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

Date of debate: 7/20

Debating on: T - 'its' means funding int'l projects isn't topical - aff
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments: I thought your arguments were both clever and diverse. Although I don't think there was a silver bullet among them, your sense of what strategic directions to pursue in the 1AR ('substantially' defense + agency education good + neg bias / 'reasonability') was spot on - especially given the block's coverage. You did, however, miss the argument that Liam anticipated, which I think is a good one: 'its' begs the question of 'development'. If development means 'funding', then it doesn't matter who the funding goes to, so long as it is the US's. No sweat though - I didn't think of that either until after Liam mentioned it.

Date of debate: 7/24

Debating on: impact calculus - monocultures vs. global warming
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments: You argument about how most people would prosper from global warming was interesting, if a bit callous, but it doesn't make that much sense to me; if icebergs melted into the ocean it seems as if they would become salt water as well. But that sort of impact mitigator is a good idea. The argument about warming causing extinction only in a world of monocultures was very clever. You should have responded to Paul's author indict / comparison and his double bind arguments better.

Date of debate: 7/27

Debating on: Practice debate vs Ezra/Paul
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Good 1NC. I like the amount of time spent on case. Add a few more analytics to the 1NC frontline. Also, I would divide your time a bit more equally between the two advantages. Be sure to read defense to every impact! (you conceded US-China war) You might also want to think about putting all these solvency takeouts on the solvency page – might be better organized.
I don’t know if I’d read a global warming link as the 1NC link to security. Read only the space link, and make more link arguments in the block.
1NR – good speech. You should do some more impact assessment on the K, and talk about why it means they can’t access their advantages.

Date of debate: 7/29

Debating on: practice debate - aff vs. Andrew/Ben
Instructor/commentator: Eli
A really good job for your first 2AC. Nice job reading evidence on case! Many 2ACs take the case debate for granted and don’t do that nearly enough. That said, I think that you excellent case coverage made adequate coverage of some of the off-case positions more difficult. You could have been a bit more efficient on the case, although you did a pretty good job. Given the same amount of time on case, you probably should have emphasized the politics DA over the CP in terms of time allocation. The DA is offensive, whereas the CP is only defensive, and many of your solvency deficit arguments were established on the case. It’s great that you really like and understand the aff, but don’t let that distract from your speech’s broader strategic ambitions. That would have let you read another uniqueness card or 2 on politics, maybe a link turn about Congress and spending, and some impact defense. You should have attacked the inevitability of the launches link to the space debris DA, and some terminal impact defense would have been helpful. Generally speaking, impact defense is a great friend of the 2AC – it’s very helpful breaking ties in favor of your advantages later in the debate.

Good job locking down the case debate. In addition to effectively defending your link scenarios, I think you should have spent some time framing the unanswered impact scenarios as independently outweighing the DA. Their only argument against China/satellites and hurricanes is impact calculus – you should take better advantage of that. Nice job indicting their authors on warming, but you also need to explain your argument and respond to their argument about, for instance, the atmosphere pushing CO2 back into the soil. I think author indicts are tie breakers in the case that both sides’ positions could make sense – you still need an answer to their argument. On politics itself, you need to be more realistic with yourself about what you’ll be able to win on. Realistically, they’re beating you pretty badly on the uniqueness. However, you may not be doing so terribly on the IL uniqueness (political capital low) and the link turn (mostly because of 2NR coverage). Use some of their uniqueness arguments (like the election is coming up) to bolster your link turn position and do a better job impacting / explaining the internal link uniqueness. If the debt ceiling is passing despite Obama’s low political capital, what factors (that the plan doesn’t disrupt) could account for that?

Date of debate: 8/1

Debating on: Practice Debate
Instructor/commentator: Chander
2AC: This was a good 2AC. I like that you didn't completely dismiss the case arguments - but instead made a whole host of analytics per each case argument. This is a good strategy since you don't want to get too bogged down, but at the same time you spent enough time such that if the negative did go for it, the 1AR could read the necessary cards to substantiate those claims. Don't flag where you're going to read the add-on - put it on the most relavent flow. If it's an add-on that solves the DA, put it onthe DA flow. If it's one that the CP doesnt' solve, put it there. Regardless, you should never tell the team in the roadmap that you're going to read an add-on. I think you should make some of the analytic arguments against SKFTA that we discussed post-round; smart I/L takeouts are difficult for the negative to answer and at the same time they dont take too long to make. You should more conclusively resolve the ozone turn on case.

