Alison Glazer ddi11

Lab: RS
Email address: alisong16 <at> gmail <dot> com

Date of debate: 7/22

Debating on: International Fiat
Instructor/commentator: Will Sears
Comments:

Good 2AR - the thing to improve is your macro level impact calculus. The line by line debating is good, and you extend the right arguments - you just need more explanation of the following:

-Why its a voting issue (not just "set a precedent" but talk about what that means)
-What happens if its not a voting issue (reject the CP)
-How request CPs might solve their education arguments


Date of debate: July 27, 2011

Debating on: Tradeoff 2AC
Instructor/commentator: Varsha
Comments:
Really good 2AC! I particularly liked the wall of internal link comparisons you did with the heg debate, including specific 1AC authors in your extensions. You had a nice diversity of arguments and were smart on intrinsicness. Very well organized speech. The only thing I'd suggest you include is that you have relative defense vs. their heg disad, but that they have conceded the rogue states advantage would solve their impacts.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Practice debate A
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn
Comments:
2AC – It’s a good idea to group the heg flow. But I would be careful grouping all the arguments on your rogues advantage – there are a variety of different turns and you need to answer them a bit more specifically. Your kritik answers were a bit generic. I would like to hear you apply them more to securitization. With a space militarization aff, you need to defend that China really is a threat. On the counterplan, you need to argue that other countries wouldn’t go along – they fiat the US. You can beat ALL of their arguments with inevitability so I recommend devoting more time to it.
CX of 2NC – You have a minute and a half of time left!
2AR: Good job starting with the heg advantage where you are most ahead and explaining how their answers don’t apply. You need to do more to answer preemption – countries will strike BEFORE the BMD is up and working. Argue that even if China goes along with the counterplan, that supercharges your Taiwan scenario. I don’t think the perm is really worth it in this debate.

2AR Redo: You definitely had better answers to the counterplan this time. The problem was that you had so many answers that you didn't get to their cruise missiles DA on the case with nearly enough time. You could cut down on the time you spend on the counterplan and also on the heg advantage. On heg, you don't really need to reexplain your case, just explain why their one answer doesn't answer space power or really even your regular heg impact. On solvency, you make several good arguments that would be better as answers to the cruise missiles turn.

Date of debate: 8/10

Debating on: Debate 5
Instructor/commentator: Chander
Comments:
I vote aff.
Given the lack of warranting in the 2NR, the counter plan provides very little uniqueness. OST not solving is a consistent argument that goes unanswered.
Space weaponization is inevitable – their McDonnal evidence is quite good that PLA military journals reveal Chinease weaponization regardless of US action, and even the negative’s Zhang evidence demonstrates that militarization is inevitable (as per c-x.) Given the result of the inevitability debate, it becomes difficult for the negative to get offense.
The hegemony countermeasures turn ultimately is inevitable as well because, while the links are specific to BMD, 1) the Dolman evidence is good that hegemony will check any escalation – the 2NR doesn’t extend enough warrants to make the heg takeouts viable and 2) the Zhang evidence specifically says that China will seek BMD regardless of US actions, just that there is a potential tradeoff between the two nations’ capacities for space dominance.


Date of debate: 8/11

Debating on: R8 - neg vs. Dean-Emerson
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments:
I voted neg because I thought a small link to a well-impacted limits standard outweighed very clear links to under-impacted normative / education standards. I determined that the aff clearly met ‘its’ and wasn’t extra topical (since that begged the question of what ‘development’ meant). The aff won decisively that talking about legal development is necessary to a good understanding of the concept and that the neg version of the topic excluded neoliberalism bad affs, but there was no real terminal impact to either of these standards. The neg, by contrast, was quite good at impacting limits, but did minimal work to establish the link. I ultimately concluded that the link was large enough to outweigh the much lower magnitude aff impacts.

1nr: It’s extremely difficult to extend both Agamben and the space weapons good DA effectively in 5 minutes. Not only do these positions contradict blatantly, but they each require at least the full 5 minutes to make credible, if not more (Agamben with explanation; space weapons with impact cards and cards about impact framing).

Date of debate: 8/12

Debating on: Doubles - SPS
Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:

I vote aff. The politics DA is kicked out of incorrectly in the block and the 2NR doesn’t do anything to recover. This means there is a 100% guaranteed risk of a nuclear war in Asia if I vote neg. Even without some of the 2AR impact development (maybe new?), this is pretty substantial. I would have to believe that the DA was virtually certain to overcome this. Given the aff’s uniqueness arguments about the unsustainability of the status quo, and the potential of the plan to defuse (rather than incite) space races, I don’t think this is the case. It ends up not being tremendously important whether the CP can solve the aff. That said, I do believe it likely solves somewhat for warming, but the reasons why it would solve hegemony are never particularly clear.



Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:

Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:

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!