm that outweighs any of the impacts/turns of the K.

Date of debate: 8/11

Debating on: Tournament round #8
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 1NR – Good job, but I think the block strategy has some problems – it’s really too much for you to take both the CP and coercion. You could save some time by not describing everything the CP does at the top – if there’s confusion or it seems unclear, the 2NR can do that; but it’s only 3 planks and they aren’t particularly complicated, so I would skip it altogether. Plus, your various solvency claims clarify things anyway. You should group arguments together where possible in order to get to coercion faster. I would also reverse the order between the two – you could win on coercion alone, but you couldn’t win with the CP alone, so it’s more important to cover the former.
RFD: The neg wins most of the debate (hegemony bad turn) but the aff wins that asteroid collision outweighs nuclear war. The neg’s arguments are 1) that probability is very small and 2) that it’s comparable to nuke war and there’s no real distinction in terms of whether it causes extinction or not. The aff’s arguments account for the probability claims – their evidence/argument indicates that regardless of how low the chance is, an asteroid is the only existential risk and we have to act to prevent it. The nuclear war argument is harder – your argument makes sense about smoke and dust resulting from NW – but aff is ahead on the distinction that that fallout wouldn’t block out the sun – seems to be b/c of sheer magnitude of debris from a large asteroid hitting.

Date of debate:

Debating on:

Date of debate:

Debating on:


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