C-X: Don't make warrants/arguments that aren't substantiated by your evidence! Your evidence does NOT say the brink for warming is within 1-2 years. This is especially bad because the other team could reverse-pit-of-doom you, or if not, you have staked the debate on something that has no grounding in evidence. Bad place to be.

2AR: Good 2AR - you went for the right components of offense. I think you can even afford to give less credence to their turns on heg (I understand the China issue is slightly separate,) but given the large conceded terminal defense of heg being inevitable, that probably resolves a good section of their impact. You should make those smart cross-applications and explain why it doesn't (obviously) solve warming. Good job going for the DA turns the case - I think the hurricanes argument was nifty.

Date of debate:

Debating on: practice debate 1
Instructor/commentator: marissa
the 1NR was very good- could have done a bit more work on the impact/ turns case debate. you definitely have enough time to kind of break down their different scenarios and what they mean in the world of the k and the alt- so do that.
not sure that you want to say that the discourse of the status quo is preferable- that opens the door for them to read a bunch of reasons why there is security now

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: SPS neg - practice debate 3
Instructor/commentator: Charles

- You had a ton of time left. You should time the speech and add in more defense.
- The question of how the plan links to the K: you need to say that the plan can’t be advocated in a vacuum. It depends on context, and your critique illustrates why the plan would be implemented in negative ways.

Nice job on the case. You extended and developed solid arguments. I like that you didn’t try to extend everything but just focused on key issues. I wouldn’t use qualifications as the basis for hyping up Lomberg, at least not international consensus qualifications. He clearly disagrees with the general premises of the international consensus on warming. You just have to prove he’s right. I like your focus on the 5 point font – that stuff drives me crazy. I wouldn’t cite our inability to kill anyone as the problem with Libya – the problem is our inability to turn massive force into a workable political solution. Finally, it seems incredibly unlikely that the US economy won’t influence Russia, but that the reverse is true. You have to give a reason why this should be believed.

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: Tournament Round 3
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
I voted negative – I think that the negative wins the truth claim of their disad – and that the disad turns the case. They have convincing, unanswered arguments about why the US Korea alliance is necessary for cooperation on warming and hegemony. I think there are a few external impacts like the North Korean escalation argument that are unanswered by the affirmative and outweigh (from the 2NR analysis)
I also think that the counterplan has a reasonable chance of solving. While the affirmative does a good job explaining why it can’t solve hegemony – I think some of this analysis is missing from earlier on in the round – and the 2NC/2NR analysis are sufficient to explain why the private sector can fuel the aerospace industry and thus promote hegemony. The 2NR is doing analysis about why incentivizing the private market is enough to provide SSP for the US as a whole, which I think resolves a lot of the solvency deficits the affirmative is going for. I don’t think the counterplan links to politics – the 2NR warrant that the counterplan pays money AFTER the private sector proves SSP to be successful is a reason why it happens after the South Korea Free Trade Agreement is resolved, and a reason why the uncertainty that exists around the plan, doesn’t exist around the counterplan.

Date of debate: 8/8

Debating on: practice speech
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Good 2AC! Nice coverage of the case. Reconsider the humanism arguments on the K. Avoid redundant arguments and unevidenced arguments – read cards when possible. Perhaps read an additional card on the inevitability of space weaponization. Remember to counter-interpret topicality!

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: Tournament Rd 1 1N
Instructor/commentator: Mulholand
Make sure your hard numbering stays consistent on each advantage - if you're going to answer each scenario separately, you should do so on separate pages. If they'll be on the same page, the numbers should keep going up all the way down.
RFD: Condo was dropped, and it's a voting issue.

Date of debate:

Debating on:


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